davis@clocs.cs.unc.edu (Mark Davis) (09/18/89)
In article <629@ccssrv.UUCP> perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison) writes: > ... >I can see why Seagate wouldn't want to warrant the _performance_ of a non-rll >drive with an rll controller, but if it didn't work what's to prevent re- >formatting and using it with an mfm controller? Surely the attempt at rll >isn't going to physically damage anything, is it? You are right, no damage. However, some less than intellegent controllers (some WD models for instance), cannot format a drive that has been formatted MFM. I do not remember the specifics, but it was discussed here on comp.sys.ibm.pc about a year ago. >I can even less understand their objection to using an rll-rated drive with >an mfm controller. Just trying to keep it simple. >Can anyone explain this? Seagate, are you listening? I believe that part of the problem is that when RLL first came into use, there were many drive/ controller combinations that did not work well. The Adaptec / ST225 is one that came to mind. This unreliable behaviour and the poor understanding of the problem by the user base must have caused all kinds of grief to Seagate. They had to fix a lot of drives that weren't broken (according to their specs) and their technical service department must have had a zillion phone calls. Part of the difference in cost between RLL and non RLL drives must be some insurance for tech support. So, in addition to the testing, you are also paying a little bit for the added chance that you will call Seagate with a problem with your drive. Another factor is company reputation. If you take an MFM drive, try to use it RLL, and it does not work, are you going to think highly of Seagate? They don't want their drives to fail, even when not used as designed. OK, so the point is that Seagate uses their warranty to enforce these desires (pay tech support for RLL problems and keep you from using the drives in a way that make them more likely to fail). With the way the warrantly works, you can't use up Seagates tech support or repair services because you pushed the MFM to RLL. You can't complain that Seagate make lousy stuff because you violated their warranty. Me, I don't like the policy; I would much rather all of their drives work reliably with all RLL controllers. But the policy makes sense, appears to be ethical to me, and I don't think less of the company for it. I suspect that this approach helps keep the cost of their drives down. Disclaimer: I have no connection with Seagate. The above opinions are based on public Seagate literature and what I know about the disk business in general. I don't really know why they made their warrantly policy the way they did or how they fund tech support or repair. Thanks - Mark (davis@cs.unc.edu or uunet!mcnc!davis)
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (09/21/89)
In article <9533@thorin.cs.unc.edu> davis@cs.unc.edu (Mark Davis) writes: [regarding using non-RLL specified drives with RLL cards:] >Another factor is company reputation. If you take an MFM drive, try >to use it RLL, and it does not work, are you going to think highly of >Seagate? No, but when I can _consistently_ connect a Maxtor or a Micropolis non-RLL-specified drive to an RLL controller and it works reliably for many users for a long time I_will_ think highly of those two companies. And more importantly, I will certainly _spend_ highly on those two companies! kEITHe