Quiz time!

[pcimage]

In as few questions as possible, how did I get a near perfect clone of this drive?

Attachments

[pcimage]

Pros only get one shot!

[pclab]

Before it fail

[LarrySabo]

Before it fail

[unknown]

In as few questions as possible, how did I get a near perfect clone of this drive?

Is it WD?

[microsoftengineer]

Yes it is WD .

[MindMergepk]

- Drive depoped at factory, no data on the damaged platter.

+1

- Drive contains less data and last used sector was before the first scratch from inside out.

[pcimage]

Yep, top platter surface unused. De-popped at factory!

One very lucky lady got all her family photos back!

[MindMergepk]

yes lucky

[pclab]

Damn...

WD refurbish a drive that shows this kind of scratches and put it back on business??

I wonder why they fail...

[fzabkar]

Damn...

WD refurbish a drive that shows this kind of scratches and put it back on business??

I wonder why they fail... :shock:

What?

[digisupport]

Lucky client Sean,

I do not think that these damages left the factory, a later crash is the cause.
Your client made a superior choice in you, could imagine others would have rejected this case after lifting the lid.

Have seen it before that 1 or 2 heads are not used, if the failed qc or simply downgraded to lower capacity i can only guess.

Last edited by digisupport on February 1st, 2016, 2:18, edited 1 time in total.

[fzabkar]

I have seen one case at Tom's Hardware (?) where a 500GB (on the label) WD drive benchmarked like a 3-head 750GB drive that had been shortstroked.

[fzabkar]

I do not think that these damages left the factory, a later crash is the cause.

If the drive had left the factory in a crashed state with the affected surface disabled, then the whole platter would have been reduced to glass or shiny metal in very short time.

[pcimage]

The drive had been dropped.

[pclab]

And only the top platter was damage?
No other problems?

If so, why did WD depoped that head? Some kind of problem was detected there....