Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!quimby
From: quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple)
Subject: Re: TURN COMPUTER OFF OR LEAVE ON
Message-ID: <bg1hy4b@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: madoka.its.rpi.edu
Reply-To: quimby@mts.rpi.edu
References: <1991May24.160414.3552@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991May25.150948.542@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au> <1991Jun9.195502.18858@hq.demos.su> <1991Jun10.082014.8583@omen.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 91 05:05:10 GMT
Lines: 33

caf@omen.COM (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:

>It's also a not so subtle warning to get another drive (not
>Seagate!!) and transfer your data to it.  On my 4051 the
>stiction got worse and worse until one fine day...

Replacing the drive is only required in a situation where the
users aren't flexible enough to just leave the machines on.  Typical
ST-251's last about three years with daily cycling, then they begin to
stick.  They seem to last for a very long time afterword when used in
near continous operation -- a total life of ten years certainly wouldn't 
surprise me.  (One plus for the Seagates is that the autopark
versions very rarely crash, unlike some other drives.)

>P.S.: If Seagate doesn't like to read this sort of thing, they
>can send me an drive to replace the dead 4051.  Frankly I don't
>expect Seagate to stand behind 4051's any more than IBM stood
>behind that infernal 20 MB disk drive on the PC/AT.

At least from what I understand, IBM replaced some of those drives when
the users started screaming.  They also probably didn't order too many
more drives from that manufacturer (can't remember the name).  Seagate,
on the other hand, hasn't even admitted the possibility that there
was/is a tremendous reliability problem with their drives.  Why 
should anyone believe that their newer drives are any better, even
if they are?
 
Quimby
 
 
-- 
quimby@mts.rpi.edu, quimby@rpitsmts.bitnet

