🚀 go-pugleaf

>>When you say "time and again"  I wonder what you mean.  If there was any
>>indication that the data was unreliable after a while, then I'm sure Frank
>>would discontinue the practice (IF he hasn't already).

>It is common knowledge that formatting disks to twice their intended capacity
>is Not a Good Thing.  I work in a public pc/mac lab, and I see people do
>that every day... they wonder why their files are garbled, and I point out
>that they used the wrong format for that disk.

>I have tried formatting 720k disks to 1.44 several times and, without
>exception, format reports 'xxxxx bytes in bad sectors'.  There _is_ a
>difference.

There is *NOT* a difference.  Computer Shopper once did an article about the
difference between low and high density disks (I think it was Sept. or Oct.
1990) which talked about the disks and the popularity of hole-punchers.  The
article stated that the coercivity between low density and high density 3.5"
diskettes was SO NEGLIGIBLE that some manufacturers simply use the same
machinery for both types of diskettes, and just don't punch holes in the disks
that they market as "low density" disks.  There IS a significant difference
between the low and high density 5.25" disks, however.

The way the coercivity works is, the higher the coercivity, the more the disk
drive has to "coerce" the disk...that is, the magnetic media of higher density
disks is more resistant to change, therefore a stronger magnetic signal is
needed to change it.  With a high density disk in a low density drive, the
magnetic signal of the low density drive shouldn't be strong enough to change
or record a reliable signal.  With a low density disk formatted high density
in a high density drive, the magnetic signal from the drive should "wash over"
the adjoining tracks of the track being written to on the disk.

With 5.25" disks, I have found this to be the case.  5.25" high density disks
cannot be trusted in low density 5.25" drives, and low density 5.25" disks
cannot be formatted reliably high density in high density drives.  3.5" disks
are an entirely different story; there is no problem putting a high density
3.5" disk in a low density 3.5" drive, nor is there a problem formatting the
low density 3.5" disk to high density.  As I mentioned, you can go look it up
in a back issue of Computer Shopper.  The only danger of punching holes in
the 3.5" low density disks is that you may warp the plastic, or cause slivers
that may damage the diskette.  In case you're worried about that, you can
either A) be really careful, or B) go in and mess with the hardware on your
computer - and remove the little toggle that looks for and keeps you from
writing high density to a disk without the HD hole.

>Have you really looked into this, or is it just an unjustified blanket
>statement?  Wayne Bell, for example, has answered every piece of mail I
>sent him.  (and he sent me a 1.44M disk for only $55 !)

Ah, a satisfied WWIV person!  I'm with you.  I only wish Wayne would read
a little more slowly.  Back when I registered in 1990, I asked for the
ALREADY COMPILED version of 4.12 (which had only recently come out at that
time).  He sent me the source.  I was at the time, compiler-less.  I must
admit, though, that upon returning the disk with a note stating my
situation, he sent me a compiled version, no questions (or additional
fees) asked.  Perhaps I should clarify your statement, though -
Registration for WWIV is $50, which will allow you to get the source, and
will allow you to participate in WWIV's biggest net, WWIVnet.  There are
two ways to get source: 1) Send an extra $5 with your registration to Wayne
and you will be mailed a disk with the source on it (or compiled version,
if you ask), 2) Call an official WWIV Source Distribution Site (SDS) and
send E-Mail to Wayne from it asking for access on that site.  (This method
is not only faster, but if you've got a fast enough modem or there's a site
nearby, cheaper!).  BTW, there is no charge for net software with WWIV for
registered users of WWIV. 

>>You made a blanket statement and used unnecessarily harsh language.  You
>>did not say "These are my opinions and here is where I feel Searchlight is
>>deficient"

>Do you expect everything posted to the net to be marked "these are my
>opinions"?  It should be obvious to anyone, without the label, that
>"Searchlight sucks" is an opinion.

Heh.  I totally agree.  I'm the kind of person who says "Telegard....BLEAH"
all the time.  Crummy hack of WWIV, is all it is.

If WWIV supported multiline, would there be any question at all of which BBS
was best?  (Of course, if it supported multiline, would Wayne still make
the source available at all?  <grin>)

- John

Happily registered WWIV Owner #11051
Modifying like Crazy

-- 
____________________________________________________________________
|  No New Tiny Toons Episodes in 1993?!  | The Original UnOriginal |
| "You know whut?  That makes me...mad!" |     John R. Johns II    |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~