Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT floppy disks
Message-ID: <1990Dec17.093357.10756@kithrup.COM>
Date: 17 Dec 90 09:33:57 GMT
References: <1990Dec16.072544.233@rice.edu> <1990Dec16.093107.26718@ecst.csuchico.edu> <1990Dec17.065959.19798@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 29

In article <1990Dec17.065959.19798@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> ta-aca@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew C. Athan) writes:
>This is just EXACTLY what the disk manufacturers want you to believe.  

*Bzzt*  Wrong answer, but thanks for playing anyway.

>As far
>as *I* know (and this has been confirmed to me over and over by people who'se
>knowledge on the subject I trust...) the ONLY difference between HD and 720k
>disks is the CERTIFICATION:  i.e., the disk manufacturer wrote to the disk a
>few times and verified that "yes indeedy this thing retains data."

That is true, as far as it goes.  But you forgot a step:  they throw out any
ones which don't pass teh certfication.  And, yep, a few don't (how much
depends on the manufacturer).  If the manufacturing process is sufficiently
high-yield, there is a much better chance that your 720k floppy will work in
a HD drive.  If, however, it isn't (say they use an older, less reliable
plant for the 720k floppies), then you stand a much better chance of getting
a bum floppy.

Knowing all that, you takes your chances.  I rarely use floppies, but I have
run into ones that would not format at high density; these were returned to
the manufacturer (since we bought them as high density).  I should ammend
that:  they would format, but the verification would fail.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.