HDD deletion

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Heya all :)

What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
like to hear some more input on the subject...

Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
m-sweep pro:
http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html

Has anyone here used it yet?
27 answers Last reply
More about deletion
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    The program wipes free space. A funny excert from that web page:

    Who can, and can't, get M-Sweep Pro?

    This unique security software is the most effective product available.
    Unfortunately this software can be used to eliminate evidence of criminal
    violations and terrorist activities. For that reason, NTI restricts the sale of
    the product to Fortune 1000 corporations, government agencies, pre-qualified
    law firms, pre-qualified accounting firms, hospitals and pre-qualified law
    enforcement agencies. Unlike some of our competitors, we continue to restrict
    the sale of all of our security and computer forensics software utilities. In
    the wrong hands, such software can be used to further criminal acts and
    intelligence gathering efforts against US government agencies and US-based
    corporations. NTI does not sell its products to the general public.

    "alex" <alexx9@iname.com> wrote in message
    news:q6rp01tm0en7khvqt084e9h8ium0tgfmf2@supernews.com...
    >
    > Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    > m-sweep pro:
    > http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Eric Gisin wrote:

    > The program wipes free space. A funny excert from that web page:
    >
    > Who can, and can't, get M-Sweep Pro?
    >
    > This unique security software is the most effective product available.
    > Unfortunately this software can be used to eliminate evidence of criminal
    > violations and terrorist activities. For that reason, NTI restricts the sale of
    > the product to Fortune 1000 corporations, government agencies, pre-qualified
    > law firms, pre-qualified accounting firms, hospitals and pre-qualified law
    > enforcement agencies. Unlike some of our competitors, we continue to restrict
    > the sale of all of our security and computer forensics software utilities. In
    > the wrong hands, such software can be used to further criminal acts and
    > intelligence gathering efforts against US government agencies and US-based
    > corporations. NTI does not sell its products to the general public.
    >
    > "alex" <alexx9@iname.com> wrote in message
    > news:q6rp01tm0en7khvqt084e9h8ium0tgfmf2@supernews.com...
    >
    >>Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    >>m-sweep pro:
    >>http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >>
    >
    >

    What a load of horse puckey! (Not you, Eric; I'm referring to that
    asinine statement from the vendor.)

    Since Eraser is available to anybody for free, I can't imagine why
    any rational person would pay heaps of money for M-Sweep Pro. Maybe,
    just maybe, P. T. Barnum was right.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    alex wrote:
    >
    > Heya all :)
    >
    > What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
    > I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
    > like to hear some more input on the subject...
    >
    > Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    > m-sweep pro:
    > http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >
    > Has anyone here used it yet?

    I cannot understand the problem.

    For the sake of the cost of a new drive (minimal, and derisory when
    compared with the potential damage that can be caused by data getting
    into the wrong hands) why not take a sledgehammer to it?

    Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.


    Odie
    --

    RetroData
    Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > alex wrote:
    >>
    >> Heya all :)
    >>
    >> What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
    >> I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
    >> like to hear some more input on the subject...
    >>
    >> Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    >> m-sweep pro:
    >> http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >>
    >> Has anyone here used it yet?

    > I cannot understand the problem.

    > For the sake of the cost of a new drive (minimal, and derisory when
    > compared with the potential damage that can be caused by data getting
    > into the wrong hands) why not take a sledgehammer to it?

    > Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    > the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.

    Because people don't want to spend money but want to be absolute
    secure at the same time...

    My personal rule is simple:
    - Personal secrets: One overwrite. Will be enough against all but
    national security agencies.
    - National security: Physical destruction

    In doubt default to the second. So far I have done two trial runs
    for the second on dead drives. I also use the first just to clean
    drives.

    The question of security level is not really one of how many
    overwrites. Several overwrites are not much more secure than one
    today IMO. Reallocated sectors will not be erased. Good sectors
    will not be recoverable by commercial data recovery outfits
    (or at least they don't admit they can do it, which means they
    likely cannot, since if they could they would sell that capability).

    An attacke that has more ressources than using commercial data
    recovery outfits is rare IMO. If your data need to be secure
    against one, you will not mind going for physical destruction.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:420CEF19.D3D9951E@hotmail.com...
    > alex wrote:
    >>
    >> Heya all :)
    >>
    >> What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
    >> I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
    >> like to hear some more input on the subject...
    >>
    >> Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    >> m-sweep pro:
    >> http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >>
    >> Has anyone here used it yet?
    >
    > I cannot understand the problem.
    >
    > For the sake of the cost of a new drive (minimal, and derisory when
    > compared with the potential damage that can be caused by data getting
    > into the wrong hands) why not take a sledgehammer to it?
    >
    > Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    > the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.

    Too crude and primitive for me.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:374epmF58sje6U1@individual.net...
    >
    > "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:420CEF19.D3D9951E@hotmail.com...
    > > alex wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Heya all :)
    > >>
    > >> What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
    > >> I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
    > >> like to hear some more input on the subject...
    > >>
    > >> Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    > >> m-sweep pro:
    > >> http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    > >>
    > >> Has anyone here used it yet?
    > >
    > > I cannot understand the problem.
    > >
    > > For the sake of the cost of a new drive (minimal, and derisory when
    > > compared with the potential damage that can be caused by data getting
    > > into the wrong hands) why not take a sledgehammer to it?
    > >
    > > Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    > > the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.
    >
    > Too crude and primitive for me.
    >
    >

    yet effective !
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >Because people don't want to spend money but want to be absolute
    >secure at the same time...

    Exactly.
    :)

    two things somewhat difficult to come by, though...

    >My personal rule is simple:
    > - Personal secrets: One overwrite. Will be enough against all but
    > national security agencies.
    > - National security: Physical destruction
    >
    >In doubt default to the second. So far I have done two trial runs
    >for the second on dead drives. I also use the first just to clean
    >drives.

    which application you use?

    >The question of security level is not really one of how many
    >overwrites. Several overwrites are not much more secure than one
    >today IMO. Reallocated sectors will not be erased.
    >Good sectors
    >will not be recoverable by commercial data recovery outfits
    >(or at least they don't admit they can do it, which means they
    >likely cannot, since if they could they would sell that capability).

    hmm.
    VOGON seems to disagree with you.


    >An attacke that has more ressources than using commercial data
    >recovery outfits is rare IMO. If your data need to be secure
    >against one, you will not mind going for physical destruction.

    Quite true.

    :)
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:

    >Since Eraser is available to anybody for free, I can't imagine why
    >any rational person would pay heaps of money for M-Sweep Pro.

    Eraser?
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Odie Ferrous <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    >the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.

    perhaps because one wants to get rid of certain stuff and keep using
    hdd?
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    alex wrote:

    > Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Since Eraser is available to anybody for free, I can't imagine why
    >>any rational person would pay heaps of money for M-Sweep Pro.
    >
    >
    > Eraser?
    >

    http://www.tolvanen.com/eraser/
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "zero" <zeroREMOVEnews2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:420d3800$0$8758$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:374epmF58sje6U1@individual.net...
    >>
    >> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:420CEF19.D3D9951E@hotmail.com...
    >> > alex wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Heya all :)
    >> >>
    >> >> What are your opinions on so called HD-killer "application"?
    >> >> I never really tried it, for obvious reasons :) but I would really
    >> >> like to hear some more input on the subject...
    >> >>
    >> >> Also, there is an interesting application out there, called
    >> >> m-sweep pro:
    >> >> http://www.secure-data.com/ms.html
    >> >>
    >> >> Has anyone here used it yet?
    >> >
    >> > I cannot understand the problem.
    >> >
    >> > For the sake of the cost of a new drive (minimal, and derisory when
    >> > compared with the potential damage that can be caused by data getting
    >> > into the wrong hands) why not take a sledgehammer to it?
    >> >
    >> > Why on earth does everyone seem to have a problem with this? Destroy
    >> > the damn drive - physically - and be done with it.
    >>
    >> Too crude and primitive for me.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > yet effective !

    So is any decent wipe ute and you can reuse the drive.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >So is any decent wipe ute and you can reuse the drive.

    ....which brings us back to my question, actually:

    to sum up:
    what app do you guys use *in RL* for safe and permanent deletion of
    data on working hdd?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    alex <alexx9@iname.com> shared:

    >...which brings us back to my question, actually:
    >
    >to sum up:
    >what app do you guys use *in RL* for safe and permanent deletion of
    >data on working hdd?

    Evidence eliminator is a good choice.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    No need for any extras. In WinXP's diskpart:

    >list disk
    >select disk #
    >clean all

    "alex" <alexx9@iname.com> wrote in message
    news:8s8s01h4891n992kegd10p7fma0eo8a8hn@supernews.com...
    > Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >Since Eraser is available to anybody for free, I can't imagine why
    > >any rational person would pay heaps of money for M-Sweep Pro.
    >
    > Eraser?
    >
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously alex <alexx9@iname.com> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >>Because people don't want to spend money but want to be absolute
    >>secure at the same time...

    > Exactly.
    > :)

    > two things somewhat difficult to come by, though...

    >>My personal rule is simple:
    >> - Personal secrets: One overwrite. Will be enough against all but
    >> national security agencies.
    >> - National security: Physical destruction
    >>
    >>In doubt default to the second. So far I have done two trial runs
    >>for the second on dead drives. I also use the first just to clean
    >>drives.

    > which application you use?

    Does not need an application, I am a Linux user. The task is close
    to trivial from a technological point of view.
    All the following will work fine (hdb is the target) :

    cat /dev/zero > /dev/hdb
    dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdb
    dd_rescue /dev/zero /dev/hdb


    >>The question of security level is not really one of how many
    >>overwrites. Several overwrites are not much more secure than one
    >>today IMO. Reallocated sectors will not be erased.
    >>Good sectors
    >>will not be recoverable by commercial data recovery outfits
    >>(or at least they don't admit they can do it, which means they
    >>likely cannot, since if they could they would sell that capability).

    > hmm.
    > VOGON seems to disagree with you.

    Have a reference for that? I am not about to conduct a field
    test, but c't did an anonymous one last year: They claimed to have
    accidentally overwritten a very important file on a current HDD
    and whether they could have it _please_ recoverd? They contacted
    several major data-recovery outfits and all said they could
    not do that type of job.

    >>An attacke that has more ressources than using commercial data
    >>recovery outfits is rare IMO. If your data need to be secure
    >>against one, you will not mind going for physical destruction.

    > Quite true.

    > :)

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >Does not need an application, I am a Linux user. The task is close
    >to trivial from a technological point of view.
    >All the following will work fine (hdb is the target) :
    >
    >cat /dev/zero > /dev/hdb
    >dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdb
    >dd_rescue /dev/zero /dev/hdb

    will have to try this one...
    tnx.

    >> VOGON seems to disagree with you.
    >
    >Have a reference for that? I am not about to conduct a field
    >test, but c't did an anonymous one last year: They claimed to have
    >accidentally overwritten a very important file on a current HDD
    >and whether they could have it _please_ recoverd? They contacted
    >several major data-recovery outfits and all said they could
    >not do that type of job.

    Well, no first hand experience, but from what I hear they are quite
    good...

    Of course, it is just a sales pitch, but anyway:

    Case Studies
    If there is any DATA, anywhere ON your DISK or TAPE, it can be
    RECOVERED. In short, our expertise is your reassurance: your data is
    in the safest hands, anywhere.

    link:
    http://www.vogon-international.com/data-recovery/data-recovery.htm

    their web site could be better, though...
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Ann Onimus <Ann@Onimus.net> wrote:

    >Evidence eliminator is a good choice.

    yeah, looks like a good piece of software.

    The Eraser proposed by Bob is also a good choice.
    Will have to try both apps...
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> wrote:

    >http://www.tolvanen.com/eraser/


    tnx.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously alex <alexx9@iname.com> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >>Does not need an application, I am a Linux user. The task is close
    >>to trivial from a technological point of view.
    >>All the following will work fine (hdb is the target) :
    >>
    >>cat /dev/zero > /dev/hdb
    >>dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdb
    >>dd_rescue /dev/zero /dev/hdb

    > will have to try this one...
    > tnx.

    Works well. I have been using this for a decade now.

    >>> VOGON seems to disagree with you.
    >>
    >>Have a reference for that? I am not about to conduct a field
    >>test, but c't did an anonymous one last year: They claimed to have
    >>accidentally overwritten a very important file on a current HDD
    >>and whether they could have it _please_ recoverd? They contacted
    >>several major data-recovery outfits and all said they could
    >>not do that type of job.

    > Well, no first hand experience, but from what I hear they are quite
    > good...

    > Of course, it is just a sales pitch, but anyway:

    > Case Studies
    > If there is any DATA, anywhere ON your DISK or TAPE, it can be
    > RECOVERED. In short, our expertise is your reassurance: your data is
    > in the safest hands, anywhere.

    O.K. I have no issue with that. They don't claim to be able to
    recover data that is not there. The problem with overwritten
    data is that it is not there in a pretty strong sense.

    Also a though experiment: If you have on layer of good data
    and one layer of overwritten data below that and you can
    read both (albeit the second one with dificulties), then
    the HDD surface is able to hold at least twice the amount
    of data than the advertised capacity. The same argument holds
    with multiple overwrites.

    My impression is that in recent years the limiting factor for
    HDD capacity was not heads or electronics but the surface
    covering which can take only so many bits in a specific
    area before they start to bleed into each other.

    Tape and floppies are different. The recording density
    is not close to the material limit there. A 1.44MB floppy
    can hold up to 20MB with speacial servos and possibly more.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    alex <alexx9@iname.com> wrote in message
    news:iv8s01l98pb2sggrv3fe7qvlg36fcb84gl@supernews.com...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> So is any decent wipe ute and you can reuse the drive.

    > ...which brings us back to my question, actually:

    > to sum up:
    > what app do you guys use *in RL* for safe and
    > permanent deletion of data on working hdd?

    I dont bother myself, I ensure that all data that matters
    is fully encrypted so there is no need to delete it.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

    >I dont bother myself, I ensure that all data that matters
    >is fully encrypted so there is no need to delete it.

    Yes, good point.

    PGP maybe. I hear that after 6.5.3. version they closed the
    source code...
    Only god and those funny 3 letter agencies know what they put in
    there...
    :-)
    :)
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously Ann Onimus <Ann@onimus.net> wrote:
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> shared:

    >>I dont bother myself, I ensure that all data that matters
    >>is fully encrypted so there is no need to delete it.

    > Yes, good point.

    > PGP maybe. I hear that after 6.5.3. version they closed the
    > source code...
    > Only god and those funny 3 letter agencies know what they put in
    > there...
    > :-)
    > :)

    Use GnuPG, it is fully open and has enough developers that
    somebody would have found the backboors if there were any.

    Arno
    --
    For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> shared:

    >Use GnuPG, it is fully open and has enough developers that
    >somebody would have found the backboors if there were any.

    Yep.

    Check this company:
    http://www.securstar.com/

    HD encryption at its best...or so they say. :)
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    <edited, for brevity>

    > My impression is that in recent years the limiting factor for
    > HDD capacity was not heads or electronics but the surface
    > covering which can take only so many bits in a specific
    > area before they start to bleed into each other.
    >
    > Tape and floppies are different. The recording density
    > is not close to the material limit there. A 1.44MB floppy
    > can hold up to 20MB with speacial servos and possibly more.
    >
    > Arno
    > --
    > For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    > GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    > "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus


    Hello, Arno:

    20MB, on a standard 1.44MB diskette? Are there any commercially-available
    floppy drives capable of performing such a feat?


    Cordially,
    John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >
    > <edited, for brevity>

    >> My impression is that in recent years the limiting factor for
    >> HDD capacity was not heads or electronics but the surface
    >> covering which can take only so many bits in a specific
    >> area before they start to bleed into each other.
    >>
    >> Tape and floppies are different. The recording density
    >> is not close to the material limit there. A 1.44MB floppy
    >> can hold up to 20MB with speacial servos and possibly more.
    >>
    >> Arno
    >> --
    >> For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    >> GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    >> "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus


    > Hello, Arno:

    > 20MB, on a standard 1.44MB diskette? Are there any commercially-available
    > floppy drives capable of performing such a feat?

    Actually it was done by adding laser-cut servo tracks (i.e.
    _decreasing_ the maximum capacity!) that allowed the head to
    track better.

    The product was DOA because they charged too much for the
    specially prepared floppies and because the floppies had
    to be specially prepared in the first place.

    Was 5 years back or more, if I remember correctly.

    Arno
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
    >> Arno Wagner wrote:
    >>
    >> <edited, for brevity>
    >
    >>> My impression is that in recent years the limiting factor for
    >>> HDD capacity was not heads or electronics but the surface
    >>> covering which can take only so many bits in a specific
    >>> area before they start to bleed into each other.
    >>>
    >>> Tape and floppies are different. The recording density
    >>> is not close to the material limit there. A 1.44MB floppy
    >>> can hold up to 20MB with speacial servos and possibly more.
    >>>
    >>> Arno
    >>> --
    >>> For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
    >>> GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    >>> "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus
    >
    >
    >> Hello, Arno:
    >
    >> 20MB, on a standard 1.44MB diskette? Are there any commercially-available
    >> floppy drives capable of performing such a feat?
    >
    > Actually it was done by adding laser-cut servo tracks (i.e.
    > _decreasing_ the maximum capacity!) that allowed the head to
    > track better.
    >
    > The product was DOA because they charged too much for the
    > specially prepared floppies and because the floppies had
    > to be specially prepared in the first place.
    >
    > Was 5 years back or more, if I remember correctly.

    Actually the 20 died because of (a) poor marketing and (b) the rather
    remarkable fragility of the drives. Imation came out with an improved
    version that does 120 on the special diskette and there are drives in the
    same family with 240 meg capacity--I've got one of those FWIW. The 240s
    can also put 34 meg on a _standard_ diskette but you have to use their
    proprietary software to both write and read it. With CD and DVD prices
    being what they are it's kind of hard to justify the price of the 240 meg
    diskettes though.

    Panasonic is still making the 120 drives and they seem to be still available
    <http://store.yahoo.com/alan-fm/lkm-f434-1.html>. The ATAPI 240s were
    never available in the US except as a special order item, but there was a
    USB model imported by QPS for which I can find one vendor who still claims
    stock, (I started to paste the link but it turned out to be about ten lines
    long)--go to <http://www.printnation.com/store/> and plug
    "QPLS240USB" (sans quotes) into the search engine.

    They do work as advertised, and the 240s and the second generation 120s will
    also sometimes read a diskette that a standard drive won't and are
    significantly faster on writes besides, but they're also IDE and only work
    as boot drives on machines that have LS-120 support in the BIOS.

    > Arno

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:37bpl7F5bjfteU1@individual.net
    > Previously John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
    > > Arno Wagner wrote:
    > >
    > > <edited, for brevity>
    >
    > > > My impression is that in recent years the limiting factor for
    > > > HDD capacity was not heads or electronics but the surface
    > > > covering which can take only so many bits in a specific
    > > > area before they start to bleed into each other.
    > > >
    > > > Tape and floppies are different. The recording density
    > > > is not close to the material limit there. A 1.44MB floppy
    > > > can hold up to 20MB with speacial servos and possibly more.
    > > >
    > > > Arno
    >
    > > Hello, Arno:
    >
    > > 20MB, on a standard 1.44MB diskette? Are there any commercially-
    > > available floppy drives capable of performing such a feat?

    They are called LS-120 and LS-240 and manage 120MB and 240MB
    respectively. And no, they can't do that on standard floppies.

    >
    > Actually it was done by adding laser-cut servo tracks (i.e.
    > _decreasing_ the maximum capacity!) that allowed the head to
    > track better.
    >
    > The product was DOA

    So dead infact that they even made a version that was twice
    the original capacity. They must have sold very badly indeed.

    > because they charged too much for the specially prepared
    > floppies and because the floppies had to be specially
    > prepared in the first place.

    Gee, how else could they have been 'specially prepared'.

    >
    > Was 5 years back or more, if I remember correctly.

    What a memory. Oops, err, INSIGHT.

    >
    > Arno
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Storage Hard Drives Product