4 Dec
2000
4 Dec
'00
4:38 p.m.
Mike --
Thanks for the very helpful information about this drive. The
"documentation" consists of a user's manual with no technical data. The
connector on the TS2068 version is different than what you describe but
otherwise it seems the same.
There were actually two versions for the TS2068, each using a slightly
different tape. Both types seem to be equally unreliable. The tapes
self-destruct if you look at them the wrong way.
In fact, these are absolutely the crappiest storage devices I have ever seen
used on any computer.
Any challengers for worst storage device?
Glen Goodwin
0/0
5 Dec
5 Dec
7:22 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 645 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20001205/0d7d52bb/at…
8:23 a.m.
Hey I remember this...
Any disk drive without a track 0 sensor (Apple ][,
Commodore, etc). The
heads bang themselves out of alignment with time.
OPEN 15,8,15,"I0:NEWDISK,ND"
BRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!! (let the record reflect that the email
author made a Sten machinegun noise).
I remember making a timing light for Commodore 1541 drives out of a neon lamp
and a 1N4007 diode, which one would play on the timing marks on the drive
spindle. Then there was a pot you could adjust to change the rate of the
spindle motor.
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
10:10 a.m.
Hey I remember this...
True for 1541s, but not 1571s. 1571s do have a track 0 sensor. And a v3.1
1571 is the best 5.25" drive out there, I submit -- with appropriate software,
a 1571 can read most MFM formats, plus Commodore GCR, and runs very fast
when connected to a 128 in 128 mode.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- The Commodore 64: the last true plug-and-play computer. --------------------
Any disk drive without a track 0 sensor (Apple
][, Commodore, etc). The
heads bang themselves out of alignment with time.
OPEN 15,8,15,"I0:NEWDISK,ND" 
6 Dec
6 Dec
9:24 a.m.
Hey I remember
this...
True for 1541s, but not 1571s. 1571s do have a track 0 sensor. And a
v3.1 1571 is the best 5.25" drive out there, I submit -- with
appropriate software, a 1571 can read most MFM formats, plus Commodore
GCR, and runs very fast when connected to a 128 in 128 mode.
Any disk drive without a track 0 sensor (Apple
][, Commodore,
etc). The heads bang themselves out of alignment with time.
OPEN 15,8,15,"I0:NEWDISK,ND"
12:37 p.m.
> > > Any disk drive without a track 0 sensor
(Apple ][, Commodore,
> > > etc). The heads bang themselves out of alignment with time.
> > OPEN 15,8,15,"I0:NEWDISK,ND"
> True for 1541s, but not 1571s. 1571s do have a
track 0 sensor. And a
> v3.1 1571 is the best 5.25" drive out there, I submit -- with
> appropriate software, a 1571 can read most MFM formats, plus Commodore
> GCR, and runs very fast when connected to a 128 in 128 mode.
How does one identify the version of 1571 ? Could you
expand on
what you mean by appropriate software ? Are there other platforms
it can be used on ?
No, unfortunately -- just Commodore 8-bits. You can either figure out ROM
version by cracking it open and reading the EPROM serial number, or sending
the drive a UI command and reading the error channel -- it should say the
DOS version in the error string (something like 73,CBM DOS 1571 V3.1,00,00).
You can get the DOS version of any Commodore drive that way.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Predestination was doomed from the start. ----------------------------------
12:32 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 682 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20001206/e39f2b25/at…
2:46 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
Since the CBM serial bus protocol is documented
somewhere (and there are
plenty of hackers who've dug into the C64 and C128 ROMs), I don't think
there's a good reason why the 1571 (and other CBM peripherals) can't be
linked up to _any_ computer and the serial bus simulated by bit-banging
on a TTL-level I/O port.
In fact, isn't there a well-known program to at
least read/write disks in
1541 drives from an MS-DOS box?
There are loads of such utilities and cables, but they seldom work in a way
compatible to the host filesystem.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Alle meine Noten bringen mich nicht aus den N?ten, und ich schreibe noten
?berhaupt nur aus N?ten.
--- Ludwig van Beethoven
2:58 p.m.
> No, unfortunately -- just Commodore 8-bits. You
can either figure out
ROM
Since the CBM serial bus protocol is documented somewhere (and there are
plenty of hackers who've dug into the C64 and C128 ROMs), I don't think
there's a good reason why the 1571 (and other CBM peripherals) can't be
linked up to _any_ computer and the serial bus simulated by bit-banging
on a TTL-level I/O port.
In fact, isn't there a well-known program to at least read/write disks in
1541 drives from an MS-DOS box?
You're referring to X1541. It will talk to a 1541 via a special cable
between the drive and a parallel port. ISTR there is more than one C-64/128
emulator out there that will use any Commodore serial peripheral that's
connected that way. You can even hook up a Commodore printer to the drive
and talk to it.
g.
4:40 p.m.
Since the CBM serial bus protocol is documented
somewhere (and there are
plenty of hackers who've dug into the C64 and C128 ROMs), I don't think
there's a good reason why the 1571 (and other CBM peripherals) can't be
linked up to _any_ computer and the serial bus simulated by bit-banging
on a TTL-level I/O port.
In fact, isn't there a well-known program to at least read/write disks in
1541 drives from an MS-DOS box?
Star Commander, yes, and the C64S emulator can as well, but they're limited
to dealing in .d64s and isolated files. The Commodore filesystem doesn't
translate so good with DOS and vice-versa.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- If everyone is abnormal, then no one is. -----------------------------------
7 Dec
7 Dec
4:28 a.m.
New subject: Star Commander / CCS64 plug
This is one of my favorite programs...
Star Commander, yes, and the C64S emulator can as
well, but they're limited
to dealing in .d64s and isolated files. The Commodore filesystem doesn't
translate so good with DOS and vice-versa.
Plug #1: As far as utilities written by & for hardware hackers go, The Star
Commander by Joe Foster/STA has got to be one of the best. It's a two-panel
type file manager in the style of Norton Commander or Midnight Commander.
Star Commander however, allows you to treat a Commodore 1540, 1541 or 1571
floppy as if it were a normal A or B floppy on the host system.
The CBM floppy drive connects to the host's parallel port via any one of
several cables, based on the X1541 concept. The X1541 concept has one major
weakness: speed. The X1541 design uses the parallel port as a serial
connection, and hence only sends one-bit words. There is at least one other
design, that while requiring some modifications to be done to the CBM drive,
allows a true parallel data path; 8-bit words. This latter design is
significantly faster than the standard X1541 design.
Full information on The Star Commander and the various supported transfer
cables can be found at:
http://sta.c64.org/sc.html
Plug #2: CCS64 Emulator by Per Hakan Sundell. This is far and away, the best
DOS / Windows emulator for the Commodore64. I have yet to find anything that
it could not do, and it's full of extra features (overclock your virtual
C-64, etc.). Mr Sundell is a very impressive programmer, as this work alone
will show. Homepage for CCS64 is found at:
http://www.computerbrains.com/ccs64/
Hope this is interesting to someone.
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
Viking Electronics, Inc.
1531 Industrial St.
Hudson, WI. 54016 - U.S.A
715.386.8861 ext. 210
<http://www.vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
"Telecom Solutions for the 21st Century"
Powered by Slackware Linux 7.1.0
9:22 a.m.
New subject: Star Commander / CCS64 plug
> Star Commander, yes, and the C64S emulator can as
well, but they're limited
> to dealing in .d64s and isolated files. The Commodore filesystem doesn't
> translate so good with DOS and vice-versa.
Plug #2: CCS64 Emulator by Per Hakan Sundell. This is
far and away, the best
DOS / Windows emulator for the Commodore64. I have yet to find anything that
it could not do, and it's full of extra features (overclock your virtual
C-64, etc.). Mr Sundell is a very impressive programmer, as this work alone
will show. Homepage for CCS64 is found at:
Not CCS64, but C64S -- one of the earliest emulators. C64S itself is quite
good in its own way -- it is the only emulator that can send sound to the
internal PC speaker, and it is the only emulator that can talk to serial
devices using an X1541 cable. It also runs well on a 386 since it was written
in assembly by hand. Very few emulators nowadays can do any of these feats,
let alone all three.
But CCS64 is also very good. :-)
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Philosophy will clip an angel's wings. -- John Keats -----------------------
5 Dec
5 Dec
10:31 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Bill Layer wrote:
Hey I remember this...
^^^^\
- Boy, there is a name from the past! Don't think
I have hear/read it since the Uzi came on the scene.
- don
Any disk drive without a track 0 sensor (Apple
][, Commodore, etc). The
heads bang themselves out of alignment with time.
OPEN 15,8,15,"I0:NEWDISK,ND"
BRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!! (let the record reflect that the email
author made a Sten machinegun noise). I remember making a timing light for Commodore 1541
drives out of a neon lamp
and a 1N4007 diode, which one would play on the timing marks on the drive
spindle. Then there was a pot you could adjust to change the rate of the
spindle motor.
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
10:54 a.m.
In fact, these are absolutely the crappiest storage
devices I have ever seen
used on any computer.
Any challengers for worst storage device?
I learned to hate the cassette interface on the AIM65 over time pretty
intensely.
Without the early suffering I think you can't fully appreciate how
wonderfull a CDR or CDRW is.
12:36 p.m.
In <l03102801b653141dc9a0(a)[192.168.1.4]>4]>, on 12/05/00
at 06:36 PM, Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com> said:
>In fact, these are absolutely the crappiest storage
devices I have ever seen
>used on any computer.
>
>Any challengers for worst storage device?
My experience with moving head and moving media technology has not been a
happy one.
Disks are inherently unreliable due to thier moving media and moving
heads. Tape too. In many cases, tape heads and media also move.
Disk/tape technology is going to give way to some solid-state system in
the not too distant future.
As to unreliable drives:
The Atari Cassette drive was never any good.
The Rana 1000 disk drive had no track 0 sensor so literally knocked
it'self out of alignment.
The Percom AT8 series drives weren't compatible with themselves.
The SWP ATR8000 series computers had the same problem Percoms did....
The Atari XF551 would break if you plugged it in.
Those 40mb Xebec drives that WD bought out and added a IDE interface to
were horrible.
Miniscribe 3650
The Seagate ST125,138, and 157A were horrible. Buy 10 return 11. In fact,
any seagate made after the ol' 200 series are aweful. That is until they
bought Conner out and things began to improve.
I can't say that the Prairytek drives stacked up very well.
Toshiba 2.5" ide hard disk mechs. BEWARE! I told you so.
Microscience low-end drives were bad too.
Whatever name of the hard disk maker that bought Atari was. Thier drives
aren't too great, but better than Seagates of the time.
There are lots of bad drive makers out there to chose from.
How about a vote on the BEST disk drives ever?
I'd vote:
Bulletproof drives:
The Atari 810, 1050, and any modified version
Seagate St225,251, and 4096 interface version notwithstanding
Teac floppy mechanisms - just great mechs
CDC/Imprimis hard disks
Regards,
Jeff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
President
Complete Computer Services, Inc.
30 Greenwood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28803
828-277-5959
Visit our website at HTTP://www.Real-Techs.com
THETechnoid(a)home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
7:12 p.m.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 THETechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
In <l03102801b653141dc9a0(a)[192.168.1.4]>4]>, on
12/05/00
at 06:36 PM, Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com> said:
You are right, of course. You just cannot beat a chisel and a flat
rock!
- don
>In fact, these are absolutely the crappiest
storage devices I have ever seen
>used on any computer.
>
>Any challengers for worst storage device?
My experience with moving head and moving media technology has not been a
happy one.
Disks are inherently unreliable due to thier moving media and moving
heads. Tape too. In many cases, tape heads and media also move. Disk/tape technology is going to give way to some
solid-state system in
the not too distant future.
As to unreliable drives:
The Atari Cassette drive was never any good.
The Rana 1000 disk drive had no track 0 sensor so literally knocked
it'self out of alignment.
The Percom AT8 series drives weren't compatible with themselves.
The SWP ATR8000 series computers had the same problem Percoms did....
The Atari XF551 would break if you plugged it in.
Those 40mb Xebec drives that WD bought out and added a IDE interface to
were horrible.
Miniscribe 3650
The Seagate ST125,138, and 157A were horrible. Buy 10 return 11. In fact,
any seagate made after the ol' 200 series are aweful. That is until they
bought Conner out and things began to improve.
I can't say that the Prairytek drives stacked up very well.
Toshiba 2.5" ide hard disk mechs. BEWARE! I told you so.
Microscience low-end drives were bad too.
Whatever name of the hard disk maker that bought Atari was. Thier drives
aren't too great, but better than Seagates of the time.
There are lots of bad drive makers out there to chose from.
How about a vote on the BEST disk drives ever?
I'd vote:
Bulletproof drives:
The Atari 810, 1050, and any modified version
Seagate St225,251, and 4096 interface version notwithstanding
Teac floppy mechanisms - just great mechs
CDC/Imprimis hard disks
Regards,
Jeff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
President
Complete Computer Services, Inc.
30 Greenwood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28803
828-277-5959
Visit our website at HTTP://www.Real-Techs.com
THETechnoid(a)home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
6 Dec
6 Dec
10:56 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Don Maslin wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 THETechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
Sure you can.... With a hammer!
clint
In <l03102801b653141dc9a0(a)[192.168.1.4]>4]>,
on 12/05/00
at 06:36 PM, Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com> said:
You are right, of course. You just cannot beat a chisel and a flat
rock!
- don
>In fact, these are absolutely the crappiest
storage devices I have ever seen
>used on any computer.
>
>Any challengers for worst storage device?
My experience with moving head and moving media technology has not been a
happy one.
Disks are inherently unreliable due to thier moving media and moving
heads. Tape too. In many cases, tape heads and media also move. 
6:54 a.m.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 THETechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
Miniscribe 3650
I think I had one of these. 3.5" HH 40 MB MFM disk? ca. 60ms seek
times? Loudest drive I've ever heard.
How about the Exabyte 8200? Famous for forgetting they had tapes in them
and refusing to eject. Not only that, but it was commonly referred to as
the 'write once, read never' backup media.
We won't talk about the TK50.
I will, however, nominate any hard disk Micropolis made which was in a
smaller form factor than 5.25" FH. Garbage.
Oh, and the Seagate Barracudas. Ran so fast they burned themselves up. At
one point we had a 50% DOA rate on these drives. The remaining ones
usually fried inside of 30 days. We never did figure out how Seagate
managed to come up with their 500k-hour MTBF on these disks. The Hawks
were nearly as bad.
The ST51080N, though.. super-nice. Small, cool, quiet, reasonably
quick. Where did that one come from? A diamond amongst dung. That drive
was physically unique in Seagate's lineup, as far as I could ever tell. It
certainly wasn't for not having looked.
How about a vote on the BEST disk drives ever?
The IBM UltraStar ES.
Bulletproof drives:
Seagate St225,251, and 4096 interface version notwithstanding
Nah, I had a 4096N which had stiction. It took progressively stronger
shocks to the chassis to get it to spin up, until finally I was beating it
with a shoe. That situation ultimately ended in a head crash and data
loss.
r.
8:07 a.m.
How about a
vote on the BEST disk drives ever?
The IBM UltraStar ES. 
9:35 a.m.
New subject: World's Crappiest Drives
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:54:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "r. 'bear' stricklin" <red(a)bears.org>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: World's Crappiest Drives (was Re: A&J Microdrive)
Reply-to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 THETechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
Any seagate st2xx and st1xx with upgraded seektimes denoted by the -1
suffix) and miniscrbes with "+" suffix. noisy and short lived. The
mechanicals not designed to take that kind of stress. Voice coil is
a must when going sub 40ms w/ fast track to track seeks. Also those
seagate I listed also those miniscribes. they had heat deaths as
well, those stepper ICs cooked nice DARK golden brown spots on PCBs.
More specially on miniscribes, they develop stress cracks both in
mechanicals and on PCB, two screws that holds the gear rack to the
head platform in turn rides on rails loosens up with time and timing
got lost. That gives this common "SOS" flashes. On Seagate all
ST2xx series, a small spring that takes up the slack inside that
spindle bearing assembly weakens and more loose causing data errors.
On all st4xxx only ones with external motor cap that rotates has very
soft steel spindle shaft and bad batches of bearings also and all
drives based on st251 series has soft shaft also. Soft shaft bends
very easily when bumped.
Yes that's right, did my analysis on failed and dying drives.
Miniscribe 3650
I think I had one of these. 3.5" HH 40 MB MFM disk? ca. 60ms seek
times? Loudest drive I've ever heard. I will, however, nominate any hard disk Micropolis
made which was in a
smaller form factor than 5.25" FH. Garbage.
Confirmed. I had dud 11 micropolis based on 3.5" 1" height drives
shipped to me by a seller along with few sick cdroms, 1 quantum hd
that I replaced for warrenty. Good deal.
Those micropolis 3.5" drives shudders.... they had NO QC at all. No
problems on circuit boards, only no torque at all on 80% of
screws!! The platters is only held in place by friction via a
pressed in hub ring onto second equally loose hub ring, in turn to
rest of platter stack. I said loose because that platters hub hole
where hub goes through has very loose 1mm slack. Simply center all
the platters and platter rings then last hub ring pressed to secure
it all. A hard good non-dinging damage bump is enough to shift it
all.
Oh, and the Seagate Barracudas. Ran so fast they
burned themselves up. At
Yup, got working 2.1 barracuda for a bux. Did test it ok but still
needs to find a proper quality cooling bracket.
The ST51080N, though.. super-nice. Small, cool, quiet,
reasonably
A word about this. all ST5xxxx series is bit fussy about handling due
to lightly built casing to get ".75 height and the tape band that
goes around the seam for a seal tears real easy. Young techs and
idiots rips open that foil-like band from rough handling and
installation and dust gets in and that drive dies.. Any st5xxxx that
are babied w/ care lasted long time. Oh, they're GREAT and they
never heat up at all in lousy cases. Another note, it was nice
performance for that time but Seagate didn't forgave those techs who
cares about details, $eagate cut down that buffer size to 128K from
256K. >:-P And early ST5series smaller than 1G has 4500rpm while
greater than 1GB got 5400. YUK.
Many reviewers who envaluated drives says buffer sizes doesn't matter
much but I do notice the differences. Much as you can get in any
given drives helps lot. Wistress the WD, Protege series, 2MB,
5400rpm, dense platter and I didn't notice the loss in performance
compared to my GXP 9GB 7200rpm w/ 2MB but big deal for me that
protege is deathly quiet and cool to the touch. IBM got the award as
well for making speedy hd that is not so noisy. Maxtor, where are
you, those drives so noisy and odd performance loss!?.
The IBM UltraStar ES.
All ibm drives currently in production. Bar none. speedy and utter
reliable.
> Bulletproof drives:
> Seagate St225,251, and 4096 interface version notwithstanding
No. These you spreak of were in all computers with poor cooling and
poor designs isnide and handlings killed all of them.
Nah, I had a 4096N which had stiction. It took
progressively stronger
shocks to the chassis to get it to spin up, until finally I was beating it
with a shoe. That situation ultimately ended in a head crash and data
loss.
whap! whap! slap! WHAP! it singed nice tones...sceeech! oops.
:-) Now you know I didn't go for that ST4xxx when I discovered
these has problems. st1xx has heat buildup problem and they always
had died from stickum.
Serious heat soak cooks the platters especially landing/taking off
areas lube coating wears faster when hot and more softer also.
Reult: stickum. If a running drive feels like as hot as holding a
paper cup of 10 min old coffee. BAD.
I only buy proven and reliable hds by reputation and that haven't
failed me in long run. Advice, buy cooler running hd for poor
cooling locations. Nearly all machine cases has this problems.
Had ST3144A howl LOUDLY like a wolf suddenly. Can hear from next
room over clearly.
Cheers,
Wizard
9:24 p.m.
New subject: World's Crappiest Drives
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 jpero(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
The 2ES disks I've used are as reliable as the original ES disks, but I've
been having problems with the 2XP disks. They're drop-dead sexy units, but
The IBM
UltraStar ES.
All ibm drives currently in production. Bar none. speedy and utter
reliable. from my admittedly small sample size of two, I've
lost both.
r.
5 Dec
5 Dec
3:55 p.m.
Mike Ford skrev:
>Any challengers for worst storage device?
I learned to hate the cassette interface on the AIM65
over time pretty
intensely.
Without the early suffering I think you can't fully
appreciate how
wonderfull a CDR or CDRW is.
Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination. It's an optical floppy
/without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually quite
horrible. It's also a read-only memory. Granted, there are burners trickling
down the market now, ten years after the introduction of the medium, but to
write anything to a CD, you have to go through an intricate mastering process.
At least cassettes usually had a simple user interface.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
When cherry tree blooms, people go and walk there, eat dumpling, bring sake
and talk each other such things as "A superb view!" and "Full of spring
here",
and they become very happily and cheerful. But this is a lie. People gather
below cherry trees and get drunk, vomit, fight, which are happening since the
old days of Edo period. From long time ago.
THE FULL OF CHERRY BOOLMS, CHAPTER 1
6 Dec
6 Dec
4:38 a.m.
At 03:55 AM 12/6/00 +0100, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination.
It's an optical floppy
/without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually quite
horrible.
I've wondered about that. Considering the inevitable decay of
aluminum CDs as well as now nearly-free CD-R media, will there
be a demand for very smart readers in the future that might
be able to rescue otherwise unreadable data?
- John
9:48 a.m.
I've wondered about that. Considering the
inevitable decay of
aluminum CDs as well as now nearly-free CD-R media, will there
be a demand for very smart readers in the future that might
be able to rescue otherwise unreadable data?
Copy your aluminum CDs, CD-ROMs, and silver CD-R to gold CD-R before the
bits fall off. Gold CD-R lasts at least five times as long as the
silver crap. Kodak published a white paper explaining how they were
comfortable with giving gold CD-R a *conservative* rating of 100 years
data retention (when stored in a reasonable manner).
10:29 a.m.
At 08:48 PM 12/6/00 +0000, Eric Smith wrote:
Copy your aluminum CDs, CD-ROMs, and silver CD-R to
gold CD-R before the
bits fall off. Gold CD-R lasts at least five times as long as the
silver crap.
And the technical difference between silver and gold crap? :-)
Different dyes?
- John
8:49 a.m.
At 03:29 PM 12/6/2000 -0600, John Foust wrote:
And the technical difference between silver and gold
crap? :-)
Different dyes?
No, different elements. One uses aluminum foil and the other gold foil.
Aluminum has the unfortunate tendency to oxidize once oxygen permeates(sp?)
the plastic or the top seal. This oxidation shows up as "black crud"
growing from a crack or scratch. Gold on the other hand doesn't oxidize and
so doesn't fail in this manner. The life of Al CD's is conservatively 25
years, gold 100 years. I read the National Archive report but a recent
Google search didn't turn it up again. I only use "gold" CD-R disks :-)
--Chuck
11:33 a.m.
Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com> wrote:
The life of Al CD's is conservatively 25
years, gold 100 years. I read the National Archive report but a recent
Google search didn't turn it up again. I only use "gold" CD-R disks :-)
I'll have to look for that report.
I've been really worried that gold media would completely disappear
(or become insanely expensive), as a triumph of crapitalism [1].
I feel that it's important to educate people about this, in an attempt
to prevent this outcome.
Some people don't think it matters if their discs last that long.
But I've talked to people who use CD-R for storing their photographs,
and I think they'll be very disappointed someday if the discs become
unreadable. Just like the people who transferred their 8mm home movies
to VHS in the 1980s and threw away the film.
[*] crapitalism: the tendency for a "barely adequate" product to
be sold in such high volumes that it becomes economically unviable
for competitors to offer a higher quality product at any price.
7 Dec
7 Dec
3:22 a.m.
At 01:49 PM 12/6/00 -0600, Chuck wrote:
At 03:29 PM 12/6/2000 -0600, John Foust wrote:
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched off before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
- John
And the technical difference between silver and
gold crap? :-)
Different dyes?
No, different elements. One uses aluminum foil and the other gold foil. Aluminum has the
unfortunate tendency to oxidize once oxygen permeates(sp?) the plastic or the top seal.
This oxidation shows up as "black crud" growing from a crack or scratch. 
4:16 a.m.
The top layer--where the label is silkscreened--is not plastic, but a
30-micron layer of lacquer. It doesn't take much to scratch through it. The
plastic layer, through which the laser reads the disc, is 1.2 mm. The
reflective layer, which in most CDs is the aluminum recording surface, is
only a few angstroms thick. It's easy to see why the average CD is such a
fragile storage medium. The best way to avoid scratching CDs is to store
them in their cases and never put any weight on them (like leaving books on
top of them).
BTW, never write on a CD with a felt-tip pen or magic marker. The ink can
easily seep through and affect the laser's ability to read the data. Labels
are a bad idea, too, as they will cause the disc to spin out of balance.
I believe that glass and gold discs are available for archival purposes with
guarantees of holding data for 100 years.
Michael Nadeau
author, The BYTE Guide to CD-ROM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: World's Crappiest Drives (was Re: A&J Microdrive)
At 01:49 PM 12/6/00 -0600, Chuck wrote:
>At 03:29 PM 12/6/2000 -0600, John Foust wrote:
>>And the technical difference between silver and gold crap? :-)
>>Different dyes?
>
>No, different elements. One uses aluminum foil and the other gold foil.
Aluminum has the unfortunate tendency to oxidize once oxygen permeates(sp?)
the plastic or the top seal. This oxidation shows up as "black crud" growing
from a crack or scratch.
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched off before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
- John
5:51 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Michael Nadeau wrote:
BTW, never write on a CD with a felt-tip pen or magic
marker. The ink
can easily seep through and affect the laser's ability to read the
data. Labels are a bad idea, too, as they will cause the disc to spin
out of balance.
So how are we supposed to label them, buy a 30-micron layer lacquer
machine?
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7:18 a.m.
Some people label by writing close to the hub away from the recording area.
--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: World's Crappiest Drives (was Re: A&J Microdrive)
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Michael Nadeau wrote:
Festival
BTW, never write on a CD with a felt-tip pen or
magic marker. The ink
can easily seep through and affect the laser's ability to read the
data. Labels are a bad idea, too, as they will cause the disc to spin
out of balance.
So how are we supposed to label them, buy a 30-micron layer lacquer
machine?
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
8:20 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Michael Nadeau wrote:
BTW, never write on a CD with a felt-tip pen or magic
marker. The ink
can easily seep through and affect the laser's ability to read the
data. Labels are a bad idea, too, as they will cause the disc to spin
out of balance.
Sellam Ismail wrote:
So how are we supposed to label them, buy a 30-micron
layer lacquer
machine?
Some inks will not harm the lacquer. It is reported that the Sanford
Sharpie markers are in this category.
Some CD-R vendors claim that their discs have a top layer to protect the
data. I'm not sure whether they're really doing anything special, or
whether this is simply a "marketing breakthrough" description of the
lacquer.
1:43 p.m.
BTW, never
write on a CD with a felt-tip pen or magic marker. The ink
can easily seep through and affect the laser's ability to read the
data. Labels are a bad idea, too, as they will cause the disc to spin
out of balance.
So how are we supposed to label them, buy a 30-micron layer lacquer
machine?
6:58 a.m.
In <037b01c06060$c75f1c80$0c01a8c0@michaelnadeau>, on 12/07/00
at 12:58 PM, "Michael Nadeau" <menadeau(a)mediaone.net> said:
I believe that glass and gold discs are available for
archival purposes
with guarantees of holding data for 100 years
I too have heard that glass is the most reliable and stable media. Makes
sense. It is hard to scratch and not nearly so permiable as plastic. If
you expose a standard cd to solvent, it will become very brittle.
regards,
Jeff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
President
Complete Computer Services, Inc.
30 Greenwood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28803
828-277-5959
Visit our website at HTTP://www.Real-Techs.com
THETechnoid(a)home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
8:17 a.m.
"Michael Nadeau" <menadeau(a)mediaone.net> wrote:
I believe that glass and gold discs are available for
archival purposes with
guarantees of holding data for 100 years.
I haven't seen any glass CD-Rs. Glass discs are used for mastering pressed
CDs, but are very fragile. You wouldn't want to use them for archival
data.
CD-Rs use a polycarbonate substrate just like CDs.
CD-Rs with a gold reflective layer are believed to offer 100 year data
retention when stored properly, and there are published white papers and
reports on the test methods that established this figure. However, AFAIK
*NOONE* will guarantee a disc for anywhere near that long.
It is possible (and the Kodak white paper mentions) that there may be
unknown failure modes in long-term storage that do not occur in
accelerated aging tests.
4:35 a.m.
New subject: Archival CDs
Hello, can anyone "confirm or deny" this? <grin>
Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
Supposedly, the US military did a study in the late 1980's to determine the
best archival mediums for the long haul. This concerns military secrets and
other issues of national security. CDs were originally considered to be the
easy winner, but when subjected to the accelerated aging process, it was
found that a standard aluminum CD could only be trusted with 100% data
integrity for about 35 to 40 years.
Most interesting, was the supposed conclusion of the study, which ened up
selecting paper punchcards as the ultimate archival medium, lasting a minimum
of 300 years when properly stored. Well imagine that.
Am I the only one to have heard this story?
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
Viking Electronics, Inc.
1531 Industrial St.
Hudson, WI. 54016 - U.S.A
715.386.8861 ext. 210
<http://www.vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
"Telecom Solutions for the 21st Century"
Powered by Slackware Linux 7.1.0
5:31 a.m.
New subject: Archival CDs
That sounds to me like what was determined back then about "WORM"
technology, which, BTW, was used in the F-16, but I never heard it applied
to CD's. WORM media used an organic emulsion which, under the right
circumstances could deteriorate over long periods. I'm not convinced that
the encapsulated aluminum-film CD's we use today are subject to those same
concerns. Of course, I'm not certain the story you heard is the same one I
heard, either.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Layer" <b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Archival CDs
Hello, can anyone "confirm or deny" this?
<grin>
the
Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
Supposedly, the US military did a study in the late 1980's to determine best archival mediums for the long haul. This concerns
military secrets
and
other issues of national security. CDs were originally
considered to be
the
easy winner, but when subjected to the accelerated
aging process, it was
found that a standard aluminum CD could only be trusted with 100% data
integrity for about 35 to 40 years.
Most interesting, was the supposed conclusion of the study, which ened up
selecting paper punchcards as the ultimate archival medium, lasting a
minimum
of 300 years when properly stored. Well imagine that.
Am I the only one to have heard this story?
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
Viking Electronics, Inc.
1531 Industrial St.
Hudson, WI. 54016 - U.S.A
715.386.8861 ext. 210
<http://www.vikingelectronics.com>
+----------------------------------+
"Telecom Solutions for the 21st Century"
Powered by Slackware Linux 7.1.0
5:47 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, John Foust wrote:
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched off
before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
Speaking of a witch, what's that method I heard about a long time ago
whereby you can sand out the scratches on a music CD to make it not skip
anymore? Something about using a real fine abrasive element?
Is this possible? One of my favourite CDs skips terribly on one track and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7:16 a.m.
--On Thursday, December 7, 2000 8:47 AM -0800 Sellam Ismail
<foo(a)siconic.com> wrote:
Speaking of a witch, what's that method I heard
about a long time ago
whereby you can sand out the scratches on a music CD to make it not skip
anymore? Something about using a real fine abrasive element?
Is this possible? One of my favourite CDs skips terribly on one track and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
Toothpaste, believe it or not, works wonders. I've used regular Crest
on a couple of occasions to salvage CDs that got caught when the tray
closed.
-- Brian
--
Brian Harrington
Digital Knowledge Center
The Johns Hopkins University
brian(a)sigh.mse.jhu.edu
7:28 a.m.
I believe someone used to sell a kit to remove minor scratches, but I can't
vouch for its effectiveness. I think places like Radio Shack still sell
cleaning kits; try one of those to see if it helps with your skipping
problem.
I would not try to rub out scratches by hand unless you were truly
desperate. While you might remove the scratch, you will likely create
unevenness on the disc's surface that might affect the drive's ability to
read the refracted light.
--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: World's Crappiest Drives (was Re: A&J Microdrive)
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, John Foust wrote:
Festival
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched
off before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
Speaking of a witch, what's that method I heard about a long time ago
whereby you can sand out the scratches on a music CD to make it not skip
anymore? Something about using a real fine abrasive element?
Is this possible? One of my favourite CDs skips terribly on one track and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
8:59 a.m.
I've had luck fixing scratched CDs by two methods:
1) Toothpaste - the all-purpose light abraisive.
2) Novus #2 plastic polish - more expensive, and not as nice smelling, but a
more effective polish for heavy scratches.
My bottle of Novus #2 has saved my buying at least three replacement
faceshields over the years, for my Shoei RF108V helmet. Time to replace the
helmet now.
--
Bill Layer
Sales Technician
<b.layer(a)vikingelectronics.com>
7:34 a.m.
Speaking of a witch, what's that method I heard
about a long time ago
whereby you can sand out the scratches on a music CD to make it not skip
anymore? Something about using a real fine abrasive element?
Is this possible? One of my favourite CDs skips terribly on one track and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
Have you tried a green marking pen? *gd&r*
g.
3:27 p.m.
One of my favourite CDs skips terribly on one track
and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
If you have a CD-R drive, you could try making a copy. The CD-R drive
might be able to read past the skip (or it might not, but it's worth
a try). Use CD Paranoia on Linux to read the original; it tells you whether
it's getting errors, and does retries if so. A few of my CDs that have
problems in some of my audio players can be read fine in my CD-R drive,
and the copies play fine. Of course, if you're unlucky, you might have
an audio CD player that can't read CD-R's at all.
Tim Mann tim.mann(a)compaq.com http://www.tim-mann.org
Compaq Computer Corporation, Systems Research Center, Palo Alto, CA
7:01 p.m.
Sellam Ismail skrev:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, John Foust wrote:
> Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched off
before the foil is
> exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
> away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
> won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
> it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
Speaking of a witch, what's that method I heard
about a long time ago
whereby you can sand out the scratches on a music CD to make it not skip
anymore? Something about using a real fine abrasive element?
I read a review in Amiga Format a while back on such a paste.
Is this possible? One of my favourite CDs skips
terribly on one track and
it really pisses me off, especially when I'm supposed to be mellowing out.
Apparently the actual data layer is located very near the label face of the
disc. Hence, the outer layer of the see-through face is quite thick, and you
may remove some without damaging the data. It worked quite fine in the review.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Allt ?r under kontroll, och caps lock ?r bredvid.
8 Dec
8 Dec
10:06 a.m.
On 8 Dec 2000, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Apparently the actual data layer is located very near
the label face
of the disc. Hence, the outer layer of the see-through face is quite
thick, and you may remove some without damaging the data. It worked
quite fine in the review.
Ok, so I've been reading all the replies on this. And from what people
are saying, I'm lead to believe that scratches on the non-label surface
have no effect on the ability of the CD to be read? This goes totally
against my experience with CDs, so I'd appreciate someone clarifying this.
I'm under the assumption that I'm going to rub Colgate on the non-label
side of my CD and then rub it circularly until the scratches are
diminished.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
11:37 a.m.
Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com> wrote:
On 8 Dec 2000, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Hi Sam
You are both right. The CD is read through the bottom material
that is thicker. The top side has a think layer before it actually
reaches that data part. The thickness of the bottom improves
the ability to read through small scratches since the surface
is farther from focus ( Hold your finger up close to your eye
and look past it at something a few feet away. Notice that you
only see fuzzy shading caused by your finger. ). They take advantage
of this to see through small scratches.
A good sized scratch on the top can go right to the data layer.
Dwight
Apparently the actual data layer is located very
near the label face
of the disc. Hence, the outer layer of the see-through face is quite
thick, and you may remove some without damaging the data. It worked
quite fine in the review.
Ok, so I've been reading all the replies on this. And from what people
are saying, I'm lead to believe that scratches on the non-label surface
have no effect on the ability of the CD to be read? This goes totally
against my experience with CDs, so I'd appreciate someone clarifying this.
I'm under the assumption that I'm going to rub Colgate on the non-label
side of my CD and then rub it circularly until the scratches are
diminished.
12:45 p.m.
I'm under the assumption that I'm going to rub
Colgate on the non-label
side of my CD and then rub it circularly until the scratches are
diminished.
I recommend *against* rubbing circularly, as this is exactly the way
that you would *cause* problems, since it will be along a track.
Rub radially.
2:25 p.m.
Sellam Ismail skrev:
On 8 Dec 2000, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Apparently the actual data layer is located very
near the label face
> of the disc. Hence, the outer layer of the see-through face is quite
> thick, and you may remove some without damaging the data. It worked
> quite fine in the review.
Ok, so I've been reading all the replies on this.
And from what people
are saying, I'm lead to believe that scratches on the non-label surface
have no effect on the ability of the CD to be read? This goes totally
against my experience with CDs, so I'd appreciate someone clarifying this.
Of course scratches will make reading difficult. After all, these scratches
refract the reading laser. The point is, that even though there is a scratch
on the non-label face, you may sand-paper away the scratch without damaging
the actual data layer, which is located far beneath the face.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Menyn ?r inte lika sexig som telnet, det ?r h?rt men sant.
Petri Oksanen #38 p? SUGA BBS
7 Dec
7 Dec
8:12 a.m.
Chuck wrote:
No, different elements. One uses aluminum foil and the
other gold
foil. Aluminum has the unfortunate tendency to oxidize once oxygen
permeates(sp?) the plastic or the top seal. This oxidation shows up as
"black crud" growing from a crack or scratch.
John wrote:
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched off
before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
On a standard CD or CD-R, the data surface is actually on the *top*
side of the disk, covered by a thin layer of lacquer and the
silkscreened label.
Scratches to the bottom of the disc are unlikely to cause problems,
because the laser is focused through the disk onto the reflective
layer near the top.
Scratches on the top of the disk are much more likely to cause
problems. The ECC can almost always handle small radial scratches.
Big scratches, or scratches at an angle further from radial (so that
it damages along a track) will cause data loss.
Oxygen seeps through the lacquer and will eventually oxidize the
aluminimum. This won't happen with gold CDRs.
Scratches in the top can help oxygen seep in more quickly.
9:05 a.m.
See below...
On 7 Dec 2000, Eric Smith wrote:
Chuck wrote:
Scratches on the bottom of the disk cause the servo system to lose
focus and/or tracking. This is why you will occasionally get a CD
to repeat a short section of music, similiar to skipping on an LP.
No, different elements. One uses aluminum foil
and the other gold
foil. Aluminum has the unfortunate tendency to oxidize once oxygen
permeates(sp?) the plastic or the top seal. This oxidation shows up as
"black crud" growing from a crack or scratch.
John wrote:
Hmm. And how much plastic has to be scratched
off before the foil is
exposed, and how wide of a scratch on either Al or Au will blow
away data, given the ECC? If a CD gets scratched, oxidation
won't happen for a while. Will I notice the scratch before
it's too late? Am I mistreating archival CDs in the first place?
On a standard CD or CD-R, the data surface is actually on the *top*
side of the disk, covered by a thin layer of lacquer and the
silkscreened label.
Scratches to the bottom of the disc are unlikely to cause problems,
because the laser is focused through the disk onto the reflective
layer near the top.
Scratches on the top of the disk are much more likely
to cause
problems. The ECC can almost always handle small radial scratches.
Big scratches, or scratches at an angle further from radial (so that
it damages along a track) will cause data loss.
Oxygen seeps through the lacquer and will eventually oxidize the
aluminimum. This won't happen with gold CDRs.
Scratches in the top can help oxygen seep in more quickly.
8 Dec
8 Dec
12:34 p.m.
Clint Wolff wrote:
Scratches on the bottom of the disk cause the servo
system to lose
focus and/or tracking. This is why you will occasionally get a CD
to repeat a short section of music, similiar to skipping on an LP.
Small scratches on the bottom of the disc do NOT impair the ability to
focus on the pits (near the top of the disc) by any substantial amount.
This is a deliberate factor in the designed thickness of the disc, the
geometry of the pickup, and the characteristics of the objective lens.
Furthermore, when they do interfere, this does NOT interfere with
tracking because the loop filter for the servo deliberately does not
react that quickly.
The CD will not repeat unless:
1) The scratch is along a long enough section of track to overrun
the interleave, and prevent both error correction (ECC) and
concealment (interpolation). It is fairly uncommon for a single
scratch to do this, but multiple scratches may well do so.
2) The player has to have badly written firmware, that forgets the
timecode where it left off before the error. This is unfortunately
far more common than it should be.
References:
standard IEC 60908 (1999-02): Audio Recording - Compact disc digital
audio system - the definitive reference on the format, based on
the original Red Book - available for purchase online at www.iec.ch
_The Art of Digital Audio_ by John Watkinson, 2nd Edition (3rd Edition
to be published this month)
_Principles of Digital Audio_ by Ken C. Pohlman, 4th Edition
Note that the CD-ROM format (standard ECMA-130, available free online
from www.ecma.ch) is layered on top of the CD-Audio
format, so an
understanding of the latter is necessary to fully understand the
former.
The next layer up is usually the ISO 9660 file system.
6 Dec
6 Dec
11:27 a.m.
I wrote:
Copy your aluminum CDs, CD-ROMs, and silver CD-R to
gold CD-R before the
bits fall off. Gold CD-R lasts at least five times as long as the
silver crap.
John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com> wrote:
And the technical difference between silver and gold
crap? :-)
Different dyes?
No, the actual reflective layer. AFAIK, all discs with a gold-colored
reflective layer actually use gold. The dye may be clear or green,
which results in "gold/gold" or "gold/green" discs.
The dye used may have some effect on the longevity (especially when
subjected to extremes of temperature), but the reflective layer is
*much* more significant.
The silver discs may have various dye colors, so they end up being
"silver/silver", "silver/blue" or other colors. I think the CD-Rs
with a silver-colored reflective layer all actually use silver, although
perhaps they could use aluminum. Either way they will oxidize, while
gold will not. When they oxidize, they become insufficiently reflective
for the optics of the player to distingush the pits from the lands.
I imagine that eventually they will come up with a reflective layer
that looks gold but isn't. It will be a marketing breakthrough.
I'm unimpressed with the discs that claim to be a mix of silver and
gold. If it looks silver, I doubt that there's enough gold content
to make a difference.
Unfortunately it is often impossible to tell what the reflective layer
is from the packaging. However, because there's so much difference
in manufacturing cost, there is now a rule of thumb to use on new
media: if they don't claim it's gold, it almost certainly isn't.
If you shop around, you can find the Kodak gold discs (not the silver/gold)
for $0.80 each in spindles of 50. I occasionally see silver discs for
$0.15 each. I sometimes use silver discs for non-archival purposes,
but for anything that I care about I use gold.
6:23 a.m.
Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination.
It's an optical floppy
/without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually quite
horrible. It's also a read-only memory. Granted, there are burners trickling
down the market now, ten years after the introduction of the medium, but to
write anything to a CD, you have to go through an intricate mastering process.
At least cassettes usually had a simple user interface.
Sniff, its always sad to hear about life in non mac places. With the Mac
and even my OLD Sony I could drag and drop files just like with a floppy,
except of course files like music tracks from other CDs are automatically
accomodated. The burn command is explicit as it must be, but the rest is
fairly transparent using Toast. Creating a production master of an audio CD
from raw sound files is a bit more complicated, but
just about anything
else could have all the instructions on a single sheet of
paper.
Robust 650 MB of storage on media cheap as floppies, I need more punishment
like that.
8:57 a.m.
Mike Ford skrev:
>Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination.
It's an optical floppy
>/without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually quite
>horrible. It's also a read-only memory. Granted, there are burners trickling
>down the market now, ten years after the introduction of the medium, but to
>write anything to a CD, you have to go through an intricate mastering
>process. At least cassettes usually had a simple user interface.
Sniff, its always sad to hear about life in non mac
places. With the Mac
and even my OLD Sony I could drag and drop files just like with a floppy,
except of course files like music tracks from other CDs are automatically
accomodated. The burn command is explicit as it must be, but the rest is
fairly transparent using Toast. Creating a production master of an audio CD
from raw sound files is a bit more complicated, but just about anything
else could have all the instructions on a single sheet of paper.
Compare it to a floppy. There is a jungle of abstraction layers compared to a
floppy.
Robust 650 MB of storage on media cheap as floppies, I
need more punishment
like that.
Robust? They're rather unwieldly, too, not the kind you'd stuff into your
shirt pocket.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
"I'm all man underneath my skirt."
Boy George
9:46 a.m.
"Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se> wrote:
Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination.
It's an optical floppy
/without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually
quite horrible.
I find it amazing that someone would have a problem with CD-ROM.
It's incredibly cheap (since it's a spin-off of a consumer audio format).
/without/ any protection from outside forces
whatsoever.
I have no clue what you mean by that, but they built in an absolutely
*huge* amount of error correction. CDs withstand more abuse than
any other data storage medium with which I'm familiar.
It's also a read-only memory.
You say that as if it was a bad thing.
but to write anything to a CD, you have to
go through an intricate mastering process.
Since it was never designed to be writable, you're lucky to be able to
write it at all. You've got to expect some hassle. You might just as
well complain that it's harder to write EPROMs than to read them.
At least cassettes usually had a simple user
interface.
You've lost me there. With cassettes you have to worry about which
side and position to use. They're not generally random access devices.
10:26 a.m.
Eric Smith skrev:
"Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se>
wrote:
> Actually, I think CD-ROM deserves a nomination. It's an optical floppy
> /without/ any protection from outside forces whatsoever. It's actually
> quite horrible.
I find it amazing that someone would have a problem
with CD-ROM.
It's incredibly cheap (since it's a spin-off of
a consumer audio format).
So was cassette tape.
> /without/ any protection from outside forces
whatsoever.
I have no clue what you mean by that, but they built in
an absolutely
*huge* amount of error correction. CDs withstand more abuse than
any other data storage medium with which I'm familiar.
Leave it on my sandy floor and it will have a nice finish. If the CD were
built like the MD, I'd be very content.
> It's also a read-only memory.
You say that as if it was a bad thing.
Of course I do. Unless you're a games manufacturer, you, too should see why.
> but to write anything to a CD, you have to
> go through an intricate mastering process.
Since it was never designed to be writable, you're
lucky to be able to
write it at all. You've got to expect some hassle. You might just as
well complain that it's harder to write EPROMs than to read them.
True, but EPROMs haven't been emplyed on such a wide scale.
> At least cassettes usually had a simple user
interface.
You've lost me there. With cassettes you have to
worry about which
side and position to use. They're not generally random access devices.
They certainly aren't, and the sequentiality makes it a bit difficult, but
SAVE and LOAD work the same way, unlike the CD.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
I use OpenBSD 'coz it has a cool blowfish logo. The other BSDs look satanic.
- Anonymous Coward
5 Dec
5 Dec
4:38 p.m.
Until you use a really crappy CDRW drive... The creative 4224 is the
worst junk I have ever had the misfortune of using... It makes these
lovely cracking sounds whenever I put a disk in with the slightest bit
of dust... Grrr.... I'm planning on using the drive and the stack of
useless CDR media it destroyed for target practice REAL SOON NOW!
The Sony Spressa drives are quite nice however :)
clint
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Mike Ford wrote:
In fact, these
are absolutely the crappiest storage devices I have ever seen
used on any computer.
Any challengers for worst storage device?
I learned to hate the cassette interface on the AIM65 over time pretty
intensely.
Without the early suffering I think you can't fully appreciate how
wonderfull a CDR or CDRW is.
4:59 p.m.
> >Any challengers for worst storage device?
Yes. The Commodore 64 1515(I think) tape drive.
It was:
unreliable.
slow.
expensive.
and tapes for it were $1 to $2 US for a 15 minute data grade tape.
I have no idea how many times I put a tape in one of these damn things and spent
15 minutes loading to have it gag on the last few bytes and dump the entire
program from memory. They worked best if you put them on the floor away from
the monitor and the computer. (there was some speculation that this is why
they provided a 6 foot cable on it).
This tape drive was SO bad it made the 1541 disk drive seem speedy and reliable.
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8623
days inactive
8627
days old
58 comments
24 participants
participants (24)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
b.layer＠vikingelectronics.com -
brian＠sigh.mse.jhu.edu -
chobbs＠socal.rr.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
donm＠cts.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
elvey＠hal.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
Glenatacme＠aol.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
lgwalker＠look.ca -
menadeau＠mediaone.net -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
red＠bears.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
THETechnoid＠home.com -
tim.mann＠compaq.com -
vaxman＠uswest.net