Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!grian!alex From: alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re^2: Is an(y) Apple Hard Disk better than any others? Message-ID: <1989Oct6.080327.16026@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> Date: 6 Oct 89 08:03:27 GMT References: <1989Oct3.011412.2789@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1989Oct4.044057.19765@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> <1989Oct4.201337.27854@paris.ics.uci.edu> <1989Oct5.090136.5467@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> <1989Oct5.183440.18094@paris.ics.uci.e Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Lines: 117 More on hard drives, hopefully still of general interest. I'm willing, eager even, to hear from other people (hint hint) on this subject. I would like very much to talk to more tech. engineers at hard-drive companies mentioned, too. I want to work *with* and not *against* to help their customers get their data back when it's not currently retrievable. 'Scuse the edits, but this discussion is reaching Mammoth proportions already; you want the original text, read it in the previous messages... truesdel@ics.uci.edu (Scott Truesdell) writes: >alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes: >> I tend toward external drives on Macs (PCs too, occasionally). >Well, for dozens of reasons, external drives make sense. Ease of >swap-out in case of repair, sparing the inadequat power supplies >of most microcomputers, et. al. {then on to the 'neatness' factor of having everything in one box: SE/30} Agreed absolutely. The Mac has it all over the PC for true dragability--size and weight too. But I get a mite worried about the power supplies with all that in there. If your 5 and 12 Volts don't vary (usual first sign of power supply error in "classic" [?!] Macs is the screen jitters) much (1/2%? 1%?) with all that plugged in--go for it. I would if I had the money! >> Apple supplies are a >>constant source of terror and error, have been since the Apple II. Price >>pressure (even Apple feels it) means they cut corners, and ask Sony to >>do so on the supplies. This is an invisible headache cause which many >>people never notice. >The sad part is it's not that expensive to build 'em a little better. >From the OEM's reference, it'd add $1 or $2 to build 'em robust, no? Utterly correct. The poster who said Sony Would Never Cut Corners Like That is--misguided. I have to differ. We're talking razor-thin price margins. If GE is building 'em--great for GE, but the same comments apply. Maybe I just don't like anything that small that doesn't say "Sigma" or "Lambda" on it. >>[ref to Apple's power supplies], but the ones I've had apart don't make me >>very reassured. The best indicator, alas, is time. > ^^^^ > ackkk!!! there's that word again! You caught me. Now I have to pay royalties. >Seriously, though, even power supplies from "quality" vendors are >subject to this pricing pressure. Case in point: One of our favorite >OEMs, MicroNet, uses minimum PS technology in the external units. The >only RMAs I've had with MicroNet have been PS related and it's >(unfortunately) a higher average than I would like. All you CMS users out there, beware: CMS was, for over 8 months, using a 35-watt power supply in their external 80meg (Seagate ST-277N) drives, which take about 75 Watts at startup. The result is predictable: KA-BLOOIE! drives. Fried beyond repair. They kept it pretty quiet, no recalls or anything. If you have one of 'em, see if it's got a Skynet supply board. If so, you should contact CMS. >>Hmmm. If you have to have 3-1/2" form-factor, I'd go with ST-157N. >Really? I tend to shy away from Seagates when given an alternative. >Knowing the nature of your work, I value your opinion and will >reevaluate my policy on these drives. (backpedal backpedal, sounds of coughing and shuffling) I have re- re-considered this. The Seagates are, despite my constant grotching about commodity drives, not bad. But they are not the equal of the price you pay for a high-end Mac. Until CDC's 3.25" SCSIs are ready, I don't know WHAT to recommend; the Seagates work the best (note caveat) of the ones I've tested. But I have NOT tested the Conner SCSIs, the new new Rodime SCSIs, the "next-wave" sub-3" drives from PrarieTek or Areal, etc. And my friends at the repair places have essentially no experience with 3.25" SCSIs; too new. The Seagates are NOT as good as the MiniScribe 3.25" SCSIs, but they make much larger ones. At that, the largest is the 157N, though rumours of a new line of 3.25" drives from Seagate will likely become true at ComDex (nope: no inside bits. Just market watching.) And M/S has some problems outside the scope of this exercise. So I'm stuck for a recommendation within my experience. So I mentioned Seagate. >>Erm, didn't know CDC was STILL in the teething stage on [The Swift >>3.25" SCSIs] >Charles McConnethy told me they have been working with Imprimis on >these teething problems. I forget the precise nature of the problem[s] >though I remember that they were slight and almost solved. >>I might suggest Conners but my experience with the Compaq Conners has >>been--uninspiring. >Is that with the special ultra-power-miser version of the Conners? "Compaq Conners" says what I'm talking about: it all: the 40-pin "AT" or "direct" interface drives that Compaq buys from Conner. They're essentially impossible to get diagnosed or fixed (this may change in a month--stay tuned). They have some brilliant engineers. I'm just not sure they let them make engineering decisions. Is anyone interested in this stuff, or should Scott and I take it to mail? Alex