Utility to burn in new hard drive?

Folkert Rienstra wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
Mxsmanic wrote
Osiris writes

Is it "generally accepted", that a virgin HD will only
decease within 1 hour or after 5 years of operation ?

With devices such as disk drives, if they don't fail
within an hour or two, they'll probably run for years.

Vendors exercise drives to reduce the incidence of the former.

If they did WD would not set Writecheck on for
their drives early life to catch bad sectors on writes.

That is Maxtor, not WD.

And that is for remapping of bads too, not for early drive death.

Yes Roddli, that's what I said.

Pity it aint what was being discussed.

Yes it was Roddli.

Wrong, as always.

No point in writechecking the drive for a short
period if it had been thouroughly exercised already.

Pity that wasnt what being discussed, ****nert.

If they exercised drives like that maniac said they wouldn't have
to do that. The 'exerciser' would have taken care of that too.

Depends on what the exerciser did.

Read at a minimum and possibly also write, what else.

If its just a read, the excerciser clearly wouldnt have 'taken care of' anything.

And no, bad sectors showing up would
also be viewed as early drive death.

You presumably meant would not.

Nope, meant exactly what I said. The writechecking helps prevent
the drives from showing bad sectors and thus from early returns
by people who do not know what the significance of that is.

Bad sectors do not necessarily make a dying drive.

Duh. Pity about your stupid 'would'. You should have said 'may be'

As a result, drives that survive a very brief infancy

A timespan that you may want to speed up instead of waiting out.

will likely remain reliable for a very long time.

Hence the burn-in test.

Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:24:32 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

Phat Bytestard wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:07:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:


Nope I just use it to rub the noses of the pig ignorant in thanks.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:32:52 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

That should be by themselves, you illiterate pseudokraut.

Let the twit resort to spelling lames when confronted with being
incorrect. You are that twit.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:35:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Pity about what happens between the pallet load and the end user.

If a hard drive in the box gets submitted to
a 250 G shock, the package will be damaged.

Not if its outside the package at the time, fool.

There are no "pallet loads" outside the package,

Every drive that was originally part of a pallet load has be
moved off that pallet at some time before it ends up as an
individual drive in the hands of the end user, ****wit child.

Yes, and that pallet is loaded with drives which are already in
their shipping packages, dip****. You have again defeated your entire
argument.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:36:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
Phat Bytestard wrote
just the puerile **** thats always pouring from the back of it.

You do not even deserve responses. You should be on my filter list,
if I had one. I can however easily ignore you manually.

Nothing you say is worth a **** anyway. You are not an engineer,
and you very likely put together PCs for someone else.

A mere assembly twit... that is all you are.

Teh White Recluse teh.white.recluse gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:00:04 GMT, in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Phat Bytestard phatbytestard getinmahharddrive.org wrote:

|On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:24:33 -0500, Teh White Recluse
|teh.white.recluse gmail.com Gave us:
|
|****wit, too st00pid to nymshift.
|
| Did you have to re-quote 80 lines to post that utterly retarded
|crap? Grow the **** up, dip****.

Stupid, huh.
It's not just about the headers he posts, this little ****wit makes a
point of researching and posting all available email addresses and by
doing so is initiating a malicious attack on the email accounts by
spammers.

Right... and I popped your mother's cherry so the hoods could rape her.

Tough guy wanna-be nym shifting troll.

See also:
Yomamma bin Crawdaddin Crawdad bayou.com
["abso-fukkin-lutely" and "NOTHING"]
The Cable Guy noyb inter.nut
["abso-fukkin-lutely" and "NOTHING"]
Message-ID: Xns97D853A2E42AD0123456789 207.115.17.102
[The Cable Guy ad nauseam]


Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.g iganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:38:20 -0500
From: Teh White Recluse teh.white.recluse gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.hardware ,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.engineering.electrical
Subject: Utility to burn in new hard drive?
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:38:13 -0500
Message-ID: ge8qc21k763vbga7dc5h076fqsps7treu8 4ax.com
References: Xns980DE70E160AC628D1 127.0.0.1 pKCdnXe6S5vW2FTZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d comcast.com ONdyg.6549$Oh1.3053 news01.roc.ny m9ilc256obpuhdsdmng780kkprfeikl3sh 4ax.com yyofYpCHTEzEFwWZ jasper.org.uk emspc2l4nihuuputenfvu681bhq18tf44n 4ax.com Xns98108CC0CD2AE0123456789 207.115.17.102 u95qc256f8f5sda9d383n2buejhpkkvl4n 4ax.com re7qc292clciffvhumav6d4m1jffvlqjh9 4ax.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0630-4, 07/29/2006), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 16
X-Trace: sv3-6afcw/RGHyNqNz57ys+R2bcwfyq2wfc6TIyQrFfagih3rSekPrzXZkib EMUQv1AWhFBnLeeeuKo7FDv!d85/lpm1oj6Q0a6SRPnu83Q1Caz7mi06aQnFdMaVfJ46JUJtxuFXcU JZqTpFxzv6GXPCajmJDg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:375177 alt.comp.hardwa315920 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:472608 alt.engineering.electrical:180029

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:40:00 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
kony wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
Mike Tomlinson wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote

Flawed, ****ed up logic. They have already been thoroughly
tested as long as one sticks with a reputable manufacturer.

They may have been (though I have my doubts), but that doesn't
take account of any damage that may have occurred while the drive
makes its way from China, through the channel to the end-user.

That's total bull**** due to the specs of the drive. When not
under power, they typically can handle 250 plus G shocks, and the
way they are packaged and shipped, no such shock is even possible
to impart on a drive without damaging the packaging. Hence, if
the packaging is in proper order, the drive inside is as well.
They can even typically survive 60G shocks when in operation.

Try again. In fact, **** that... YOU LOSE! Hands down!

Actually at least one drive manufacturer cites handling,
including shipping, as the major causes of premature drive
failure. Wish I remembered which one but that's not even a
guarantee their webpage or docs haven't changed in the interim.

Probably MaxTurd.

How much force do you think a 250G shock imparts?

If the ****ing box is not damaged, the drive inside is very likely not
going to be damaged, and if it is, it was not done during shipping.

They aint always in that sort of packing all
the way from china to the end user's table.

I don't care if they are bare drives in an egg crate type box, the box would
STILL show significant damage if it were subjected to a 250G shock,

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that to get
from a pallet load to the individual purchaser's table, they might
just have to be moved from one type of packaging to another and
in the process can get dropped when not in any packaging, cretin.

And even in such cases are still not subjected to the shock levels
required to damage them. If a drive is dropped at the factory, it
goes to a different qualification line for a completely different
examination, you retarded ****.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:43:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Gave us:

Duh. Pity about your stupid 'would'. You should have said 'may be'

Now who is illiterate? The word is "maybe", you retarded twit.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
Folkert Rienstra wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Folkert Rienstra wrote
Mxsmanic wrote
Osiris writes

Is it "generally accepted", that a virgin HD will only
decease within 1 hour or after 5 years of operation ?

With devices such as disk drives, if they don't fail
within an hour or two, they'll probably run for years.

Vendors exercise drives to reduce the incidence of the former.

If they did WD would not set Writecheck on for
their drives early life to catch bad sectors on writes.

That is Maxtor, not WD.

And that is for remapping of bads too, not for early drive death.

Yes Roddli, that's what I said.

Pity it aint what was being discussed.

Yes it was Roddli.

Wrong, as always.

Yes you are Roddli.


No point in writechecking the drive for a short
period if it had been thouroughly exercised already.

Pity that wasnt what being discussed, ****nert.

Anyone can read that for themselves, Wodleypoo.


If they exercised drives like that maniac said they wouldn't have
to do that. The 'exerciser' would have taken care of that too.

Depends on what the exerciser did.

Read at a minimum and possibly also write, what else.

If its just a read, the excerciser clearly wouldnt have 'taken care of' anything.

Nonsense. At a minimum it would have recorded the bad sector candidates
so that at the first write by the enduser these sectors will be reassigned.


And no, bad sectors showing up would also be viewed as early drive death.

You presumably meant would not.

Nope, meant exactly what I said. The writechecking helps prevent
the drives from showing bad sectors and thus from early returns
by people who do not know what the significance of that is.

Bad sectors do not necessarily make a dying drive.

Duh. Pity about your stupid 'would'. You should have said 'may be'.

Pity then about your stupid presumption of 'would not'. You should have said 'may be'.


As a result, drives that survive a very brief infancy
A timespan that you may want to speed up instead of waiting out.
will likely remain reliable for a very long time.
Hence the burn-in test.

Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Phat Bytestard wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Pity about what happens between the pallet load and the end user.

If a hard drive in the box gets submitted to
a 250 G shock, the package will be damaged.

Not if its outside the package at the time, fool.

There are no "pallet loads" outside the package,

Every drive that was originally part of a pallet load has be
moved off that pallet at some time before it ends up as an
individual drive in the hands of the end user, ****wit child.

Yes, and that pallet is loaded with drives
which are already in their shipping packages

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a ****ing clue about the basics of
how mass market commodity drives are shipped, child.