Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (7943)	6/18/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

>>The 1/32in space between external bay occupants annoyed me some.. Not sure we're talking about the same thing. I was referring to internal hard-drive spacing for (in particular) the so-called "half-height" drives, now the standard drive height. The height of all your hard drives. A few years ago out of concern for mounting drives too close together, I called Western Digital tech support (since all my drives at the time were WDC). I was informed that it was no problem to mount them right over each other in the drive cage. The term the techie used was "As long as you can get a piece of paper between them." So I did that. I also have had a lot of WDC drives fail. However, I can't pin it on the spacing, and in fact they were all (so far, though I suspect a couple of others) the 1.6 GB drives that WDC admitted were failure prone. In fairness, I have had others (1.2 gb and older smaller drives) run for years in the "paper between" configuration. However, this time I opted to give myself a little leeway. Who knows whether it will matter or not? Not me. BTW, my Maxtors in my other machine, which actually runs hotter, are packed together with 1/32 or thereabouts spacing. Never a blip. The oldest has been running 7x24 for two years now, and the youngest about a year. Quien sabe? Spots