How come portable drives are cheaper than desktop external drives?

PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.

How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?

Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external

Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external

There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.

And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.

For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?

Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.

How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?

Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external

Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external

There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.

And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.

For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?

Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

The pricing is pretty amazing, and it looks like
the enclosure is being made "for free". I can't
understand how they can get the material cost low
enough to sell at these prices.

The drives provided in such an enclosure, might
not be rated for 24/7/365 operation (spinning),
and may also have a write limit ("300TB writes per year").
So that might be a difference, between an enclosure
drive and an up-market drive ("Enterprise"). I
don't think any drive these days, has all that high
a write limit, perhaps a testament to the low
flying height of the heads. Nobody has bothered
to explain why the limit is so low.

At one point in time, portable 2.5" drives actually
had better customer reviews than 3.5" externals. But that
doesn't seem to be the case any more. They're more
likely to be uniformly bad now.

I think you'll find the 3.5" form factor offers
more capacity than the 2.5" ones. You can get at
least 6TB in a 3.5" enclosure (more than that if
you're willing to accept a crappy "shingled" drive),
and 2TB is more likely to be the limit on 2.5" ones.

They evaluated a shingled drive here. Notice that
the enclosure design is USB3, and it attempts to
reproduce the "portable" experience, by being
bus powered. It relies on the higher current
limit on USB3, plus it has an energy storage
solution inside for usage during spinup.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10335/...d-drive-review

Paul

Paul wrote:
Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.
How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?
Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external


Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external


There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.
And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.
For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?
Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

The pricing is pretty amazing, and it looks like
the enclosure is being made "for free". I can't
understand how they can get the material cost low
enough to sell at these prices.

The drives provided in such an enclosure, might
not be rated for 24/7/365 operation (spinning),
and may also have a write limit ("300TB writes per year").
So that might be a difference, between an enclosure
drive and an up-market drive ("Enterprise"). I
don't think any drive these days, has all that high
a write limit, perhaps a testament to the low
flying height of the heads. Nobody has bothered
to explain why the limit is so low.

At one point in time, portable 2.5" drives actually
had better customer reviews than 3.5" externals. But that
doesn't seem to be the case any more. They're more
likely to be uniformly bad now.

I think you'll find the 3.5" form factor offers
more capacity than the 2.5" ones. You can get at
least 6TB in a 3.5" enclosure (more than that if
you're willing to accept a crappy "shingled" drive),
and 2TB is more likely to be the limit on 2.5" ones.

They evaluated a shingled drive here. Notice that
the enclosure design is USB3, and it attempts to
reproduce the "portable" experience, by being
bus powered. It relies on the higher current
limit on USB3, plus it has an energy storage
solution inside for usage during spinup.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10335/...d-drive-review


Paul

I think the difference is that the 3.5 ones are at 7200 rpm and the
smaller ones at 5400.

--
Z.

Z. wrote:
Paul wrote:
Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.
How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?
Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external



Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external



There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.
And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.
For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?
Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

The pricing is pretty amazing, and it looks like
the enclosure is being made "for free". I can't
understand how they can get the material cost low
enough to sell at these prices.

The drives provided in such an enclosure, might
not be rated for 24/7/365 operation (spinning),
and may also have a write limit ("300TB writes per year").
So that might be a difference, between an enclosure
drive and an up-market drive ("Enterprise"). I
don't think any drive these days, has all that high
a write limit, perhaps a testament to the low
flying height of the heads. Nobody has bothered
to explain why the limit is so low.

At one point in time, portable 2.5" drives actually
had better customer reviews than 3.5" externals. But that
doesn't seem to be the case any more. They're more
likely to be uniformly bad now.

I think you'll find the 3.5" form factor offers
more capacity than the 2.5" ones. You can get at
least 6TB in a 3.5" enclosure (more than that if
you're willing to accept a crappy "shingled" drive),
and 2TB is more likely to be the limit on 2.5" ones.

They evaluated a shingled drive here. Notice that
the enclosure design is USB3, and it attempts to
reproduce the "portable" experience, by being
bus powered. It relies on the higher current
limit on USB3, plus it has an energy storage
solution inside for usage during spinup.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10335/...d-drive-review



Paul

I think the difference is that the 3.5 ones are at 7200 rpm and the
smaller ones at 5400.


Model number WD20NPVX
Height 15mm
Formatted capacity 2,000,398 MB
Rotational speed (RPM) IntelliPower

IntelliPower: A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate
and caching algorithms designed to deliver both
significant power savings and solid performance.
For each WD Green drive model, WD may use a different,
invariable RPM.

In other words, it's a secret :-)

But 5400 sounds like an excellent guess.

And that is probably why the drive doesn't have
a listed seek time either. So many secrets.

Paul

In article ,
says...

PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.

How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?

Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external

Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external

There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.

And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.

For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?

Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

Hi

The 2,5" has USB 3.0 conector soldered directly.

this makes it cheaper.

Paul wrote:
Z. wrote:
Paul wrote:
Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.
How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?
Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external



Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external



There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.
And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.
For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?
Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

The pricing is pretty amazing, and it looks like
the enclosure is being made "for free". I can't
understand how they can get the material cost low
enough to sell at these prices.

The drives provided in such an enclosure, might
not be rated for 24/7/365 operation (spinning),
and may also have a write limit ("300TB writes per year").
So that might be a difference, between an enclosure
drive and an up-market drive ("Enterprise"). I
don't think any drive these days, has all that high
a write limit, perhaps a testament to the low
flying height of the heads. Nobody has bothered
to explain why the limit is so low.

At one point in time, portable 2.5" drives actually
had better customer reviews than 3.5" externals. But that
doesn't seem to be the case any more. They're more
likely to be uniformly bad now.

I think you'll find the 3.5" form factor offers
more capacity than the 2.5" ones. You can get at
least 6TB in a 3.5" enclosure (more than that if
you're willing to accept a crappy "shingled" drive),
and 2TB is more likely to be the limit on 2.5" ones.

They evaluated a shingled drive here. Notice that
the enclosure design is USB3, and it attempts to
reproduce the "portable" experience, by being
bus powered. It relies on the higher current
limit on USB3, plus it has an energy storage
solution inside for usage during spinup.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10335/...d-drive-review



Paul

I think the difference is that the 3.5 ones are at 7200 rpm and the
smaller ones at 5400.


Model number WD20NPVX
Height 15mm
Formatted capacity 2,000,398 MB
Rotational speed (RPM) IntelliPower

IntelliPower: A fine-tuned balance of spin speed, transfer rate
and caching algorithms designed to deliver both
significant power savings and solid performance.
For each WD Green drive model, WD may use a different,
invariable RPM.

In other words, it's a secret :-)

But 5400 sounds like an excellent guess.

And that is probably why the drive doesn't have
a listed seek time either. So many secrets.

Paul


I find the portable ones very reliable, and very cross-platorm
transferable. And that includes tablets, TVs, Blu-ray player.
You do need recent drivers, though.

Ed

On 6/6/2016 2:31 AM, Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.

How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?

Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external

Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external

There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.

And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.

For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?

Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks


Because Desktop hard disk ( 3 1/2" ) and laptop hard disks ( 2 1/2" )
are not the same.

First you have to look at what is IN the enclosure.
5400 rpm spindle drives are less expensive than 7200 rpm spindle drives.
You also have to look at the MTBF specs.

3 1/2" drives need an external power supply.
2 1/2" drives can be powered by USB.

Buy you own external enclosure ( USB 2.0, USB 3.x, Firewire, eSATA, etc )
Buy your own hard disk ( spindle 7200 rpm, SSD ) that will be placed in
the enclosure

Integrate the hard disk in the enclosure yourself.


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Default] On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:42:51 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Wolf K
wrote:

On 2016-06-06 06:55, Z. wrote:
[...]
I think the difference is that the 3.5 ones are at 7200 rpm and the
smaller ones at 5400.

That also makes the 3.5 ones "suitable" for use as PVRs, according to my
satellite receiver's guide. They're right. Cheaper than drives labelled
as PVRs, too.

I noticed that WD has or had a series of drives labeled Elements Play.
And they look like rectangles but have a remote control too.

Even when I put "elements play" in quotes, all the sponsored links
except this one are for plain old Elements, which is just a hard
drive.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3221240...&ul_noapp=true

This is the only other good url I find, 73 pages:
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/librar...779-705061.pdf

So maybe they stopped selling them. Sorry I bought it up ;-)

[Default] On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 03:28:29 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Paul wrote:

Micky wrote:
PJP, rather than reply to your post, I've started a new, related
thread.

How come, at least it seems to me, portable drives are quite a bit
cheaper than desktop external drives of the same make, same size, and
same series?

Just $55 for 1TB
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Porta...s+1tb+external

Desktop drives are more like $90, or 100 but this one is 142.50
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Deskt...s+1tb+external

There are 2 and 3Tb examples too, I think.

And since they're cheaper, does that mean one should buy them instead?
It seems to me that the 3 1/2 inch drives have more space to stash all
those electrons, and that 2 1/2 inch drives must be more crowded, and
anyone who lives in an apartment building or prison knows that can
lead to problems.

For some reason I favor the Desktop size. I'm never going to carry
the drive anywhere, and if I had too, even the desktop is portable.
But why is it more expensive?

Which would you buy, portable or so-called desktop?

Thanks

The pricing is pretty amazing, and it looks like
the enclosure is being made "for free". I can't
understand how they can get the material cost low
enough to sell at these prices.

The drives provided in such an enclosure, might
not be rated for 24/7/365 operation (spinning),
and may also have a write limit ("300TB writes per year").
So that might be a difference, between an enclosure
drive and an up-market drive ("Enterprise"). I
don't think any drive these days, has all that high
a write limit, perhaps a testament to the low
flying height of the heads. Nobody has bothered
to explain why the limit is so low.

At one point in time, portable 2.5" drives actually
had better customer reviews than 3.5" externals. But that
doesn't seem to be the case any more. They're more
likely to be uniformly bad now.

I think you'll find the 3.5" form factor offers
more capacity than the 2.5" ones. You can get at
least 6TB in a 3.5" enclosure (more than that if

Well that brings up another point. While I don't need 6TB (I don't
even need 2TB), the fact that they can make a 6TB drive in 3.5" means
to me that a smaller 2TB drive is easy to make in 3.5 but getting hard
to accomplish in 2.5. And so it's more likely to fail in 2.5. So
that's a reason to buy 3.5. (I never look for MTBF because I guess
I don't trust their number. Maybe I should)

But go to the store or count the number of models and portable drives
are much more plentiful. At microcenter maybe 8 feet wide of 3
shelves, instead of 1 to 2 feet of 3 shelves for desktop drives. Of
course that might just mean customers are influenced by price.

One reason I haven't just bought a WD Elements Desktop already is that
I can't find a real owners manual online, only the Quick Start Guide
and the Overview. That seems strange in itself.

So I only have one guy's opinion that Elements doesn't have hardware
encrypting. Because of the From- address, I thought he was a WD
employee when I got the email, but it was just an email copy of a
"community" poster's post.

you're willing to accept a crappy "shingled" drive),

Shingled?

and 2TB is more likely to be the limit on 2.5" ones.

They evaluated a shingled drive here. Notice that
the enclosure design is USB3, and it attempts to
reproduce the "portable" experience, by being
bus powered. It relies on the higher current
limit on USB3, plus it has an energy storage
solution inside for usage during spinup.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10335/...d-drive-review

It would be "nice" to have one fewer wall wart, and have the power
usage end completely when the computer is off, but I've been sleeping
the computer most of the time anyhow, so it won't change power use.
Plus the MyBook have a settable sleep timer, that turns them off even
if you're using the computer, saving power and drive wear, and which
would work well with a HDD used for daily or 12-hour backups. All I
want is that wihout encryption.

Paul

Micky wrote:
[Default] On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:42:51 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Wolf K
wrote:

On 2016-06-06 06:55, Z. wrote:
[...]
I think the difference is that the 3.5 ones are at 7200 rpm and the
smaller ones at 5400.
That also makes the 3.5 ones "suitable" for use as PVRs, according to my
satellite receiver's guide. They're right. Cheaper than drives labelled
as PVRs, too.

I noticed that WD has or had a series of drives labeled Elements Play.
And they look like rectangles but have a remote control too.

Even when I put "elements play" in quotes, all the sponsored links
except this one are for plain old Elements, which is just a hard
drive.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3221240...&ul_noapp=true

This is the only other good url I find, 73 pages:
http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/librar...779-705061.pdf

So maybe they stopped selling them. Sorry I bought it up ;-)

WDC has dabbled in media players before. What they lost
on these things, is a Netflix player. So presumably Netflix
wanted a few bux per unit, which they weren't willing
to pay.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.aspx?id=1270

The item you reference, is possibly from 2010, and
is another abortive attempt. A media player without
a network connection, holding content on its internal
drive. Perfectly reasonably, but not when better
devices were created.

http://www.cnet.com/au/products/wd-elements-play/

Most users carp on the Netflix issue, so if looking
for stuff like that, make sure it actually interfaces
with the sources you plan on using. One reason for
wanting Netflix in a separate black box like that, is
if you have a "dumb" TV and need a 10-foot interface
for using Netflix, without using any of your other
computers. You could stick a WDC box or some other
box, next to the TV set. And make it a "smart" set.
That's for people that don't have money to splash
around every year, on the latest TV set.

Paul