Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!cae780!amdcad!amdahl!oliveb!felix!john
From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Using single-sided disks double-sided.
Message-ID: <2998@felix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 18:06:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: felix.2998
Posted: Mon Jun 15 18:06:05 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 05:38:43 EDT
References: <5352@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1029@zog.cs.cmu.edu> <9766@duke.cs.duke.edu> <1010@apple.UUCP>
Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Distribution: world
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 35

In article <1010@apple.UUCP> han@apple.UUCP (Byron Han) writes:
>In article <9766@duke.cs.duke.edu>, cds@duke.cs.duke.edu (Craig D. Singer) 
>writes:
>> 
>> So SS disks are just like DS disks except that the other side has not been
>> tested by the manufacturer, and using SS disks as DS disks risks losing data
>> to a bad "other side."
>>
>Nope - you lose data on any one side of a DS disk and you usually lose the
>whole disk, unless you've got some recovery tools and then it is only a maybe
>on recovering some of the data.
> 

I think you both said about the same thing.

>The gist of the situations is as follows:  It is foolish to save a couple
>of bucks per case of diskettes to use single sided instead of double sided.
>

Well, where I buy disks, the difference is 16.99 for 15 SS, and 25.99
for 15 DS.  That's 52% more for DS.  Now, I look around my mac and I
see a LOT of disks here.

I am not advocating the use of SS as DS, but I wanted to point out that
I seem to have more than a "few bucks" extra invested in the DS variety.
Way more.






-- 
John Gilbert
.!trwrb!felix!john