Notebook HD - Hewlett Packard

This is a discussion on Notebook HD - Hewlett Packard ; What would I tell them if I were HP. Easy. The truth. How about : "You can buy one of our branded disks, guaranteed to work. You can buy a hard disk elsewhere and you are on your own. Do ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: Notebook HD

  1. Re: Notebook HD

    What would I tell them if I were HP. Easy. The truth. How about: "You can
    buy one of our branded disks, guaranteed to work. You can buy a hard disk
    elsewhere and you are on your own. Do not call us for support or warranty
    service should you choose to do the latter." Straight plain truth, stating the
    company position without any innuendo or FUD, and absolutely defensible in a
    court of law.

    If there were some way to determine the outcome of buying a non-HP branded
    drive, and we could agree that the buyer was technically competent, I would be
    willing to bet you a fairly large number of Euros and give you very good odds
    that the installation would be successful. Hard drives are THAT commoditized
    these days.

    Yes, sadly the US has and produces more lawyers per capita than any country in
    the world. It takes a country with too many lawyers to throw lawsuits around
    willy-nilly... Ben Myers

    On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:01:39 +0100, Benjamin Gawert wrote:

    >* Ben Myers:
    >
    >> Yours is the same FUD argument used for years by HP, IBM, DEC, and heaven knows
    >> how many other companies (Wang, Prime, Control Data, Honeywell, GE, Data
    >> General, etc), most of which went bankrupt, got bought out, or closed down when
    >> it became clear that FUD was a pile of horse manure. The operative word here is
    >> "rare". In this age of HIGHLY commoditized products, I would say that the odds
    >> are 1 in 100 or less of such an incompatibility between an HP notebook and a
    >> 2.5" SATA drive.

    >
    >Probably less than 1%. But it doesn't matter if the chance of
    >experiencing incompatibilities is 1:10 or 1:1000000^9, even if the
    >chance is less than 1%, the fact that the probability of running into a
    >compatibility issue is not zero shows that your "FUD" argument is just
    >nonsense.
    >
    >Of couse you call it "FUD", other people probably call it cautious
    >(which isn't surprising especially in the Country of Unlimited Lawsuits
    >for the most stupiest things ever). If they say "you can use generic
    >disks" and the user runs into problems (which as you also admit *is*
    >possible), he'll blame HP (which in the best case ends up in a fed-up
    >customer and in the worst case ends up in a lawsuit and bad press). But
    >if HP says "you should use HP drives" then are also blaming them because
    >HP didn't tell them that a generic drive also might work and they can't
    >figure the possible alternatives out for themselves. So what do you
    >expect them to tell the customer?
    >
    >Benjamin


  2. Re: Notebook HD

    Benjamin Gawert wrote:

    > * Ben Myers:
    >
    > [repaired broken posting]
    >
    >>>> Possible reasons:
    >>>>
    >>>> Different manufactures have slightly different implementations of
    >>>> the command set. The notebook may use some commands or settings
    >>>> that differ.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. The ATA command set ist standardized. There are no "slightly
    >>> different implementations".

    >
    >> That's the theory.

    >
    > No, it's not.
    >
    >> In practice, there are some minor variations,
    >> especially in the interpretation of SMART which is subsumed in the
    >> ATA command set.

    >
    > S.M.A.R.T. isn't part of the ATA spec. It was part of the preliminary
    > version of ATA-3 but has been removed in the final version. Most disk
    > manufacturers are using the definition of the preliminary ATA-3 version,
    > though.
    >



    SMART can be found in the ATA-7 spec. It is on page 274 of the command spec.
    The command code is 0xB0.


    > There is no such thing as "slightly different implementation of the
    > command set", period. And it should be very obvious why.


    Consider the following.

    1) One drive may have been designed to an older version of the specification
    than another. Since the standard is revised and updated over time, there is
    a good possibility of differences in the ATA implementations.

    2) Many commands are listed as optional in the specification. Drives that
    don't implement a command will respond different compared to those that do.

    3) The identify command is used to learn the capabilities of the drive. This
    allows drives to be different and still comply with the specification.

    4) The data returned by the identify command includes vendor and model
    number. These can be used by the system to restrict the use of different
    models.

    5) The firmware in a drive can be changed to fix a bug in the implementation
    of the ATA spec. Before and after a firmware upgrade can show a slightly
    different implementation.



    >
    > Benjamin
    >



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3