One doesn't follow the other. A double-helix chemical structure can form without having the sequencing necessary for any form of life. You can form a double-helix structure without encoding data simply by mixing random base pairs. However, DNA for a living organism will have the necessary sequencing for life. The data is in the unique sequence of the bases (A, C, G, and T), after all, so the hard drive analogy is valid because it likewise deals with data.
You are assuming that DNA is a a blueprint. This has been the most widely used analogy for decades, but it fails on a number of fronts. Blueprints can be read and the final product rendered as it would appear if built.
DNA cannot be read and rendered this way. You can possibly read a few fragments and interpret misspellings, but you cannot predict the outcome of a major change.
And even you had the Godlike power to render the shape of an organism from its DNA, you could not predict its viability, particulary in competition with other organisms. Heck, we can't even predict the outcome of Battlebots in competition. this is why wastage is such a common feature of living systems.