10 May
2010
10 May
'10
11:48 a.m.
When floppy drives were new, they usually came with that cardboard piece inserted, and
with the drive door closed. When shipping a floppy drive, is it really best to have
something closed in the drive? I'm talking about single head 5 1/4" drives here.
I've seen several methods:
Nothing inserted, drive open
nothing inserted, drive closed
Disk inserted, drive closed
cardboard protector, drive closed
disk, in sleeve, inserted *sideways*, drive open (can't close it like that)
disk inserted backwards, drive closed.
Now, on a single head full height drive, there really isn't a whole lot to damage. The
sping on the lever mechanism is pretty strong, so it's unlikely that it'll slam
down and hit the head unless it's really dropped hard. And, if it does, it's just
got a fuzzy pressure pad there - not another head. Also, with something as thin as a disk
inserted, does it really protect anything? I suppose that the closed position is more
stable, since then the mechanism would be fairly solid, and you'd have less chance of
damaging the drive door, but would that mean any shock would press on the head?
A similar question would probably be - when single head full height drives were new, did
they ship with a cardboard protector? I primarily only remember those from the half height
and double sided drives. And only once have I seen one for a 3 1/2" drive (it was
basically a solid plastic disk). And I also remember getting some new high density 5
1/4" drives that were not shipped with a protector.
-Ian
10 May
10 May
12:38 p.m.
Hi
You should ship with the door open, if you can't find a cardboard insert.
Do not use a disk or close the latch.
Many of the older ones, especially the single sided, have head load
solenoids( 5.25 and 8 inch ). These are vary unlikely to close the heads.
3.5 in. often don't have a head load solenoid and should have the
door open. If there is a chance the door could accidentally be closed
during shipping, put some tape on it to hold it.
The reason I say this is that even with the piece of felt, there is often
debris from disk that will transfer onto the head. Corrosion also loves
to get started between such surfaces where there is already bits of oxide.
Any condensation on an open surface evaporates relatively quickly but
it tends to wick into the felt and last a long time.
Heads are tough but I wouldn't give chemistry a chance to its work.
Dwight
From: ian_primus at yahoo.com
When floppy drives were new, they usually came with that cardboard piece inserted, and
with the drive door closed. When shipping a floppy drive, is it really best to have
something closed in the drive? I'm talking about single head 5 1/4" drives here.
I've seen several methods:
Nothing inserted, drive open
nothing inserted, drive closed
Disk inserted, drive closed
cardboard protector, drive closed
disk, in sleeve, inserted *sideways*, drive open (can't close it like that)
disk inserted backwards, drive closed.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=P…
1:16 p.m.
When I ship 5.25" floppy drives, I cut an insert from the top of a
large yogurt (or Cool-Whip, if your dietary preferences lean that
way) lid and insert it into the drive. It doesn't shed abrasive
material and is soft enough to cushion any head impact. I have a bit
of a concern about cardboard being hygroscopic and leading to grief
somewhere down the line.
I've also got a few plastic 3.5" dummies that were shipped with new
drives. No manufacturer given; just "Made in Japan" and "Insert this
sheet under transportation" (sic) in several languages.
--Chuck
13 May
13 May
9:15 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep might have been the predecessor of fortran but probably not
it wasn't a claim. it was a question.
it was what I was told (at the time) by the university.
the language and structure is very suggestive that it was a predecessor.
I could find *ZERO* documentation or references anywhere on the net to
either valtrep or the sentry 70 system it ran on.
so, like an idiot, I thought why not ask all these smart people on this list for help,
surely someone else must have worked with it, must have seen this stuff.
surely some historical record exists of the language or at least the computers that ran
it,
certainly someone kind, and wise enough of these things could fill in the blanks, and
advise.
I still can't find any references, other than what has been posted to the list.
so far it only goes back to the 70s, with no real historical evidence of even the company
that made
the computers that ran this stuff.
could it be earlier? yes, could it be later, probably.
again i refer to similar situations in etymology.
but instead of kind words and help and guidance, I got trolls.
that's not what this list is supposed to be about. or at least, so I thought... wrong
again?
Dan.
_________________________________________________________________
30 days of prizes: Hotmail makes your day easier! Enter Now.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9729710
9:43 p.m.
New subject: Valtrep might have been the predecessor of fortran but probably not
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
it wasn't a claim. it was a question.
it was what I was told (at the time) by the university.
the language and structure is very suggestive that it was a predecessor.
I could find *ZERO* documentation or references anywhere on the net to
either valtrep or the sentry 70 system it ran on.
so, like an idiot, I thought why not ask all these smart people on this list for help,
surely someone else must have worked with it, must have seen this stuff.
surely some historical record exists of the language or at least the computers that ran
it,
certainly someone kind, and wise enough of these things could fill in the blanks, and
advise.
I still can't find any references, other than what has been posted to the list.
so far it only goes back to the 70s, with no real historical evidence of even the company
that made
the computers that ran this stuff.
could it be earlier? yes, could it be later, probably.
again i refer to similar situations in etymology.
but instead of kind words and help and guidance, I got trolls.
that's not what this list is supposed to be about. or at least, so I
thought... wrong again?
Wrong again.
In a discussion of "where did Apple get the FORTRAN for the Lisa?", you
posted:
On Fri, 7 May 2010, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep
I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the 80s
yes, this was after fortran was already quite established.
it's very like fortran - if you can write fortran, you can do valtrep.
Interestingly perhaps, googling for valtrep is quite useless it seems...
Perhaps your queries would be treated more like questions if you
structured them as questions, rather than as definitive [QUESTIONABLE!]
declarations.
Declaring that FORTRAN came from Valtrep, is not only NOT the answer to
where Apple got their FORTRAN, it is difficult to parse that as being a
question or a request for further information.
We don't/can't fault you for the scarcity of data online about Valtrep and
Sentry-70.
But, when the information that you provided is contradictory to the
knowledge of history, then wisdom dictates questioning the credibility of
the data. And enlightenment warns us to not feed trolls.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
14 May
14 May
9:57 a.m.
New subject: Valtrep might have been the predecessor of fortran but probably not
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
it wasn't a claim. it was a question.
No, it wasn't. It was a bald statement, an assertion of something that
was not and could not be true. Same as the legendary
first-computer-on-the-Internet Sun workstation and the
OS/2-for-the-PDP-11.
The thing is, you're on a mailing list here. That means it's not live,
it's a self-archiving medium. You can't say something and then go back
and claim that you said something else, because we all have the
original message. We can very easily see what you actually did as
opposed to what you later say you did. You have a desire for
historical revisionism that is almost Stalinist.
it was what I was told (at the time) by the
university.
Then, as I have already said, you need to check out these claims
*first*, *before* you go repeating them and making yourself look like
a fool.
the language and structure is very suggestive that it
was a predecessor.
The chronology makes this impossible.
I could find *ZERO* documentation or references
anywhere on the net to
either valtrep or the sentry 70 system it ran on.
Which is strongly suggestive that you have incorrectly remembered the
events of the time. You have been given highly-plausible explanations
of possible such mistakes in understanding or recollection; you have
not responded to these at all.
so, like an idiot, I thought why not ask all these
smart people on this list for help,
surely someone else must have worked with it, must have seen this stuff.
surely some historical record exists of the language or at least the computers that ran
it,
certainly someone kind, and wise enough of these things could fill in the blanks, and
advise.
Again, many people /have/ volunteered suggestions. You have ignored
them or pooh-poohed them.
I still can't find any references, other than what
has been posted to the list.
so far it only goes back to the 70s, with no real historical evidence of even the company
that made
the computers that ran this stuff.
could it be earlier? yes, could it be later, probably.
again i refer to similar situations in etymology.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
but instead of kind words and help and guidance, I got
trolls.
You don't seem to know what that word means, either. As I have
explained and you've ignored.
that's not what this list is supposed to be about.
or at least, so I thought... wrong again?
It's a bunch of crotchety old geezers, mostly. Certainly I am. :?)
Come in and tell them loudly and repeatedly stuff that they know not
to be true and they are /not/ going to react kindly or supportively.
Personally, I think we've all shown tremendous restraint and tolerance
to these occasional outbursts of ill-informed utter tosh.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
10 May
10 May
7:37 p.m.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Mr Ian Primus wrote:
When floppy drives were new, they usually came with
that cardboard piece
inserted, and with the drive door closed. When shipping a floppy drive,
is it really best to have something closed in the drive?
WHY do you suppose the manufacturer did?
I'm talking
about single head 5 1/4" drives here. I've seen several methods:
Nothing inserted, drive open
nothing inserted, drive closed
Disk inserted, drive closed
cardboard protector, drive closed
disk, in sleeve, inserted *sideways*, drive open (can't close it like that)
You can close the door on a Tandon TM100 with the disk in any of the EIGHT
possible positions.
disk inserted backwards, drive closed.
a reasonable choice if you don't have the cardboard
Now, on a single head full height drive, there really
isn't a whole lot
to damage. The sping on the lever mechanism is pretty strong, so it's
unlikely that it'll slam down and hit the head unless it's really
dropped hard. And, if it does, it's just got a fuzzy pressure pad there
- not another head. Also, with something as thin as a disk inserted,
does it really protect anything? I suppose that the closed position is
more stable, since then the mechanism would be fairly solid, and you'd
have less chance of damaging the drive door, but would that mean any
shock would press on the head?
A similar question would probably be - when single head full height
drives were new, did they ship with a cardboard protector?
Yes.
5157
days inactive
5161
days old
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
ian_primus＠yahoo.com -
lproven＠gmail.com