It seems being in an explosion isn't enough...

[mark seiden-via mac]

i think the issue may simply devolve to  lower areal density in the  
old drives.
i.e. the bits are bigger.

does anyone know if they used encodings that were more tolerant of  
certain kinds of errors
in the past which are less common (and so, not worth doing) than now?


On May 9, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Ali, Saqib wrote:

>>       Edwards said the Seagate hard drive -- which was
>>       about eight years old in 2003 -- featured much
>>       greater fault tolerance and durability than current
>>       hard drives of similar capacity.
>
> I am not so sure about this statement. The newer drives are far more
> ruggedized and superior in constuction. For e.g. the newer EE25 are
> designed to "operate" @
> 1) Operating temperatures of –30°C to 85°C
> 2) Operating altitudes from –1000 feet to 16,400 feet
> 3) Operating vibration up to 2.0 Gs
> 4) Long-duration (11 ms) shock capability of 150 Gs
>
> where as the older ST9385AG:
> 1) Operating temperatures of 5° to 55°C (41° to 131°F)
> 2) Operating altitudes from –1,000 ft to 10,000 ft (–300 m to 3,000 m)
> 3) Operating vibration up to 0.5 Gs
> 4) shock capability of 100 Gs
>
>
> Source:
> http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_ee25_2.pdf
> http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/9655pma.pdf
>
> saqib
> http://doctrina.wordpress.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Cryptography Mailing List
> Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com