Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site datagen.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!rocky2!datagen!boykin
From: boykin@datagen.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: ds vs. ss disks
Message-ID: <47@datagen.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Dec-83 10:31:50 EST
Article-I.D.: datagen.47
Posted: Thu Dec  1 10:31:50 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Dec-83 12:47:23 EST
Organization: Data General Dist. Systems, Westborough, MA
Lines: 25

I agree that ss disks are probably those which didn't make
it through the ds tests. In addition, most of those disks
are probably perfectly acceptable to use ds as well as ss.
HOWEVER, you say that ds disks are probably not worth the
extra money, that's foolish! (I wanted to say something else
but decided to keep it clean!).

Given the amount of time and effort it takes to i.e. write and
debug a program, or compose a letter with your editor, do
you really think that saving yourself 20% of a pretty small
investment (especially when compared to the overall cost of your
system) is worthwhile.  Personally, I say no; the risk is too great.
My time is valuable and I don't want to rewrite that program, that
letter, or even a four line batch file just because my disk can't
stand the workout I give it.  If it means spending an
extra dollar per disk, I believe it's worth the cost.

In addition, I'm as foolish to belive that spending a little extra
to get high quality disks (I define those to be Maxell or Dysan)
rather than junk is also worth the price.

Joe Boykin
Data General Corp.   (Distributed Systems Group)
...(decvax!ittvax, allegra, rocky2)!datagen!boykin