Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!ginosko!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!ccssrv!perry
From: perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: RLL controllers & MFM disks
Summary: Is Seagate's warranty policy defensible?
Message-ID: <629@ccssrv.UUCP>
Date: 16 Sep 89 06:59:54 GMT
References: <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> <4044@wpi.wpi.edu>
Reply-To: perry@ccssrv.UUCP (Perry Hutchison)
Distribution: na
Organization: Control-C Software, Inc., Beaverton, OR
Lines: 30

In article <4044@wpi.wpi.edu> rrosen@wpi.wpi.edu (Robert L Rosenblatt) writes:

> In article <1989Sep14.163540.10746@i88.isc.com> iuster@i88.isc.com
> (Dan F. Iuster) writes:
> > the 4096's are not rated for RLL, nevertheless I was told that it works
> > 90% of the time.

> First thing that I should warn you about is that Seagate tech. has
> a very strict policy about the warranty which comes with there drives.

> If you format a mfm drive with a rll controller it is null and void, no
> more poof, if the hard disk dies seagate does not want to know your name.
> Same is true in reverse.

> The reason they do this is that they have not rated the 4096 for rll coding.
> It 'should' *work* if it doesn't work then the hard-disk dies and your up
> a creak without a paddle ...  Even if it does work, the hard-disk will fail
> more frequently ... you chances of losting data is larger.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This certainly seems reasonable.

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?

I can even less understand their objection to using an rll-rated drive with
an mfm controller.

Can anyone explain this?  Seagate, are you listening?