Need some advice on a new hard drive

[AliveNoMore]

Hello all!

I'm on the market for a new hard drive that's going to be used as a secondary drive just for storage. So far I'm inclined to get a Hitachi Deskstar (1TB or 1.5TB) or a WD Caviar Green (2TB). The Hitachi drives should be faster I suppose but the Caviar Green drives do offer more storage per buck. However, I've heard that the green drives in general are less reliable, and especially the higher capacity ones (considering it's still new technology, higher density per platter, etc.), and since realiability is important to me I ask whether there is anything true to this information. In other words: are the Caviar Green drives really completely reliable as storage drives or should I opt for the Deskstar drives.
Also, concerning the Caviar Greens, is the newer EARX series better than the older EARS one?

[Widjaja]

If you are going to use the HDD as a primary drive, then go for the HDD which is faster.

The 'issue' with WD Greens is the WDidle3 function which makes the heads park every few seconds to save power.
People who used HDTune and saw the high load cycle count on the Green drives saw this a serious cause for concern.
This had been looked at as a cause of wear and tear on the heads, causing mechanical failure.
There is application which allows the user to turn off the head park feature permanently which is supplied by WD.

As for the comparison between the EARS and EARX, I have not idea what the update is besides firmware.

I have a EARS and have had no problems with it as I use it as a media/data storage drive although I have played a game off it and found no problems with it.

Hitachi had their bad run a long time ago and being dubbed deathstar, but that's where the bad run ends.
A long time ago.
Due to this they have a tainted rep but the blooper of the past does not relate to their current hard drives.

[Static~Charge]

The EARS model is 3Gb/s SATA, and the EARX model is 6Gb/s.

The Caviar Green series is also 5400 RPM.

[AliveNoMore]

Thank you guys for your replies. As I already said, the drive will be used as secondary drive for pure storage - only video files. That's it. The OS drive is/will be a Caviar Blue 640GB. So things like transfer rate or random seek times for the new drive are unimportant. Or at least not as much as longevity and reliability, that is. I want to have peace of mind that the drive won't die on me a few months or a year after I purchase it. I am aware that every manufacturer and/or series of products has bad batches/samples. That's not the point. The point is that I want to know if I'm sacrificing reliability for more hard drive space by "going green" (as a rule of thumb). By buying a larger and green hard drive, do I increase my chances of landing a bad sample?
I would like more space for the price but if getting a Deskstar would be generally a safer bet in the long run (the head parking issue aside, since it can be remedied), I would go that way. That's what I want to know.
Speaking of Deskstars, how do the 7K1000 1TB and the 7K3000 1.5 TB compare? Are the latter drives as good as the first?