Utility to burn in new hard drive?

Phat Bytestard wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:16:16 GMT, John Doe
Gave us:

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


Proof that you are a mere immature adolescent twit.

And you have proven that you don't know how the game of "jo mamma" is
played.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:16:16 GMT, in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
John Doe wrote:

|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.

Daddy! You worthless ****, you owe 61 years of child support,
penalties and interest.
|
|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 Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:54:48 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On 29 Jul 2006 01:08:18 GMT, Arno Wagner Gave us:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Bazzer Smith wrote:

"Joe S" wrote in message
...
Are there any utilities which can burn-in a new hard drive before I
start to use it?



By burning it in you will be using it :O)
Just stick it on as a slave, copy some big files to it into a folder, then
copy the folder
repeatedly, delete the lot then do it again untill your paranoia subsides
:O)

I think this is good advice ;-)


Although quite labor intensive.

It is the labour that makes the paranoia subside, not the test
results...

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:40:15 +0200, Osiris Gave us:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:54:48 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On 29 Jul 2006 01:08:18 GMT, Arno Wagner Gave us:

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Bazzer Smith wrote:

"Joe S" wrote in message
...
Are there any utilities which can burn-in a new hard drive before I
start to use it?



By burning it in you will be using it :O)
Just stick it on as a slave, copy some big files to it into a folder, then
copy the folder
repeatedly, delete the lot then do it again untill your paranoia subsides
:O)

I think this is good advice ;-)


Although quite labor intensive.

It is the labour that makes the paranoia subside, not the test
results...

Ahhh... good point.

That is the most succinct fact in the thread.

On 30 Jul 2006, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

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.


ISTR Hitachi specified and illustrated the sort of packaging they
considered suitable for drives being sent back as RMAs. Was it
Hitachi?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S wrote:
On 30 Jul 2006, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

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.


ISTR Hitachi specified and illustrated the sort of packaging they
considered suitable for drives being sent back as RMAs. Was it
Hitachi?

Maxtor has (or had) an instruction page with pictures. The
key requirement was 5cm of foam in every direction, as
far as I remember.

Arno

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Joe S wrote:
On 30 Jul 2006, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

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.


ISTR Hitachi specified and illustrated the sort of packaging they
considered suitable for drives being sent back as RMAs. Was it
Hitachi?

Maxtor has (or had) an instruction page with pictures.
The key requirement was 5cm of foam in every direction,

as far as I remember.

Yeah, why go there and have a look when you can just babble.


Arno

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:22:43 +0100, Joe S Gave us:

On 30 Jul 2006, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

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.


ISTR Hitachi specified and illustrated the sort of packaging they
considered suitable for drives being sent back as RMAs. Was it
Hitachi?

A package spec to guide a customer on boxing up his return has
absolutely NOTHING to do with the package a drive is shipped from a
maker to the US shores in. Totally unrelated to this thread.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 01:13:24 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
Gave us:

Yeah, why go there and have a look when you can just babble.

As if you make contributions.

On 05 Aug 2006, Phat
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:22:43 +0100, Joe S Gave us:

On 30 Jul 2006, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:02:02 GMT, Phat Bytestard
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 06:33:59 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
Gave us:

In article , Phat
Bytestard writes

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.


ISTR Hitachi specified and illustrated the sort of packaging they
considered suitable for drives being sent back as RMAs. Was it
Hitachi?

A package spec to guide a customer on boxing up his return has
absolutely NOTHING to do with the package a drive is shipped from a
maker to the US shores in. Totally unrelated to this thread.


Hi there Phat, maybe you feel this branch has nothing to do with the
original thread but I think we are discussing packaging and how poor
packaging may be the cause of early failure. As OP I was concerned that
I may encounter early failure and wanted a way to force its early
appearance before I put data on the drive.

I recall receiving a hard drive from a supposedly reputable supplier in
the UK which was just wrapped several times in bubble wrap and then put
into an ordinary envelope. I am amazed i didn't get premature failure.

OTOH if you see what Hitachi (I think it was) insist on being used for
RMAs then you can see how the last-leg delivery from retailer to
consumer might add to the early failures.