Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 889559" data-attributes="member: 32260">I can bet that Microsoft does not bother what MT members think and post, so blaming Microsoft or defending it will not change anything. I participated in several such discussions - all ended with high blood pressure without any agreement. Such a discussion can only bloat this thread (like many others before).If most posters can agree that WD is not optimized to work with HDD and we can understand why it happens, then expanding the discussion on Microsoft sins is not necessary here. It would be much more interesting to find an agreement on other possible light or not-light WD features in relation to the performance parameters usually measured in the performance tests of AV testing labs. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 889559, member: 32260"] I can bet that Microsoft does not bother what MT members think and post, so blaming Microsoft or defending it will not change anything. I participated in several such discussions - all ended with high blood pressure without any agreement. Such a discussion can only bloat this thread (like many others before). If most posters can agree that WD is not optimized to work with HDD and we can understand why it happens, then expanding the discussion on Microsoft sins is not necessary here. It would be much more interesting to find an agreement on other possible light or not-light WD features in relation to the performance parameters usually measured in the performance tests of AV testing labs. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification