USB powered zip 250 started eating zip100 disks! Aaaargh!

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

Hi,

Is this the right group for this? Anyway, just today my USB zip250
drive decided to ruin two of my zip100 disks (it has been working fine
up until now), I am very reluctant to put in another zip disk to
confirm it is the drive - I have also got a scsi zip100 drive which I
have used to check and long-format my other zip disks, so I know they
are OK (as is my scsi zip100 drive). Is my zip250 drive just kaput or
what? Anyone else had this happen?

When I try to format the two disks using my zip100 drive, they fail to
format and media life is reported by iomegaware as 48% and 50% (were
previously reported as 85% before I tried to reformat in the zip100,
but after they got chewed - I didn't check them before that).

One other thing I'm not too sure of - why won't a zip250 drive long
format a zip100 disk? Is it because it is USB powered, or that it just
can't handle the smaller disk capacity?

Thanks for any help!
3 answers Last reply
More about powered started eating zip100 disks aaaargh
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Use Blank DVDS or Cds for DOGs sake.


    On 19 Apr 2005 09:00:43 -0700, jonny_morrisuk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >Is this the right group for this? Anyway, just today my USB zip250
    >drive decided to ruin two of my zip100 disks (it has been working fine
    >up until now), I am very reluctant to put in another zip disk to
    >confirm it is the drive - I have also got a scsi zip100 drive which I
    >have used to check and long-format my other zip disks, so I know they
    >are OK (as is my scsi zip100 drive). Is my zip250 drive just kaput or
    >what? Anyone else had this happen?
    >
    >When I try to format the two disks using my zip100 drive, they fail to
    >format and media life is reported by iomegaware as 48% and 50% (were
    >previously reported as 85% before I tried to reformat in the zip100,
    >but after they got chewed - I didn't check them before that).
    >
    >One other thing I'm not too sure of - why won't a zip250 drive long
    >format a zip100 disk? Is it because it is USB powered, or that it just
    >can't handle the smaller disk capacity?
    >
    >Thanks for any help!
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    jonny_morrisuk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    >Is this the right group for this? Anyway, just today my USB zip250
    >drive decided to ruin two of my zip100 disks (it has been working fine
    >up until now), I am very reluctant to put in another zip disk to
    >confirm it is the drive - I have also got a scsi zip100 drive which I
    >have used to check and long-format my other zip disks, so I know they
    >are OK (as is my scsi zip100 drive). Is my zip250 drive just kaput or
    >what? Anyone else had this happen?
    >
    >When I try to format the two disks using my zip100 drive, they fail to
    >format and media life is reported by iomegaware as 48% and 50% (were
    >previously reported as 85% before I tried to reformat in the zip100,
    >but after they got chewed - I didn't check them before that).

    If the disks actually got "chewed", then they would likely wreck any
    drive in which you tried to use them subsequently.

    >One other thing I'm not too sure of - why won't a zip250 drive long
    >format a zip100 disk? Is it because it is USB powered, or that it just
    >can't handle the smaller disk capacity?

    The tracks on the 100MB disks are much wider than the heads on a 250MB
    drive can write, so the drive has to make several passes to fill out
    each track when writing. This makes writing to a 100MB disk in a
    250MB drive *very* slow. Long formatting also involves verifying the
    integrity of the disk surface, and I don't think the narrow heads on a
    250MB drive could do that reliably for a 100MB disk (it would take an
    exceedingly long time to even attempt it).

    I don't think it is a good idea to be writing to 100MB disks in a
    250MB drive on a regular basis.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Hi,

    > If the disks actually got "chewed", then they would likely wreck any
    > drive in which you tried to use them subsequently.

    Well, not literal physical damage, just an expression.


    > I don't think it is a good idea to be writing to 100MB disks in a
    > 250MB drive on a regular basis.

    Hmm, so perhaps my disks were being gradually degraded by the 250MB
    writing and I just hadn't noticed. I will certainly bare this in mind
    for the future, and perhaps invest in a second 100MB scsi zip drive and
    some 250MB disks for use in the other one. Thanks!
Ask a new question

Read More

USB Format Storage