Backblaze data shows Hitachi and Seagate as most and least reliable hard drives, respectively

By on January 21, 2014, 2:00 PM
hitachi, seagate, storage, backblaze

Over the past few months, cloud storage provider Backblaze has been looking at statistics generated from the open-source Backblaze Storage Pods powering their business, and chronicling their findings in a series of blog posts. So far they shared their insights on how long a consumer hard drive should last and whether enterprise grade units really do last longer. Now they’re back with reliability data on specific brands and models.

The data is based on more than 25,000 units in active service from 15 different consumer-grade hard drives from Seagate, Hitachi, and Western Digital. As noted by the company, their purchasing decisions are largely driven by price, but it’s in their best interests to ensure that it buys reliable hard drives too, as it takes considerable time and effort to pull a failed drive, slot in a new one, and rebuild the RAID array.

For most of the last four years, Seagate and Hitachi have offered the best price-per-GB ratio, and also the starkest contrast when it comes to reliability. As seen in the graph above, Hitachi drives are by far the most reliable with less than a 2% failure rate, while Seagate fared the worst with an annual failure rate of 8-9%.

Things don’t get any better for Seagate after three years with failure rates reaching over 25% while Hitachi sits at just over 3%. Meanwhile, Backblaze lists the annual failure rate of the Western Digital drives at around 3% and after three years of operation they fare just slightly worse than Hitachi at 5.2%.

In terms of specific models, the two best drives were the Hitachi GST Deskstar 5K3000 and Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000, with a 0.9% annual failure rate over more than two years. In fact, Backblaze claims if the price were right, they would be buying nothing but Hitachi drives. How’s that for a seal of approval.

On the other side of the equation, the old 1.5TB Seagate Barracuda 7200 was the worst offender with a 25% annual failure rate, and even the newer 3TB model has a pretty high failure rate at 9.8% per year. Furthermore, Seagate's Barracuda LP 2TB and WD's Green 3TB proved to be so unreliable that they were left out of the picture. According to Backblaze, they “start accumulating errors as soon as they are put into production”, which the company notes might have something to do the high vibration environment of their storage pods.

Lastly it should be noted that the company also uses Samsung and Toshiba hard drives, but Backblaze doesn’t have a statistically significant number of them installed yet to generate reliable numbers.

Head over to Backblaze’s website for a look at the complete report and hard drive models tested.




User Comments: 63

Got something to say? Post a comment
veLa veLa said:

This is why I never bothered with Seagate.

howzz1854 said:

HA, indeed had a Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB drive that failed on me after 2 years of very casual use. in fact, the first day I got it, and SMART had already showed 68% life left on the drive. goes to show you.

although I am surprised to see WD Green 3TB to be on the un-reliable list. I currently have it as my media storage drive.

m4a4 m4a4 said:

Yup, never liked Seagate. Usually go with WD for price and stability...

Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

Had two Seagate drives die on me. This was a few years back and at the time I thought they were quality. Jokes on me!

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Lastly it should be noted that the company also uses Samsung and Toshiba hard drives, but Backblaze doesn't have a statistically significant number of them installed yet to generate reliable numbers.

Doesn't help that Samsung sold their HDD line to Seagate, who in turn rebranded their less popular drives to in order to try and bleed off some extra inventory... Funny how the F3 1TB and F4 2TB samsung drives went from 4-5 star reviews on many retail sites to 1 star upon this change, and that was before people caught on to the rebranding.

I hope they pick up more toshiba drives and do a similar analysis as I've been purchasing more of those lately; down the road I'd like to see how they stand up to 3 years of abuse.

Cycloid Torus Cycloid Torus said:

Too bad, have had many good Seagate drives over last 30 years. Sorry to hear this. Last drives purchased were WD, but I should look into the Hitachi drives. Things change.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Yikes and I just bought a 4TB Seagate drive, knew it was a bad idea. Definitely going to give Hitachi a look next time I'm in the market for new drives.

slamscaper slamscaper said:

I can't believe how unreliable Seagate's 1.5TB model is!! It failed on me after about a year, but gave me problems way before that. I sent it in to have it repaired, and the unit Seagate sent back to me started experiencing issues about 3 months later... Stay away from their drives like the plague.

2 people like this | Guest said:

Who would have though that the IBM deathstars would be the most reliable now.

Cycloid Torus Cycloid Torus said:

Just checked and noted that very popular WD drive sold on NewEgg had 20% 'single star' reviews (DOAs and early failures). My guess is that the HD manufacturers are betting on cloud backup as part of their solution for the customer. Put whatever you want in the cloud, use one of these trashy drives, if it breaks, get another. This is like Ford/GM relying on Avis/Enterprise to 'satisfy' the customer

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

And now everyone knows why I recommend WD HDDs to builders looking for help on the forums :P.

Yup, never liked Seagate. Usually go with WD for price and stability...

Exactly .

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Unfortunately, (at least for me), I have none of the drives tested, in active use.

I suppose it's too much to expect from a mass storage endeavor, to be able to publish results on lower capacity drives.

With that said, the WD "Caviar Blue" , 160GB SATA 150,in my eMachines will be 10(!) this coming February. Works as good as new, BTW.

Further along, there are no specs on WD's "Caviar Black" offerings for comparison, a popular choice for home storage.

It should be reassuring to all who use cloud storage, that the people in charge of your data, basically grab whichever drives they can get their hands on most cheaply. They've earned my trust with that course of action, that's for sure, (or not).

I sometimes measure the quality of a manufacturer's entire line, (right or wrong, fair or unfair), against the representative products I have owned of theirs.

That ethic stops with Tosiiba however. They made some of the most durable, long lived, VCRs I ever owned. But, their DVD drives, (for me), were plagued with failures.

I like the, "OMG, I'm throwing all my XXXX drives away hysteria", and "I knew it all along", contributions to the thread as well. Gives it some "flavor".

Like Chicken Little said, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"......:eek:

Guest said:

In my experience Samsung hard drives had the highest failure rate. I had a WD Black 2TB drive that failed after 2 years of use. I replaced it with a 4TB Seagate. After reading this article, I'm am doubting my purchase now.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

I can't believe how unreliable Seagate's 1.5TB model is!! It failed on me after about a year, but gave me problems way before that. I sent it in to have it repaired, and the unit Seagate sent back to me started experiencing issues about 3 months later... Stay away from their drives like the plague.

Another in that club...

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

In my experience Samsung hard drives had the highest failure rate. I had a WD Black 2TB drive that failed after 2 years of use. I replaced it with a 4TB Seagate. After reading this article, I'm am doubting my purchase now.
Always a "prudent" course of action, to second guess yourself upon actions you have no recourse from. (Other than throwing away a working drive, and replacing it with another that may get a bad review in the future).

Sadly, I'm not in the medical profession, or I'd give you a script for some sort of benzodiazipine, which you so obviously need.

SirGCal SirGCal said:

I'm actually curious how many of those Seagates were bad from the start. I just built an 8-drive array with 4TB units and it took me 24 drives, testing and RMAing them to get 8 that passed muster. It's been running good since but I was unable to get 4TB Hitachi drives at the time. Gota love RAID 6 and I have another server with 2TB versions going on 7 years now. Again though all of the drives were tested before installation and my problem with all of them, is shipping OEM, so many turn up horrible. And even shipping retail versions isn't always a ton better... Sad.

MrBungle said:

I knew there was a reason I avoided seagate drives like the plague.

turismozilla turismozilla said:

If something has got to fail with my rig, let it not be the hard drives. Great article, thanks. Hitachi it is.

JC713 JC713 said:

My Lenovo laptop has a Hitachi HDD and it is still going strong to this date since 2010.

lipe123 said:

How the mighty have fallen. Seagate used to have a 5 year warranty program and their old 250 and 500gb drives worked great.

Suddenly the warranty dropped to 2 years and the drives started to fail left right and center.

Western digital on the other hand used to be bad around the 40-160Gb era and now they are back on their game for a change.

I can't wait for larger SSD's so consumers wont need to lose all their data every 2 years or less.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Doesn't change my good luck mileage with Seagate. Although I've not had anything over 1TB either.

I can't wait for larger SSD's so consumers wont need to lose all their data every 2 years or less.
From what I hear, using SSD's will not change the need for backups.

ddg4005 ddg4005 said:

I'm running two Hitachi 4 terabyte hard drives in each box so this good to hear. What's surprising is the high failure rate for Seagate's internal hard drives especially since their external units are solid (at least they have been for me).

1 person liked this | Raoul Duke Raoul Duke said:

Just checked and noted that very popular WD drive sold on NewEgg had 20% 'single star' reviews (DOAs and early failures).

I would never buy a hard drive that had to be delivered by post. Don't know if they played hackey sack or football or hockey with your parcel in the warehouse or in delivery. I also check the drive specs at the manufacturers web site. Seagate drives in general are not rated heavy operation (load/unload cycles, hours of use per day, etc) compared to Western Digital (two brands I am familiar with). My dad has had two 21/2 yr. old Green drives die (2 yr. warranty) recently, I use the WD Black (5 yr. warranty), only drive I have had fail was a 600 GB velociraptor-an enterprise drive LOL. Other than burned years ago by 2 IBM Deathstars. Not bad for approx. 10 years, although most drives were replaced by larger capacity drives. Up to 10 TB and an SSD in the box now. Storage needs grows like my waist seems to...slowly, but surely

turismozilla turismozilla said:

I would never buy a hard drive that had to be delivered by post. Don't know if they played hackey sack or football or hockey with your parcel in the warehouse or in delivery. I also check the drive specs at the manufacturers web site. Seagate drives in general are not rated heavy operation (load/unload cycles, hours of use per day, etc) compared to Western Digital (two brands I am familiar with). My dad has had two 21/2 yr. old Green drives die (2 yr. warranty) recently, I use the WD Black (5 yr. warranty), only drive I have had fail was a 600 GB velociraptor-an enterprise drive LOL. Other than burned years ago by 2 IBM Deathstars. Not bad for approx. 10 years, although most drives were replaced by larger capacity drives. Up to 10 TB and an SSD in the box now. Storage needs grows like my waist seems to...slowly, but surely

I actually experienced that once with a hard drive I bought on Ebay around 2002 or something, I heard a loud thump on my door, and when I looked I saw the mailman walking away, my hard drive had just been delivered (thrown at my front porch).

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I would never buy a hard drive that had to be delivered by post. Don't know if they played hackey sack or football or hockey with your parcel in the warehouse or in delivery.
Each drive is probably handled more harshly in the plant being manufactured than they are being delivered. The drive is 100 times more prone to damage while it is in use than it is being shipped. Drives have a shock ratings, and I'd be willing to bet that while packaged no drive exceeds this rating, unless the package is completely destroyed. And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

So this is a comparison of seagate vs western digital, since WD owns HGST both those brands are technically WD. Personally usually prefer WD, my Toshiba laptop came with a Toshiba drive, it seems ok so far only been 4 months though, my alienware came with 2 seagates and I put a wd and a Hitachi drive in them. I had a WD black 320gb Laptop drive fail on me, but my 750gb WD black drive is still running great. Most of the dead drives I have been seeing at work have been seagates lately, unfortunately seems like Dell and lenovo both use seagate mainly. HP seems to be mixed with the newer ones using WD drives, and some of the higher capacity ones coming with seagate. Acer/Gateway seem to still use Hitachi, so WD for them.

Guest said:

I'm running two Hitachi 4 terabyte hard drives in each box so this good to hear. What's surprising is the high failure rate for Seagate's internal hard drives especially since their external units are solid (at least they have been for me).

Indeed. I have a 14-year old Seagate 60 gigabyte (internal version) and it's still going strong. I also have two external drives, one of which is about 7 years old (GoFlex Desk 360 gigabyte) and the other is 3 years old (GoFlex Ultra-portable 1.5 terabyte). Both of them has yet to fail me. Perhaps I just got lucky.

abysal abysal said:

I have a mixture of Hitachis and WD Greens in my two ZFS raids. I've only had 1 WD Green fail in the last 3 years. My older Seagate 600's, 320's and 300's are still kick'in as well.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.

For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?

I mean it's the same for SSD's, a few of OCZ's SSD models have had around 50% failure rates.

But if you remove those obviously faulty drives their numbers look more normal.Even if that is no excuse or reason to choose such a manufacturer, stats to back me up:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/911-7/ssd.html

On the previous page there are also HDD statistics, which differ tremendously vs Backblaze's data.

That just shows you need several data sets to get statistics which can be relied upon...

BlueDrake said:

I have an old Seagate FreeAgent 500GB, which has been with me since my prior PC (3-4 years I think?) and still in working order. It's all down to personal preference and experience, this is their findings across drives in a particular work environment. I'm looking at this more with a grain of salt really, because I highly doubt everyone is going to drop a brand due to x reason.

So you got a bad experience, and want to share it but others might not have it. Could be the complete opposite, possibly down the road I might change my mind. Just for me right now it's about equal to Seagate / Western Digital, in terms of my next external and let that possibly change my mind. If it's a bad drive then fine I 'might' consider otherwise, but really I don't see much reason to do that.

theBest11778 theBest11778 said:

It's all the luck of the draw, obviously you have a slightly higher chance of failure with Seagate (according to the chart above,) but personally, over the past 15 years I've only had 1 Seagate HDD failure, and 2 WDs fail. Never had any other issues with the 20-30 HDDs I've had between them.

Raoul Duke Raoul Duke said:

........And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.

Wow, what provoked that? I stand by it for two reasons. Where I live UPS is one of the main couriers. I know someone that worked for years at UPS and heard horror story upon horror story with what they did in her sight with packages at the depot. I don't recall having ever received a package from UPS without damage on the external box of some kind. Did have to make one claim (thanks for good packaging). I figure if I buy a HD at a store I have a better chance than this of getting something handled gently. So sorry if this causes offence

I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.

Guest said:

I've never had a good Seagate drive in the last 20 years. This report does not surprise me. I also avoid them like the plague. The last time I about a Seagate was the 7200.11 750GB. Absolute garbage. Luckily I had 2 in RAID1. I RMA'd and RMA's until the 5 year warranty was up. Between the two drives I had 10+ failures. Some replacements were 7200.12 units. Also garbage. I could have purchased new WD or Hitachi drives with the $ I spent on shipping those stupid things. Eventually that's exactly what I did - bought 2 1TB WD Blacks and they are running just fine after 3+ years of continuous use.

Revolution 11 said:

........And besides the people you are so inclined to belittle are the same people who stock the shelfs at a local brick and mortar store. The only way you can get out of the delivery abuse as you describe, is to pickup the item straight from the factory yourself. Your excuse is null and void of sound thinking.

Wow, what provoked that? I stand by it for two reasons. Where I live UPS is one of the main couriers. I know someone that worked for years at UPS and heard horror story upon horror story with what they did in her sight with packages at the depot. I don't recall having ever received a package from UPS without damage on the external box of some kind. Did have to make one claim (thanks for good packaging). I figure if I buy a HD at a store I have a better chance than this of getting something handled gently. So sorry if this causes offence

I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.

His reply was a bit harsh but he is still right. You are obsessing about delivery problems too much. The same delivery system that all retailers use BTW. And the factory probably does have more stress on the drives than the delivery system.

The model and tolerances of the drive is more relevant than the shipper used. Assuming the postman didn't go postal on that day.....

RzmmDX said:

I have a Hitachi 80GB 2.5 drive from my laptop for about 8 years now. Seems to be doing just fine.

While I already had failures with my 3GB Seagate and 2GB WD...

Now I am slightly worried about my other 2 Seagates, one which I am sure is a refurb for the replacement...

Ugh.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I suspect delivery is like it seems like everything is in life, a few ruin it for the rest.
I'll go along with that, in fact I do believe it to be true.

I don't see mail delivery being the problem with drive malfunctions. Not when I know first hand what kind of shock is required to damage a drive and how hard it is to deliver this shock (especially while still packaged). We are not talking about something that is fragile by nature, and should be handled with caution.

I have an anger management problem where the PC is concerned. I do manage my anger, it usually involves walking away, but with PC's I don't walk. I have a bad habit of taking it out on the case, when the PC freezes or BSOD's. It is not a new development, I've had it for decades. I can show you dents in the side of my case today, where daily freezing has agitated my temper. Luckily for my PC case, I finally figured out what was causing my freezes. It would help if I had money to burn, but I don't. Non of my drive issues have ever been from physical abuse. And delivering that same amount of abuse while the drive is still packaged is impossible. The packaging absorbs the majority of shock, where a case will not, without shock absorption mounts. I've never had these mounts, outside of a mobile device.

Lets also take a look at all the external storage devices, that take more torture on a daily basis compared to mail delivery. These external cases, especially the smaller ones don't have shock absorption either. All the tablets and laptops just thrown on a table, even if the distance is only an inch or two. Delivery services cannot equal that amount of shock if they wanted to, while the drive is safe within its packaging.

And lets not forget the drive in my PC case is a 1TB Seagate, purchased a little over 3 years ago. A drive that is within this article as being the highest failure rate. A failure rate that must be from factors other than physical issues, or else mine would have certainly been dead by now. No I am quite confident that drive malfunctions are not caused by mishandling of mail services. That is unless the drives were packaged poorly to begin with. In that case you can hardly single the mail service out for being the cause.

Guest said:

Not long ago. I had an argument from a stubborn techspot member that had a false faith in Seagate. Im in IT and would personally see Seagate drives die faster than any other. The member thought I was crazy. Nice to be rectified with actual data to back up the theory.

On a side note, I usually purchase WD hard drives and stay away from Hatachi. Not for any particular reason other than I trust what I know. After seeing this, they deserve second look.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Nice to be rectified with actual data to back up the theory.
Justified by incomplete story. Per mentioned this above.

Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.

For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?

From where I stand Seagate maybe the worst. But until it is proven the 7200.11 is not the main downfall of this statistic, I'm not listening.

2 people like this | Skandranonsg Skandranonsg said:

This article pissed me off for two reasons.

1. Everyone who has to chime in. "I've had a seagate hard drive for 7 years, and it works perfectly!" or "My Maxtor 1GB died after 11.6 seconds of operation!" are just ******* annoying. Your story does not matter. Your shitty little anecdote with a sample size I can count on one hand is meaningless.

2. This study was flawed. This put the hard drives into a hot, wet, vibrating cage and did so with the cheapest drives they could get their hands on. So Seagate's cheapest stock is less reliable than WD's cheapest stock. Who gives a crap? Put similar tiered drives into real life scenarios. A laptop that gets jostled every once and a while. A desktop that sits on a self 99% of its life.

Guest said:

@Skandranonsg

Point #2: I care. I also think many people who buy cheap drives care. So at least we know that if we want cheap drives, at least Hitatchi or WD will be much more reliable than Seagate. The study is "flawed" in a sense that it's not really a study at all since BackBlaze personally designed their cages and also buy only commodity parts and the cheapest drives they can get. They are basically just reporting what they saw from years of running on this kind of system. As a result, it's not really useful to say which makes is actually more reliable but it's useful enough for those who try to buy the cheapest drives.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I have a question, "who the f*** is "Backblaze"?

by all accounts, the drives they use for storage are consumer models.

And something else, would you really trust these people to back up your data in the cloud? If someone wants to run with the big boys, they should be playing with big boy toys.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be reporting brand versus brand results, on enterprise class drives. For example, WD's "Raid Edition" offerings.

And in spite of the above poster's admonition that my anecdote will be meaningless, my Seagate "Barracuda" drives, will eat my WD, "Caviar Blue" drives in WEI. They're quieter, faster, and cheaper.

Guest said:

From where I stand Seagate maybe the worst. But until it is proven the 7200.11 is not the main downfall of this statistic, I'm not listening.

Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "im not listening","Im not listening" wont save you when you lose all your backup data. Good luck with that strategy.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If my drive series is not problematic, why should I listen if the study includes know problematic drives? Release all the details so that the study would be worth listening to. Prove to me that all Seagate drive series are just as problematic and then we will talk (or should I say I will listen).

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Christ, I loathe threads like this. Somebody who's really nobody, ("Backblaze" , publishes reliability data on hard drives intended for the consumer market, running in "enterprise" service, then everybody gets on their soapbox, and the "winds of boor", begin to howl.....

I tell you, it's enough to force you to seek refuge by listening to a sermon "starring", "Reverend", Al Sharpton.

Guest said:

I have a question, "who the f*** is "Backblaze"?

Backblaze is an online backup service.

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Backblaze is an online backup service.
That explains why I don't know of them, and am not particularly interested in what they have to say.

But you didn't really answer my question. I already knew they were a "cloud" service. If Google, Yahoo, or the NSA were publishing statistics about HDD longevity, it might be more credible. AFAIK, "Backblaze", is still "nobody". Or at least, nobody of great importance.

As far as manufacturers go, they pretty much attach whatever life expectancy prediction to their HDDs they feel like, in a endeavor to get them out the door.

With that said I haven't had trouble with ANY HDDs to date. I even have a few of those "lousy" barracuda elevens. Even when Seagate, had their, "big recall of 'bricking' drives", I didn't have a stitch of trouble with mine.

As far as warranty issues go, manufacturers used to spend enormous sums when warranties were long. Instead of hassling with that, they just pass the savings on to consumers, who are now tacitly, "on their own".

Given my usage patterns, against predicted lifespans, (even divided by 2), most likely, 90% of my current HDDs will still be running long after I'm dead and buried.

I've known since the first ones hit the market, "green drives", were a piss poor idea from the jump. They read slow, continually shut down, and don't really save that much energy. But if you want to buy into that crap, please be my "guest".

It's sort of like credit cards companies that "guilt you into" giving up paper statements, and go green. They won't lower your interest rate though, and the only thing you gain, is the need to have internet service constantly. Should your web go down, and you miss a payment, the late charge is the same, whether you're "green", or otherwise.

So, who cares if "green HDDs" break, you won't catch me dead with one of those turds in my computer in the first place.

And like I said earlier, if "Backblaze" wants to run with the big boys, then they need to start buying, "big boy toys". That means enterprise service equipment. After all, they are trying to pass themselves off as an, "enterprise", are they not?

money said:

My Seagate has been working 5 years therefore it is the most reliable ever and this research is wrong.

Guest said:

My Seagate has been working 5 years therefore it is the most reliable ever and this research is wrong.

Glad to know your 1 drive debunks any research involving hundreds. Great logic.

mailpup mailpup said:

Would be interesting to have the data broken down per drive model aswell.

For example the Seagate 7200.11 had tremendously bad reliability due to a firmware bug, which might taint the statistics?

As the end of the article suggests if you head over to Backblaze's website and specifically their blog, you can find a breakdown of the specific models tested. http://blog.backblaze.com/

Guest said:

I have had two Seagate drives to fail within the past 3 months. I lost quite a bit of data and will look elsewhere for my storage needs. The Goflex 2tb and 3tb are not worth the money in my opinion. Make a backup of your backup.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.