On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:40:48 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Lol,
>
>Apperently you are the only idiot in the world who actually needs a manual
>to damage harddisk, congratulations idiot !
>
>Bye,
> Skybuck =D

It is called a spec sheet, idiot, and they all have them.

AND my drives are fine. YOU are the idiot claiming that you cause your
drives to develop bad sectors from striking them.

It don't get any dumber than you, boy.

Have you ever made a post where you actually read what you are about to
post and see how utterly stupid some of the crap you spew is?

Oh... that's right... ALL YOU MAKE ARE RETARDED POSTS. You only have
one speed. and that speed is "dumber than dogshit".

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:52:58 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You are not a fat bytes tard, you are fail bytes tard ! HAHAHA LOL.
>
>Bye,
> Skybuck.

My stuff works. You are the idiot making stupid cross posts about how
all of your stuff is broken, and how it is everyone else's fault but
yours.

You have made yourself the joke of Usenet. Good job, idiot.

So how come my harddisk had some bad sectors eh ?

How much is 0.5 G do you think ?

It must be a kick or a slam.

Bye,
Skybuck.

Perhaps 0.5G is only for planes. Let's forget about the G's it's not
relevant at all.

Since planes pull G's gradually.

Shock-damage is what we should be looking for !

Let the troll look at G's ! it's totally irrelevant !

Bye,
Skybuck.

Lol,

A sneeze could damage your harddisk if the harddisk moved at the same speed:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-g-force.htm

Sneeze is 3.5 G, harddisk can only handle 0.5 G.

I rest my case,

Case closed.

The troll is searching for something that does not exist: reliable harddisk.

Bye,
Skybuck.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:52:52 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Perhaps 0.5G is only for planes. Let's forget about the G's it's not
>relevant at all.
>
>Since planes pull G's gradually.
>
>Shock-damage is what we should be looking for !
>
>Let the troll look at G's ! it's totally irrelevant !
>
>Bye,
> Skybuck.

You are a goddamned idiot. Shock is measured in Gs as well, you stupid
twit. That is why the drive makers publish their shock RESISTANCE specs
in Gs. And NO,you slamming a door shut on your case is NOT going to
surpass those specs. Get a ****ing clue, IDIOT!

Your ****ing retarded mother must have thwapped you upside da head all
your life for you to be so utterly ****ing stoopid.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:57:53 +0200, "Skybuck Flying"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Lol,
>
>A sneeze could damage your harddisk if the harddisk moved at the same speed:
>
>http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-g-force.htm
>
>Sneeze is 3.5 G, harddisk can only handle 0.5 G.

You're an idiot. Hard disks can handle many tens of Gs, idiot.
>
>I rest my case,

You do not have a case, and any 'argument' you have presented has been
100% bullshit.

>Case closed.

Yes, with you succinctly in place as the ultimate loser.

>The troll is searching for something that does not exist:

You are the asswipe that doesn't know how to post to a SINGLE group.
You AND your incessant, off-topic, cross-posted horseshit is as
"trolling" as it gets, dipshit.

> reliable harddisk.

Not in your hands. You're an abject idiot.

On 10/26/2011 12:35 AM, FatBytestard wrote:
> You are a goddamned idiot. Shock is measured in Gs as well, you stupid
> twit. That is why the drive makers publish their shock RESISTANCE specs
> in Gs. And NO,you slamming a door shut on your case is NOT going to
> surpass those specs. Get a ****ing clue, IDIOT!

I do have to give the idiot a little credit. He is parroting an old
truism from back in the old days of MFM/RLL days, **** like that did
happen back in the day. The old DOS "PARK" command *did* exist for a
reason.

Just tryin' to be fair....

(rant ON)

I *am* going to bitch about those hard-drive shock/G specs tho.

I've worked as a QC/proto tech on "stuffs" that have gone thru
shake-table testing for those ratings, including setting up the table
and sensors. It's just one of those things that have to be quantified
for MilSpec weapons systems and NASA gear, should be obvious.

I always saw (and interpreted from) those specs by the "qualifier" that
indicated how the "shake" was applied.

I've never seen a "qualifier" on a HD datasheet.

Think "100 watts peak music power" vs "100 watts RMS @ speced
distortion". I've seen (as have many) *cheap* 100W PMP units that can't
even do 5W RMS without blowing up.

See the "qualifiers"?





--
"**** this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me mother****er?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:49:29 -0700, "Nobody > (Revisited)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I do have to give the idiot a little credit. He is parroting an old
>truism from back in the old days of MFM/RLL days, **** like that did
>happen back in the day. The old DOS "PARK" command *did* exist for a
>reason.
>
>Just tryin' to be fair....

But that was *way* before he was around.

I still have several MFM drives, and only the earliest lacked an
'auto-park' 'feature'.

From the prices I see on ebay for old legacy stuff, I should sell them,
because they are all fine.

But yes, they were/are far more vulnerable than today's 1.5" 15k rpm SAS
drive, which can boast 200Gs running and 300Gs in transport. Not that I
would ever subject any drive to shock numbers like that.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:49:29 -0700, "Nobody > (Revisited)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I *am* going to bitch about those hard-drive shock/G specs tho.

OK
>
>I've worked as a QC/proto tech on "stuffs" that have gone thru
>shake-table testing for those ratings, including setting up the table
>and sensors. It's just one of those things that have to be quantified
>for MilSpec weapons systems and NASA gear, should be obvious.

Yes. Hard drives have military roots, and so did their manufacture,
before those standards were relieved. They *are* standard declarations
and there is a mil spec they follow.

>I always saw (and interpreted from) those specs by the "qualifier" that
>indicated how the "shake" was applied.

Depends on the maker as to how much data one will see declared on the
primary spec sheet. Some makers require further inquiry to 'extract'
certain figures from them.

>I've never seen a "qualifier" on a HD datasheet.

I have, but they follow a standard, so standard practices would be
utilized. There is functional test, and then destructive level testing
where you shake it till you bake it.

>Think "100 watts peak music power" vs "100 watts RMS @ speced
>distortion".

Don't really need a primer, but environmental and vibe specs are
standardized. This industry (hard drives) is no exception.

> I've seen (as have many) *cheap* 100W PMP units that can't
>even do 5W RMS without blowing up.

I was around in the seventies, dude. I don't even want to talk about
the differences between declared and real audio amplification claims and
'specs'. I watched it walk from 1% THD being "good" to 0.004%, to now ,
where it doesn't seem to make so much difference and floats between 0.1%
and 0.01%. That was home stereos, and they *were* properly declared.
"Auto-sound", on the other hand, was typically not correctly declared.
"The smokin' is the tellin" as they say. I saw some really nice stuff
that was mounted right on the back of the speakers back in the mid 70s
that did a pretty good job, if the owner had enough brains to enclose the
backside.

>See the "qualifiers"?

Well, you know it will be sinusoidal. One does not test assemblies
with hard, square wave vibrations.