The 250 GB version of this. Its actually a Seagate SATA drive inside that happens to be the same kind of drive used in most laptop computers.
And' date=' yes, it would be having something to with 7 because that is the one and only system that has given me problems. Prior versions of Windows did fine, Linux did excellent (never a single crash). It wasn't until polluting my drive with 7 that I started having issues.[/quote']
Well, yes it must be connected to 7. The question is whether it's the fault of 7 or the fault of how your computer interacts with 7, because due to my experience and lots of performance tests, 7 is pretty much the most stable OS out there right now. It comes down to the fact that 7 is new and created for newer computers, so don't expect it to always run well on computers designed for and older OS.
Here's a performance test of 7 that found it higher performance and more stable than both Vista and XP. Even though a lot of random performance statistics on blogs aren't totally trustworthy, my experience confirms this. Windows XP was installed on this machine for a bit, and it ran significantly slower than 7, and less stable too.
I would say the problem is that you're applying your experience to Windows 7 as if it worked the same on all machines. Even the beta version ran for months on a friend's computer with no crashes whatsoever, ever, and no glitches or bugs, ever. That's like saying if I have a bad experience with something once, it must make it all bad. That's flawed logic to the core.
That depends on your screen resolution. The Windows 7 taskbar is less intrusive than the XP taskbar ever was, if only because I'm running a higher screen resolution than before - and remember that 7 is built for newer, higher resolution screens, and it would be irrational to think Microsoft isn't going to create software for the newer and more advanced technologies and trends.