Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:7371 comp.multimedia:304 comp.misc:12016
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!travis!hrshcx!steved
From: steved@hrshcx.csd.harris.com (Steve Daukas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.multimedia,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Diffs between DD & HD disks
Summary: It still works!
Message-ID: <1064@hrshcx.csd.harris.com>
Date: 8 Apr 91 17:45:41 GMT
References: <1991Apr6.234019.2894@agate.berkeley.edu> <571@lysator.liu.se> <22191.28006b16@cluster@ukc.ac.uk>
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Organization: Harris Computer Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 23

In article <22191.28006b16@cluster@ukc.ac.uk> cur022%cluster@ukc.ac.uk (Bob Eager) writes:
>In article <571@lysator.liu.se>, zap@lysator.liu.se (Zap Andersson) writes:
>> Most diskette manifacturers use the same media for 1.44 and 720k disks.
>> However, a test is done on each disk, and if it falls below a certain
>> threshold in reliability, they go in the 720k bucket, otherwise they
>> will become 1.44 Meg's.....

>This was true for single-sided vs. double sided disks, where the media
>used the same coating both sides. It's true for chips, too. It is NOT true
>for DD vs. HD disks - the actual magnetic coating has a different makeup.

However, this tatic still works fine!  I have been doing this for years
with so few failures, I get surprised when they do happen.  The magnetic
coating may be a different composition, but the DD holds HD data just
fine (I have some disks from 1986 that still read perfectly well).

Steve

-- 
.-------------------..-------------------------.
| Stephen C. Daukas ||  sdaukas@csd.harris.com |
| (617) 221-1834    || uunet!hcx1!misg!sdaukas |
`-------------------'`-------------------------'