vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (06/20/89)
OK, everyone answered my question about HD disks, but what about SS vs. DS? Is it kosher to use 5.25" SS/DD disks formatted at 360K, and 3.5" SS/DD disks formatted at 720K? -- O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
tcm@srhqla.UUCP (Tim Meighan) (06/20/89)
In article <2214@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: > >Is it kosher to use 5.25" SS/DD disks formatted at 360K . . . It depends on how important your data is to you. No one starts out intending to manufacture SS disks. What happens is that after a disk is manufactured, a surface defect test is run on it. If both sides fail to pass, the disk is rejected. If one side passes, the disk is marked SS. If both sides pass, the disk is marked DS. When you use the back side of a SS floppy, you are using media that the manufacturer doesn't think is good enough to sell. For me, floppies just aren't expensive enough to risk using questionable media. I do not believe that floppy manufacturers simply mark certain disks as DS and sell them for more because they can get away with it. If that were the case, they would simply sell the SS floppies at the higher DS price. Free plug: I have found Sony DS-DD diskettes to be incredibly good, better than any other floppies I have ever used. They can be had for under a buck a piece -- about 60 cents each if you buy in bulk. Pretty cheap for such high quality. I have no connection with Sony - just a satisfied buyer. Tim Meighan SilentRadio "I've got one, two, three, four, five . . . senses working overtime!"
msschaa@cs.vu.nl (Schaap MS) (06/21/89)
In article <2214@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: > >OK, everyone answered my question about HD disks, but what about SS vs. >DS? Is it kosher to use 5.25" SS/DD disks formatted at 360K, and 3.5" >SS/DD disks formatted at 720K? I have a PS/2 model 30 with 720k 3.5" disk drive, and I have bought (per accident) ten single sided disks 1.5 year ago. Since P.C.Dos cannot format 3.5" disks single sided (as far as I know), I had to format them double sided. They still work. Michael
sasg0244@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (06/22/89)
/* Written 6:31 pm Jun 19, 1989 by tcm@srhqla.UUCP in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.ibm.pc */ >In article <2214@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: >> >>Is it kosher to use 5.25" SS/DD disks formatted at 360K . . . >It depends on how important your data is to you. No one starts out intending >to manufacture SS disks. What happens is that after a disk is manufactured, >a surface defect test is run on it. If both sides fail to pass, the disk is >rejected. If one side passes, the disk is marked SS. If both sides pass, >the disk is marked DS. When you use the back side of a SS floppy, you >are using media that the manufacturer doesn't think is good enough to >sell. Well, this may have changed since I last looked into it, but as of a couple of years ago the only difference between SS and DS disks was that the manufacturers actually tested the second side of the DS disks. They had no idea if there were any defects on the second side of the SS disks. I've always bought SS disks and used them as DS disks and I've never had a problem. But hell, I could be wrong. Steve Sivier Future dead man
phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) (06/23/89)
In article <111700109@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> sasg0244@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >/* Written 6:31 pm Jun 19, 1989 by tcm@srhqla.UUCP in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.ibm.pc */ >>In article <2214@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu >(Cliff Joslyn) writes: >>>Is it kosher to use 5.25" SS/DD disks formatted at 360K . . . >Well, this may have changed since I last looked into it, but as of a >couple of years ago the only difference between SS and DS disks was >that the manufacturers actually tested the second side of the DS >disks. They had no idea if there were any defects on the second side >of the SS disks. I've always bought SS disks and used them as DS disks >and I've never had a problem. But hell, I could be wrong. > well what is stranger is the question of which side they were testing. I always used to marvel at this in the early micro days since the majority of single sided drives were either on low end Apples or low end PC's. Of course, given the lawas of engineering, each used a DIFFERENT side of the disk! No disk vendor that I am aware of (apart from IBM & Apple of course) ever labeled their single sided disks as for IBM or apple. My assumption was essentially that it was more a matter of insurance than a matter of strict quality control, e.g. they would't replace the SS disk if it failed at double sided but worked at SS. -phil -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* J. Philip Miller - Div of Biostat - Washington Univ Medical School phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet (314) 362-3617 c90562jm@wuvmd - alternate bitnet