Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!gary
From: gary@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: single sided disks
Message-ID: <2768@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 2-Aug-86 21:20:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2768
Posted: Sat Aug  2 21:20:08 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Aug-86 06:10:29 EDT
References: <252@pttesac.UUCP>
Organization: M.I.T. EE/CS Computer Facility, Cambridge MA
Lines: 21
Keywords: disks single sided

In article <252@pttesac.UUCP>, vanam@pttesac.UUCP writes:
> Mybrother, who has a MAC+, says that he uses
> single sided disks and he only gets a bad one out of every
> 10 that he tries.  Since single sided disks are typically
> 15 to 25% cheaper, it might be worth it to buy them for
> non-critical applications.  I've heard that single sided
> disks were originally made to be double sided but that
> the manufacturer's tests found one side to be bad and so
> sell them as single sided.  Can anyone confirm this?

Yes, that is what manufacturers often do, although I have heard
of manufacturers sometimes selling double sided disks as single
sided ones because of oversupplies of double sided*! disks.

Now, as far as using single sided disks as double sided, I NEVER
do this because of the major hassle of reconstructing a bad disk
and because I don't like unnecessary worry.  Also, think about what
you are REALLY saving...15 to 25% cheaper minus the 1 bad disk in
10...that makes them 5 to 15% cheaper...Is it really worth the worry?

	Gary