Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!udel!rochester!pt!zog.cs.cmu.edu!tgl
From: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Using single-sided disks double-sided.
Message-ID: <1029@zog.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 7-Jun-87 14:27:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: zog.1029
Posted: Sun Jun  7 14:27:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 08:40:50 EDT
References: <5352@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: tgl@zog.cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane)
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 24

>Is there anything wrong with formatting disks labeled as single-sided as
>double-sided?

This seems to come up every 3 months on this newsgroup.  The official
line is, as you say, that the back side of a SS disk is not tested.
It might be OK, then again, it might not.  In this situation about all
you have to go on is anecdotal evidence, so here's my $0.02 worth:
I did it ONCE and got BURNT.  This was three or so years ago when DS
3.5" drives were first becoming available.  The disks in question were
Hewlett-Packard disks, which are made for HP by Sony; Sony has the
reputation of being the best brand of disk (see postings in this group
a couple of months back concerning independent tests).  So it wasn't a
case of cheap off-brand disks.

It may be that these days SS disks are more likely to be good on the
back side.  Personally, I wouldn't trust my data to the back of a SS
disk.  The real bottom line is, as always, how much is that data worth
to you?

				tom lane
-----
ARPA: lane@ZOG.CS.CMU.EDU
UUCP: ...!seismo!zog.cs.cmu.edu!lane
BITNET: lane%zog.cs.cmu.edu@cmuccvma