FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) (10/25/89)
In article <16315@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: > >On an aside, can someone from Apple confirm that the floppy drive >head-parking before eject fix has been included in 6.0.4? If not, >I'll stick with SafeEject for now. > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) Todd Wilson std disclaimer
FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) (10/25/89)
In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Todd Wilson) writes: >In article <16315@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >> >>On an aside, can someone from Apple confirm that the floppy drive >>head-parking before eject fix has been included in 6.0.4? If not, >>I'll stick with SafeEject for now. >> > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > Sorry, I just tried to find the source of this info and I can't. This info may or may not be correct. Since I posted it, I have read Chuq Von Rospach's posting and defer to it. Todd Wilson These are my opinions and not those of Prineton University or Apple Computer.
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (10/25/89)
In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) NoNoNoNoNo... Please, SafeEject is for 800K drives! Not the FDHDs! FDHDs park the heads. 800K drives to not and will sometimes rip the head off while trying to eject the disk, hence the need for SafeEject/ System 6.0.4. Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | E-mail: (BITNET/UUCP/INTERNET) Computer Resource Center Consultant | isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey M White) (10/25/89)
In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > Two questions. First, I thought the head was moved to the middle of the disk, to prevent it catching on the drive door. Is this true? Second, is there any harm (or benefit) by using it wiht ordinary 800k drives, and not just the superdrives? Jeff White University of Pennsylvania jeff@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
xerox@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (James Osborne) (10/26/89)
In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > >Todd Wilson >std disclaimer Wait a minute! I thought the whole problem was in the 800K drives and NOT the FDHDs!!!! -- ---------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, even at such time they may be that of my employer. Nor are they my own. UUCP/Internet/ARPA/(anything) James.Osborne@mac.Dartmouth.edu
danno@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) (10/26/89)
In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > >Todd Wilson >std disclaimer > Everyone who has jumped on Todd is WRONG. (Boy, don't you all feel toasted by that all-encompassing flame!) His statement should NOT be reduced to "This is the function of SafeEject, which was written for FDHDs." but rather "System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD." I don't know whether this is TRUE or not (hey, I can't answer every question for you :-), but that's what he said. He just said it in the wrong place, for which he should get two demerits for bad grammar. Ciao, Danno -- |\_______/| Someone send me a new Tragedy mask graphic!| Daniel McKinnon | | | | O O | Comedy must be played with a straight face;| danno@dartmouth.edu | \ | Only tragedy deserves laughter. |
bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (10/26/89)
In article <16360@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> danno@dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) writes: >In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >> It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >>System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >>ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >>SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > >"System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD." Let me see if I can shed some light on the subject... SafeEject was created in an attempt to frustrate hungry disk drives. You see, some 800k floppy (stiffy?) drives tended to grab the door of the disk in them as they attempted to eject it. This would ruin both the disk and the drive, and made a lot of people quite unhappy. The FDHD got around this problem by moving the read/write head to the very edge of the disk before ejecting it, thereby making the head (the part which would accidentally grab the floppy's protective door) miss the metal door altogether. This little work-around was implemented in the ROM of the new FDHD logic board. Now, someone got the idea that this would be a nifty thing to do for 800k floppies too, so he wrote the SafeEject INIT that will move the head to the edge of the disk whenever a 400k or 800k disk is ejected. If you read the documentation included with SafeEject, the author states that his program doesn't bother catering to FDHD disks because the hardware does the job for him. I'm not sure where the thing about System 6.0.4 comes into it. The new System doesn't include any patches for the disk eject code, or, if it doesn't, Apple is keeping hush-hush about it. (Not likely.) In summary: You still should use SafeEject with Systm 6.0.4 unless (a) you don't want to, or (b) you always use FDHD disks and never 400k or 800k ones. Me, I go with (a). I don't feel like having another unofficial INIT cluttering up my system. I like my drives, and they like me. Anyway, that's that. Any more flames? >;) -- | Brian S. Kendig | I feel more like I | bskendig | | Computer Engineering | did when I got here | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | | Princeton University | than I do now. | @PUCC.BITNET | | Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 |
xerox@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (James Osborne) (10/26/89)
In article <16360@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> danno@dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) writes: >In article <9989@pucc.Princeton.EDU> FTWILSON@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >> It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >>System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >>ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >>SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) >> >>Todd Wilson >>std disclaimer >> >Everyone who has jumped on Todd is WRONG. (Boy, don't you all feel toasted >by that all-encompassing flame!) His statement should NOT be reduced to > >"This is the function of SafeEject, which was written for FDHDs." > >but rather > >"System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD." > >I don't know whether this is TRUE or not (hey, I can't answer every question >for you :-), but that's what he said. He just said it in the wrong place, for >which he should get two demerits for bad grammar. > >Ciao, >Danno *sorry to do this net folks, but Danno is in need of a lesson in linguistics. Some may consider this wasting the net resources, but many more spurious postings have came before this...* OK, danno, *flame on*. You can not possibly infer that he meant "System 6.0.4 only eliminates the need for SafeEject if you have the FDHD" from what he said. His statement says 1. System 6.0.4 moves the drive head to the 79th track. 2. Moving the head to the 79th track is the function of SafeEject 3. THIS is for FDHDs only. Now, 'this' has a completely ambiguous anticedent, and therefore must be take to mean the previous statement, which was 2. Now, because 3 refers to 2, all of the people who flamed him were correct, and YOUR interpolation of the structure was incorrect. If we assume, though, that 3 does not refer to 2, then to be logical at all it must refer to 2 AND 1, since referring to 1 would be a gross misplacement of the PS (3). therefore, he is saying that 1 AND 2 are 3, where 3 = the domain {function of FDHDs}. This would mean that he is saying that system 6.0.4 moves to 79 in ONLY FDHDs and that SafeEject moves to 79 in FDHDs. You have no basis for inserting the conditional "if" as you have done. *flame off* *smiles for Algernon* -- ---------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, even at such time they may be that of my employer. Nor are they my own. UUCP/Internet/ARPA/(anything) James.Osborne@mac.Dartmouth.edu
danno@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) (10/26/89)
A long time ago, Todd Wilson said: > It would appear that you should not use SafeEject with 6.0.4. >System 6.0.4 DOES move the head to the 79th (I think) track before >ejection of the disk, which, as I understand it, is the function of >SafeEject. (PS this is for FDHDs ONLY) > >Todd Wilson >std disclaimer And many people jumped on him. I came to his defense, and this is what I got for my trouble: > >*sorry to do this net folks, but Danno is in need of a lesson in linguistics. from James Osborne. Interestingly, I had decided to rethink my position when I saw my own posting, even before James took exception to my opinion. After much deliberation, I have reached a transcendent understanding of Todd's posting. His statement,to use James' format, is as follows: 1. System 6.0.4 parks the heads ('moves the head to the 79th track') 2. This was the function of SafeEject. Therefore, SafeEject should not be used with 6.0.4 The problem arises from his PS. James once again asserted what I was denying: that the PS meant "SafeEject is for FDHDs only." People thought Todd said this because the PS was, indeed, grossly misplaced. (That was my objective, to clear up the misplacement.) The statement "which, to my understanding, is the function of SafeEject" in only incidental to the statement, and is not the subject of the PS. To recap: Todd's point, from what I can reason, was that 6.0.4 will park the heads, but only on FDHDs. His error, then, was in implying that FDHDs did not do this until 6.0.4. I was told they did this from the beginning. But I shall not use my correctness as a basis for a personal flame against Mr. Osborne. My original "flame" was a small jest, which I thought would be obvious. -- |\_______/| Someone send me a new Tragedy mask graphic!| Daniel McKinnon | | | | O O | Comedy must be played with a straight face;| danno@dartmouth.edu | \ | Only tragedy deserves laughter. |
danno@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) (10/26/89)
In article <11081@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: > >In summary: You still should use SafeEject with Systm 6.0.4 unless (a) >you don't want to, or (b) you always use FDHD disks and never 400k or 800k >ones. > >Anyway, that's that. Any more flames? >;) > >-- >| Brian S. Kendig | I feel more like I | bskendig | >| Computer Engineering | did when I got here | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | >| Princeton University | than I do now. | @PUCC.BITNET | >| Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 | Flame? No. Just a clarification. If the FDHD fixes the problem in ROM, then (b) should read "You always use FDHD *drives* and never 800K drives." In other words, if you've got an SE/30 with an external 800K drive, you might want it still around. But an 800K *disk* in an FDHD should work fine. This should be obvious, since FDHD means drive. Which makes "FDHD disk" an oxymoron. An anecdote: someone called the help line here yesterday, saying how when she ejected the disk, the shutter stayed behind. So, anyone who doesn't believe it happens, IT HAPPENS! Why am I sure this isn't over yet? -- |\_______/| Someone send me a new Tragedy mask graphic!| Daniel McKinnon | | | | O O | Comedy must be played with a straight face;| danno@dartmouth.edu | \ | Only tragedy deserves laughter. |
bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) (10/26/89)
In article <16371@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> danno@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) writes: >In article <11081@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> bskendig@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brian Kendig) writes: >> >>In summary: You still should use SafeEject with Systm 6.0.4 unless (a) >>you don't want to, or (b) you always use FDHD disks and never 400k or 800k >>ones. > >Flame? No. Just a clarification. If the FDHD fixes the problem in ROM, >then (b) should read "You always use FDHD *drives* and never 800K >drives." In other words, if you've got an SE/30 with an external 800K >drive, you might want it still around. But an 800K *disk* in an FDHD >should work fine. oOps! You're right. A faux pas on my part. Actually, tho', I'm not too sure. There are four possible combinations of disks and drives: FDHD drive with a FDHD disk (yes, an oxymoron) inside: It takes care of the heads automatically. No problem there. FDHD drive with an 800k or 400k disk: Does anyone know if the FDHD board takes care of this situation? It seems silly for the drive to check what kind of disk it's reading and decide from that whether or not to execute the safeguard... 800k or 400k drive with a FDHD disk: Get real. 800k or 400k drive with an 800k or 400k disk: You need SafeEject. Any Apple dudes care to comment on the situation of an 800k disk in a FDHD drive? >An anecdote: someone called the help line here yesterday, saying how >when she ejected the disk, the shutter stayed behind. So, anyone who >doesn't believe it happens, IT HAPPENS! I've gotten mail to the same effect from several people. I've decided to install SafeEject - just to be safe. Thanks for the warning! -- | Brian S. Kendig | I feel more like I | bskendig | | Computer Engineering | did when I got here | @phoenix.Princeton.EDU | | Princeton University | than I do now. | @PUCC.BITNET | | Systems Engineering, NASA Space Station Freedom / General Electric WP3 |
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (10/27/89)
On AppleLink there's a memo that says the following (paraphrasing):
SafeEject is not needed and should not be used on the Mac IIx, IIcx,
SE/30, IIci, and Portable, or any machine upgraded with the FDHD upgrade
kit. There's code in the ROM of these machines to move the heads to track
79 before ejecting the disk.
In System 6.0.4, the resource ptch=7 patches the disk driver on the Mac
Plus, SE and II to provide the same fix. I disassembled this resource,
and a quick glance at it show that it installs some new code in the low
level I/O vectors, so I believe that the fix is in 6.0.4.
I hope this answers the question once and for all.
Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist
Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr
AppleLink: Rosenstein1djz@cbnews.ATT.COM (Danny Zerkel) (10/27/89)
In article <4910@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >On AppleLink there's a memo that says the following (paraphrasing): ... >In System 6.0.4, the resource ptch=7 patches the disk driver on the Mac >Plus, SE and II to provide the same fix. I disassembled this resource, >and a quick glance at it show that it installs some new code in the low >level I/O vectors, so I believe that the fix is in 6.0.4. > >I hope this answers the question once and for all. > >Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. >Object Specialist I noticed that my disk drive "sounds" different as soon as I installed 6.0.4 on my Plus, since I did not have SafeEject. I am lead to the conclusion that the fix is indead installed. Thanks Apple! Now if I could only figure out why I had to remove those other INITs... Danny Zerkel AT&T Bell Labs Columbus, OH
mmig6535@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (10/30/89)
and remember you can put your coats on the top peg unless you're had your lunch in which case put your coats on the bottom peg before writing your letters aftereating your lunch...