HDD GURU FORUMS

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

Pros only get one shot!

Before it fail

pclab wrote:Before it fail

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

Is it WD?

Yes it is WD .

Spildit wrote:- 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.

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

One very lucky lady got all her family photos back!

yes lucky

Damn...

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

I wonder why they fail...

pclab wrote:Damn...

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

I wonder why they fail... :shock:

What?

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.

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.

digisupport wrote: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.

The drive had been dropped.

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....