[Tfug] Western Digital "red" drives?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Kramer,

On 4/13/2013 4:24 PM, Kramer Lee wrote:
> On the lack of quality, there are a couple factors.  If the product
> has too much quality and lasts too long, the manufacturer goes out of
> business from lack of repeat business.

That's too simplistic a view.  It assumes you only purchase new
to get something that you previously bought, *fixed*.  I.e., that
you are never looking for new features nor functionality.  That
your *satisfaction* with the product doesn't cause you to purchase
more of the same sorts of products from the same manufacturer (as
well as recommending same to peers).

Would you buy another <automobile_brand> if your *current*
<automobile_brand> blew an engine at 90K miles?  *Or*, would
you, instead, buy some *other* brand as its replacement?

> Software companies know this
> too as they make sure their software is vulnerable and you have to
> upgrade to be "safe".  If you make TVs that are good for 25 years,
> then you sell a new one in 25 years.  If you make some that die in 10
> years, much better, much much better for the business.  And it can be
> sold for a smaller price.

I disagree.  You might replace *that* TV in 25 years but that doesn't
mean you won't buy *another* TV in that same time period (e.g., perhaps
moving the original TV into a spare bedroom, etc.).

I rescue large LCD/plasma/etc. TV's which have crapped out far too
soon to justify the kilobucks spent on them.  I suspect their previous
owners are *not* purchasing the same brands as replacments!  :-/

Software is one area where buying new/advanced features (and NOT
merely "bug fixes") should be commonplace.  People often want
to be able to "do more" with their tools so tapping into that
desire should be sufficient motivation for *repeat* customers
(it costs a LOT more to get a new customer than to keep an
existing one.  And, its really easy to *lose* an existing customer
with bad support/quality/etc. thereby putting him in an even more
expensive "reacquire disgruntled previous customer" category)

> Another factor is that some company starts selling cheap versions of
> something, like T shirts for 99 cents.  People start buying them, even
> if they only last for a month, because hey, it is only 99 cents.
> Maybe you can buy one for $5 and it lasts 5 years, and you can get one
> for 99 cents and it lasts a month, so maybe you spend $60 for 99 cent
> T shirts when you could have gotten by for $5 one time, but hey, it is
> only 99 cents, a real bargain and we love bargains.  And maybe it is a
> lot less washing of T shirts.

Inexpensive items have their own "economies".  If all you look at
is the cost to purchase, then some things can be attractive (e.g.,
disposable contacts?).  OTOH, if you look at TCO, then things
like cheap T-shirts don't buy you much.  I.e., you're still going
to have to wash them (unless you consider them *disposable*??)
so you haven't cut down on that aspect of TCO.  And, if they
"fail" (wear out) soon, then you have to factor in the cost of
replacement -- which is more than just the cost for the new items
but also the time required, etc.

E.g., I *despise* shopping!  I've determined that it costs me 30 minutes
for a "null shopping trip" (i.e., just to get in the car, drive
someplace, park, walk into the store, walk out, drive back home, etc.).
Since there are only a fixed number of hours in every day, that places
a limit on the number of such trips I can take -- and still deal with
the other "aspects of living".

So, when I head out to buy T-shirts, socks, groceries, etc. one of
my goals is to *not* need to make that trip again any time soon.
E.g., I bought 30 (identical) pair of socks two weeks ago.  I won't
have "socks" on my shopping list for a VERY long time!  (since they
are identical, I can freely mix and match as individual socks wear
out).

And, socks are no-brainers to purchase.  No research required.
Want a new TV?  PC?  Laptop??  Now you're looking at *hours* of
research before you even begin to determine *where* to buy...

Buy a new vehicle?  <groan>  No thanks!

> It bugs me the way that Linux seems to be going the security upgrade
> leaves your install unsupported and unable to use the latest Firefox
> direction also.  Latest kernel upgrade in CentOS 6.5 leaves my M90
> very dim, like it doesn't allow the back-light to go to a very high
> level.  If I boot in the kernel just before that, it is just fine.
> Another kernel upgrade in Mint dropped support for my particular
> wireless chip.  The one next older still worked.  Sure it is an older
> laptop, but now Linux is seeming to get on the "you must upgrade your
> hardware" bandwagon.

This is becoming more and more commonplace.  I used to be able to
run FreeBSD on a 5MB (that's 'M', not 'G'!) 386EX (i.e., 16b bus!).
Now, *kernels* are larger than that!

The problem is one of supporting (and having *access* to!) older
hardware.  I shake my head when I consider the folks who maintain
FOSS on *VAXen*.  Shirley a labor of love (since VAX are dogs by
today's standards).

I've squirreled away one ISA 386 machine as it is the only means
I have of running some legacy ISA hardware.  Even *small* IDE
disks are becoming very hard to find (e.g., tens of MB).  I have
no idea how people now support ST506 drives...

But, can you blame developers who are trying to cater to the folks
who want pretty graphics, today's hardware, etc.?  The Future doesn't
lie with 10 year old hardware... :-/