Talk:Seagate Barracuda

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

This seems like nothing more than a smear article - bugs only, no features or real useful information at all. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of bugs, is it possible to establish a timeline of models so one is aware of what is older/newer and thus able to steer toward new drives that are less prone to failure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.33.211 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI

No SCSI information? -Stian (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WTF?!?! I have hundreds of Seagate Barracuda 9.1gb drives, they surely exist and should be described in that laundry list. There is no mention of SCSI on the entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.233 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a difference between "Medalist", "Barracuda" and "U6 family"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.230.120 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC) ... and Marathon family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.230.120 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Formerly Barracuda"

This December 2012 Seagate data sheet refers to old HDDs as "formerly Barracuda" and to the new ST4000DM000 simply as "Desktop HDD". Are they phasing out the model name?--88.73.36.107 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7200.10 3.AAE and NCQ

In my own experience with a "-305" drive of the 7200.10 family with 3.AAE firmware, I cannot reproduce the bug claimed on this page, either in Linux (anitX 13.1) or Windows 7. This drive is in my parents' computer, which I've just upgraded by adding my old X25-M SSD, so I had to turn on AHCI and NCQ. Based on my and others' previous experience with a WD Raptor (see the NCQ page), you can't take for granted NCQ not screwing up desktop performance (like yanking read-ahead), so I've tested before and after. But with the drive I have, there was no performance degradation whatsoever. 76 MB/s reported by hdparm either way. This is the outer zone performance. Testing in Windows 7 with hdtune before and after AHCI activation, also revealed identical performance curves and seek time. The drive is plugged in an ICH10 (Ibex Peak) and is jumpered for 3Gbps. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]