Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sac90286
From: sac90286@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: about Seagates...
Message-ID: <111700030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 89 21:32:00 GMT
References: <6135@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:phoenix.Princeton.EDU:6135:uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:111700030:000:952
Nf-From: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!sac90286    Feb  8 15:32:00 1989


/* Written  6:46 pm  Feb  6, 1989 by mcintyre@rpics in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.ibm.pc */
In article <677@sactoh0.UUCP> bkbarret@sactoh0.UUCP (Brent K. Barrett) writes:
Brett must have missed the 100's of messages previously in this group
about failed, no-good, worthless 225's.  Seagate 225's are the only
hard drive that had a 40% DOA rate at the store I worked in, and many
of those that I told people to buy are now dead.

Many Seagate 225's have bad stepper motor controllers, which make it
difficult to read track 0 after a while.  This makes a disk sort
of hard to call reliable, huh??

/* End of text from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.ibm.pc */

If you really hate them that much, just ship 'em to me (I'll pay the
freight). Not only have I been running an ST225, but I have been running
it from an RLL controller! 

Besides, even if track 0 goes bad/can't be reached, a little creative
partitioning will take care of that problem toot sweet...