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
On Fri, 9 May 2008, 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 sta
>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 a
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
| Quoting:
|
|It was one of the most iconic and heart-stopping movie images of
|2003: the Columbia Space Shuttle ignited, burning and crashing to
|earth in fragments.
|
|Now, amazingly, data from a hard drive recovered from the fragments
Quoting:
It was one of the most iconic and heart-stopping movie images of
2003: the Columbia Space Shuttle ignited, burning and crashing to
earth in fragments.
Now, amazingly, data from a hard drive recovered from the fragments
has been used to complete a physics experiment - CXV-
