anyone out there with a 300 gb PATA Maxtor drive?

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Hello.
When testing my brand new maxtor diamondmax 10 drive (300 GB, 7200 RPM,
16 MB, PATA) with maxtor's powermax utility I get the following error:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/maxtor.jpg

I already swapped the drive for another one (maxtor told me to
get the drive replaced) and it yielded the same error.

Can anyone out there try out testing their drive with the same powermax
4.21 diagnostics utility (from bootable cd if possible)
to check whether they detect the same error, in order to confirm
it's just a glitch in the diagnostics software?

Thanks a lot in advance, kind regards, Niek
 

joeP

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
264
0
18,780
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

"name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123658356.957202.165670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hello.
> When testing my brand new maxtor diamondmax 10 drive (300 GB, 7200 RPM,
> 16 MB, PATA) with maxtor's powermax utility I get the following error:
> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/maxtor.jpg
>
> I already swapped the drive for another one (maxtor told me to
> get the drive replaced) and it yielded the same error.
>
> Can anyone out there try out testing their drive with the same powermax
> 4.21 diagnostics utility (from bootable cd if possible)
> to check whether they detect the same error, in order to confirm
> it's just a glitch in the diagnostics software?
>

You can of course also check SMART with another tool first. SMARTUDM can be
used from DOS in case you can not boot Windows.

--
Joep
 

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

Joep wrote:
> "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1123658356.957202.165670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Hello.
> > When testing my brand new maxtor diamondmax 10 drive (300 GB, 7200 RPM,
> > 16 MB, PATA) with maxtor's powermax utility I get the following error:
> > http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/maxtor.jpg
> >
> > I already swapped the drive for another one (maxtor told me to
> > get the drive replaced) and it yielded the same error.
> >
> > Can anyone out there try out testing their drive with the same powermax
> > 4.21 diagnostics utility (from bootable cd if possible)
> > to check whether they detect the same error, in order to confirm
> > it's just a glitch in the diagnostics software?
> >
>
> You can of course also check SMART with another tool first. SMARTUDM can be
> used from DOS in case you can not boot Windows.
>
> --
> Joep

Well, I did that with the first drive that generated the error. But
apparantly the results are somewhat inconclusive. While the majority of
people say it's ok, some others say it's not:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300.jpg

Here is the SMART data from the replacement drive:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300-2.jpg
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware (More info?)

name <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joep wrote:
>> "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1123658356.957202.165670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>> When testing my brand new maxtor diamondmax 10 drive (300 GB, 7200
>>> RPM, 16 MB, PATA) with maxtor's powermax utility I get the
>>> following error: http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/maxtor.jpg
>>>
>>> I already swapped the drive for another one (maxtor told me to
>>> get the drive replaced) and it yielded the same error.
>>>
>>> Can anyone out there try out testing their drive with the same
>>> powermax
>>> 4.21 diagnostics utility (from bootable cd if possible)
>>> to check whether they detect the same error, in order to confirm
>>> it's just a glitch in the diagnostics software?
>>>
>>
>> You can of course also check SMART with another tool first. SMARTUDM
>> can be used from DOS in case you can not boot Windows.

> Well, I did that with the first drive that generated the error.
> But apparantly the results are somewhat inconclusive. While
> the majority of people say it's ok, some others say it's not:

Those last just dont have a clue about the
significance of Hardware ECC Recovered.

That does NOT indicate a problem with the drive.

> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300.jpg

> Here is the SMART data from the replacement drive:
> http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300-2.jpg

That just has a lower Hardware ECC Recovered
value because it hasnt been used as much yet.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY