Re: Canadian readers

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Capitaine Caverne asked:

>ndeveau-don'tbefoolish@klis.com (Norman Deveau) a �crit
>news:ndeveau-don'tbefoolish-2208020451360001@dial7-15.yar.klis.com: 
>
>> In article <Xns9271C3A147CFACHRISK@213.228.0.136>, Capitaine Caverne
>> <no@mail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Why do you wan 3.5 DSDD ?? I allways use 3.5 HD disks on my IIGS
>>> without problems... If you want to read it later on a Macintosh, just
>>> put a piece of adhesive on the little hole opposite to the write
>>> protect switch... 
>> 
>> I have have used 3.5 HD disks but read  somewhere that they can be
>> unreliable. Not True?
>> 
>> Norm
>> 
>
>Why ? As long as they supports higher density don't know why it could be a 
>problem with lower densities...

Because in order to support higher densities, they have a magnetic coating
with a higher coercivity than DD disks.  An Apple DD drive cannot write these
disks "hard" enough to saturate the media, and the result is that data degrades
over time.  While HD disks may appear to work initially, they prove unreliable
for longer-term storage.  Many report data loss within days.  Others, weeks
or months.  Your mileage will depend on exactly what the coating formulation
is for your particular HD disks, and what kind of tolerances your disk drive
has on write current and read signals.

DSDD disks are not too hard to come by, and should always be used with
DD drives (except, perhaps for short-term data transfer in an emercency).
-michael

Check out 8-bit Apple sound that will amaze you on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/