Very tempting deal. I've seen people posting somewhere (probably on TR) about 7200.10 drives claiming problems with them. As with all such anecdotes, one can't know until enough data accumulates. And for me, that means let others do the "early" adoption.
The Outpost.com/Fry's drive does show up on Seagate as having a 16 MB cache, but says nothing even in the "data sheet"
PDF about perpendicular recording, which probably means it's a 7200.9 model w/o such technology. I was unaware of their previous series having that cache size, and maybe that's the hope of the seller, too.
I bought a 60 GB Seagate drive in October 2001 to replace a 45 GB IBM Deskstar I got at the end of 2000, which began making the infamous loud click weeks earlier (front page coverage of which is what brought me to register at TR). The Seagate kept being moved to various new systems over the years and it worked well, but it appears to have begun to die 6-8 months ago, so I removed it for recovery/study at a date in the future (meaning probably never) after copying its data to another drive. It's the only Seagate I've ever had that has appeared to have a problem.
The main problem for my disk drives is that now and then temperatures may get high in the machine they're in, and that may cause data corruption. That was one of the 60 GB Seagate drive's outstanding attributes: it had the highest temperature rating I could find. Soon enough I'll be all SATA and all Seagate but my one Raptor, at least in my main machine. I can still remember when at least some Seagate drives had a bad reputation, back when drives were, as the other ancients here point out, sold by the MB (except it's not the real MB, it's a million bytes
).