Best with older or new version of WD hard drive?

[donline]

Hi folks,

I'm looking to get a 1TB external (portable) hard drive and was looking at the WD Elements product...

I noticed there are two versions available on Amazon UK:

Latest version (released 2017):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD-Elements-Portable-External-Drive/dp/B06VVS7S94/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1519752184&sr=8-2&keywords=1tb%2Bwd%2Belements&th=1

Older/previous version (released 2010):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD-Elements-Portable-External-Drive/dp/B00CRZ2PRM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1519752184&sr=8-2&keywords=1tb%2Bwd%2Belements&th=1

Which do you think would be the best option? The newer or older version?

I tend to think that build quality vs price gets worse over time (i.e. lower quality for the same price over time) and so I was considering the older version of the product in this case.

Any thoughts? Thanks! D

 

[electro_neanderthal]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

 

[Solandri]

Generally, the newer drives use platters with a higher areal density (they pack more bits per cm^2). Since the rotational speed of the drive is constant, this means the newer drives generally can hit higher sequential speeds (more MB/s) simply because more bits pass under the read/write heads every second. But without knowing the exact model of the drive inside the enclosure, there's no way to be sure.

Quality isn't a constant either. Some models are good, some are bad. Since there's no longer any comprehensive database on drive models and quality (StorageReview used to run one back in the 1990s/2000s), I usually check the ratings for a drive on Amazon and Newegg to see if there are widespread reports of problems with that particular model.

Be forewarned that I believe WD modified the drives they use in their Elements line to have a straight USB interface on the circuit board. Traditional external drives used a regular SATA drive inside an enclosure which provided the SATA-to-USB interface. If something ever went wrong with the USB side of things, you could always pop the drive out of the enclosure and plug it into a desktop PC via SATA to read it. WD (and so far only WD) modified some of its external drives around 2010 so the drive's circuit board has a USB interface instead of SATA. If the interface dies, your drive is dead (though I suppose you could try buying an identical model and do a circuit board swap).

 

[donline]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

 

[donline]

Generally, the newer drives use platters with a higher areal density (they pack more bits per cm^2). Since the rotational speed of the drive is constant, this means the newer drives generally can hit higher sequential speeds (more MB/s) simply because more bits pass under the read/write heads every second. But without knowing the exact model of the drive inside the enclosure, there's no way to be sure.

Quality isn't a constant either. Some models are good, some are bad. Since there's no longer any comprehensive database on drive models and quality (StorageReview used to run one back in the 1990s/2000s), I usually check the ratings for a drive on Amazon and Newegg to see if there are widespread reports of problems with that particular model.

Be forewarned that I believe WD modified the drives they use in their Elements line to have a straight USB interface on the circuit board. Traditional external drives used a regular SATA drive inside an enclosure which provided the SATA-to-USB interface. If something ever went wrong with the USB side of things, you could always pop the drive out of the enclosure and plug it into a desktop PC via SATA to read it. WD (and so far only WD) modified some of its external drives around 2010 so the drive's circuit board has a USB interface instead of SATA. If the interface dies, your drive is dead (though I suppose you could try buying an identical model and do a circuit board swap).

Thanks so much, Solandri, for your really helpful response!

Yes, there's less ratings/feedback on the newer model of the WD Elements external HD... so perhaps best to go with the older model (which has much more feedback)?

Interesting with the USB interface... never heard about that before. Perhaps the older model (from 2010) just about avoided this change (another reason to get the older model I guess)?

Which external HD (1TB) would you recommend?

And can I ask, what things would damage an external HD? Would shipping (vibration from this) and cold temperatures (it's snowing here and I'm thinking about during shipping) affect the drive negatively?

I was hoping to get an external SSD but the prices are still a bit high right now.

Thanks! D

 

[electro_neanderthal]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

Over the years companies like to reorganize, move older stock to different shelves, etc. I'm not saying a new one is guaranteed to be less handled, just that there's a good chance that the newer HDD won't have been around long enough to get shuffled around as much.

 

[donline]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

Over the years companies like to reorganize, move older stock to different shelves, etc. I'm not saying a new one is guaranteed to be less handled, just that there's a good chance that the newer HDD won't have been around long enough to get shuffled around as much.

Ah ok, thanks And I guess all the movement (bashing/shaking) can damage the HDD drives easily or?

 

[electro_neanderthal]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

Over the years companies like to reorganize, move older stock to different shelves, etc. I'm not saying a new one is guaranteed to be less handled, just that there's a good chance that the newer HDD won't have been around long enough to get shuffled around as much.

Ah ok, thanks And I guess all the movement (bashing/shaking) can damage the HDD drives easily or?

They design portable HDDs to take more shock, and they are pretty hardy in my experience, but all HDDs have moving parts within micro meters of tolerance, so it's not impossible that a bad fall will damage them easier than a flash drive or SSD.

 

[donline]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

Over the years companies like to reorganize, move older stock to different shelves, etc. I'm not saying a new one is guaranteed to be less handled, just that there's a good chance that the newer HDD won't have been around long enough to get shuffled around as much.

Ah ok, thanks And I guess all the movement (bashing/shaking) can damage the HDD drives easily or?

They design portable HDDs to take more shock, and they are pretty hardy in my experience, but all HDDs have moving parts within micro meters of tolerance, so it's not impossible that a bad fall will damage them easier than a flash drive or SSD.

Ok thanks electro_neanderthal 🙂

 

[electro_neanderthal]

For those prices? It doesn't matter. They're both USB 3.0, so you won't see a difference in physical performance - and not likely in quality, either. If anything, I'd probably get the newer one: It's cheaper right now and has (probably) been handled less by warehouse/store employees.

Thanks electro_neanderthal

Can I ask why the newer hard drive might have been handled less by warehouse employees and what difference this would make?

Over the years companies like to reorganize, move older stock to different shelves, etc. I'm not saying a new one is guaranteed to be less handled, just that there's a good chance that the newer HDD won't have been around long enough to get shuffled around as much.

Ah ok, thanks And I guess all the movement (bashing/shaking) can damage the HDD drives easily or?

They design portable HDDs to take more shock, and they are pretty hardy in my experience, but all HDDs have moving parts within micro meters of tolerance, so it's not impossible that a bad fall will damage them easier than a flash drive or SSD.

Ok thanks electro_neanderthal 🙂

Glad I could help.