50GB blu-ray discs [Archive]

yetanotherid

8th March 2011, 13:54

Second question: why bother? Buy yourself 2TB HDD for $80 and you can backup 40 x BD50 onto it. That makes $2 per one disc :)

I have everything stored on external hard drives and also backed up to discs. However I get so sick of burning stuff I've often considered giving it the flick and buying duplicate external drives so I can back everything up to hard drive twice. As yet though, I've not been able to give up the reassurance of knowing once something is burned to a disc I can't accidentally delete it.

I once replaced a drive and reformatted the old one to run the OS, and while I was copying the files over from the backup drive, the backup drive stopped working. At the time I wondered in amazement about the probability of that actually happening... but it did... so I've been emotionally reliant on the optical disc ever since. :)

ramicio

8th March 2011, 16:34

If you get a hard drive now, put something on it, and never use it again, it will outlast optical media by many years. I don't see how optical media is more reliable than a HDD. The only thing that kills a HDD is use. I also don't know why people complain about that in the future there will be no way of connecting such device of today. Yeah, OK [rolling eyes]. IDE is fading out, but it is not going to completely disappear for some time. SATA is likely to be around for much longer. The consumer really doesn't have much need for much more computing power than we have now. I can't see a computer in 10 years from now being the same step as from 10 years ago until now. As far as needing to keep data, will you even have interest in it 5, 10, or 20 years down the road? Does no one have warnings when they are going to delete a file? Jeez. Why can't there be something equivalent to popping out the tab on a VHS tape or cassette tape to keep people from crying in the digital age.

Ghitulescu

8th March 2011, 17:03

If you get a hard drive now, put something on it, and never use it again, it will outlast optical media by many years. I don't see how optical media is more reliable than a HDD. The only thing that kills a HDD is use.

Both issues are at least controversial if not plainly false.

The common failure of non used HDDs is the hardening of the grease, which may break the arm if the accessed data is unfragmented.

There are also HDDs that are designed to work 24/7, at least 5 years. Consumer HDDs are far less reliable, and cannot stand worktimes spanning several days in a row (yes they can, but hmm hmm).

It's the heat the one that kills a HDD not the use.

ramicio

8th March 2011, 17:09

A hard drive is a hard drive. Anyone is going to have a hard time convincing me that these >$1000 hard drives are superior to a consumer one in any way other than a SCSI-variant connection and different casing.

kypec

8th March 2011, 17:15

@yetanotherid: sorry to hear that, I've my files copied usually at 2 or 3 separate HDD always.
@Dogway: I don't believe that optical BD-R media will be (more reliably) readable in 5 years from now if recorded today than having the same data copied on 3 pcs HDD which is still gonna cost me about same but the comfort/access time/transfer speed/used space are far better with this solution IMO.

Ghitulescu

8th March 2011, 18:43

Slightly off-topic: there will always be the need for a ROM medium.
The biggest problem of the HDD is that it cannot be made ReadOnly and it's enough a bitchange to make large parts thereof unreadable.

ramicio

8th March 2011, 21:25

The only reason they sell media physically anymore is because people want the last bit of control over what they buy that they have left. If movies were to be downloaded then they could just flip a switch and make it invalid (DRM, theft.)

forumjunkie

8th March 2011, 21:43

Yeah exactly Ive had bad experiences with HDD.. Optical disc is a more realible.

Were DVD-Rs this expensive when they first came out?

Dogway

9th March 2011, 03:12

@kypec: I have DVD's lasting from 6-7 years to 10 years. And BD-R are said to specially last even longer due to a protection layer applied after burn. What you said is not a fair comparison, 3 HDD is not one 2Tb HDD. But by the same logic 3 different brand BD-R should be more reliable than 3 different brand HDD's IMO. HDD more comfort? probably, but I wouldnt want to backup a project or anything you would consider important in a consumer HDD.

On topic, I think that on average electronic products are cheaper now than before, for instance I just bought a bluray film for 12€. Prices drop soon, sooner than before at least.

ramicio

9th March 2011, 03:24

Does everyone here have their hard drives grenade after like a year of use? With a bad hard drive it will show it's rotten face right away. With a bad optical media it takes time for flaws to surface. I'll trust HDD way more than optical media for holding my data. Just about all of my optical media stored on spindles is now dead. My oldest data is on my hard drives.

Ghitulescu

9th March 2011, 09:18

Just about all of my optical media stored on spindles is now dead. My oldest data is on my hard drives.

Sorry to hear this, but this means that your burns were defective in the first place, or the media was bad/cheap/fake (I won't exclude here the burner neither). The reason I'm replacing some of my disks is that I own now the DVD versions and I dump (give away) the older DVB recordings. They are still within the specs. But I'm not burning at 24x (only at 4x or 6x) and I'm not buying a spindle of 50 for 5€ but I try to find the good ones instead.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 03:58

If you get a hard drive now, put something on it, and never use it again, it will outlast optical media by many years. I don't see how optical media is more reliable than a HDD. The only thing that kills a HDD is use.

Does everyone here have their hard drives grenade after like a year of use? With a bad hard drive it will show it's rotten face right away. With a bad optical media it takes time for flaws to surface. I'll trust HDD way more than optical media for holding my data. Just about all of my optical media stored on spindles is now dead. My oldest data is on my hard drives.

So how does this bad hard drive show itself if you put something on it an never use it again?

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 04:17

There are also HDDs that are designed to work 24/7, at least 5 years. Consumer HDDs are far less reliable, and cannot stand worktimes spanning several days in a row (yes they can, but hmm hmm).

It's the heat the one that kills a HDD not the use.

According to the study released by Google, not only isn't heat all that bad for a hard drive, it's a friend.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/18/massive-google-hard-drive-survey-turns-up-very-interesting-thing/

I'm pretty sure they also mentioned something about enterprise drives not lasting any longer then consumer drives, but I've got two PCs which run for days and days at a time without a reboot. One has pretty much been on 24/7 for 6 months and has 4 hard drives which are still going strong.

ramicio

11th March 2011, 04:26

Exactly how an engine shows you if it's defective right away or not.

CWR03

11th March 2011, 05:28

I'm pretty sure they also mentioned something about enterprise drives not lasting any longer then consumer drives, but I've got two PCs which run for days and days at a time without a reboot. One has pretty much been on 24/7 for 6 months and has 4 hard drives which are still going strong.
My experience has been the same - currently my computer has been running without a reboot for 15 days 2:34 hours with the hard drive reading/writing non-stop, and has been doing so for the last 624 days without more than a few hours total powered down during that time. If this consumer hard drive lasts five years under those conditions it will be the 8th one to do so for me.

ramicio

11th March 2011, 05:38

Hard drives have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years. Back in the days of Maxtor were when almost every drive failed within a year, and especially Maxtor ones.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 05:39

Exactly how an engine shows you if it's defective right away or not.

So if an engine's going to fail it'll do so the first time you turn on the ignition? Not the fourth time, or the twentieth time?

In my experience hard drives generally fail pretty quickly or they last for years, but "pretty quickly" can mean weeks or months. You could save stuff to a new hard drive which is destined to fail quickly but never know if you barely use it. Personally if I was going to use a hard drive for archiving I'd give it a good work out for a couple of months first, and if it survived I'd then save my data to it before ensuring it'll last forever by never using it again. ;)

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 05:46

Hard drives have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years. Back in the days of Maxtor were when almost every drive failed within a year, and especially Maxtor ones.

Based on your experience with using how many hard drives?
I'd be willing to concede they may have become more reliable but you never know. I've got two Seagate drives which failed fairly quickly due to dodgy firmware. One has been returned for replacement twice and so far the second replacement seems to be "good". The second drive just failed again so it's about to be returned for replacement a third time.
Then again there's probably over a dozen other hard drives scattered throughout this house which have all been running without a hitch for ages, but my Seagate experience has kept me wary.
That and the fact I can drop an optical disc and it'll still work. The Samsung drive which accidentally got knocked off the desk when something caught it's cable a couple of weeks ago didn't survive the experience.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 08:15

Hard drives have gotten a lot better in the last couple of years. Back in the days of Maxtor were when almost every drive failed within a year, and especially Maxtor ones.

You'd be surprised to see how many professional PCs have also Maxtors (besides Seagate and Fujitsu).

Try not to forget about seagate 7200 series :), one of the best sold drive.

I tend to say that the only thing that increased for HDDs is the capacity (rotation speed and cache, too), the endurance/reliability however dropped a little. They even started to issue warnings about non-stop use for consumer drives, but they stopped as this caused to the sales.

forumjunkie

11th March 2011, 12:12

people that say that Optical discs are less reliable then HDD are the people that are yet to suffer the consequences of the HDD. Its a guarantee that sooner or later especially on an external drive one day you will wake up to not being able to access your data.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 14:36

They even started to issue warnings about non-stop use for consumer drives, but they stopped as this caused to the sales.

So what happened? Did people start running PCs without hard drives or did sales drop because more people switched to enterprise drives? Although wouldn't that be the objective?

I can't say I recall reading any "warnings" about running consumer drives non stop. The closest would be adverts on manufacturer websites trying to promote the use of more expensive enterprise drives for that purpose.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 14:45

So what happened? Did people start running PCs without hard drives or did sales drop because more people switched to enterprise drives? Although wouldn't that be the objective?

I can't say I recall reading any "warnings" about running consumer drives non stop. The closest would be adverts on manufacturer websites trying to promote the use of more expensive enterprise drives for that purpose.

That confirms that either you don't read the manuals or you have been born after 200something.

And you definitively don't buy enterprise HDDs because you don't even know to mount them in a PC, should you have the money to buy one. Oh, sorry, forgot again, you knew this already, that they use a different interface and you need an expensive controller, if you find one in the next street shop.

Or you must confound the enterprise HDDs with consumer types that are allowed for non-stop operation.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 15:13

That confirms that either you don't read the manuals or you have been born after 200something.

No, it just confirms you're obsessing about my age because you were born in the stone age and consider that must make you correct about everything. To get it out of the way, I'm 47.
And no, I've never read a hard drive manual, in fact, I don't think I've ever seen one. I've always bought OEM drives which come in an antistatic bag and that's it. I'll admit I'd be surprised if you can show me an example of such a warning in a manual, but I'll happily be proved wrong if you can.

And you definitively don't buy enterprise HDDs because you don't even know to mount them in a PC, should you have the money to buy one. Oh, sorry, forgot again, you knew this already, that they use a different interface and you need an expensive controller, if you find one in the next street shop.

Now you're just sounding childish. Many enterprise drives today use a SATA interface anyway.

Or you must confound the enterprise HDDs with consumer types that are allowed for non-stop operation.

No, I haven't. But enterprise drives, imaginary special consumer types..... are you going to answer my question (edited to remove the red herring)?

"So what happened? Did people start running PCs without hard drives or did sales drop because more people switched to enterprise or special non-stop consumer type drives? Although wouldn't that be the objective?"

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 15:47

have a look here of a typical enterprise HDD
http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/B76E07FDC7F51D99862574250063DE77/$file/US15K450_DS_final.pdf
Do you happen to have a SAS of FibreChannel interface at home? I very doubt it.
Have a look closely at the second page. 50000 start/stop cycles (wow, only 50k, when the consumer ones have typically at least 500'000 -> http://www.chip.de/preisvergleich/53719/Datenblatt-Hitachi-Travelstar-E7K100-60GB-HTE721060-G9AT00.html). Where did the rest of 450'000 S/S cycles go? Damn 24/7 availability ...
I picked up 2 HDDs from the same producer.

And concerning the consumer type- here's a statement from IBM (luckily kept by techrepublic) -> http://techreport.com/discussions/3494, which mentions the nice figure of 333, printed by IBM on all consumer HDDs, until they sold the division to Hitachi.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 16:34

have a look here of a typical enterprise HDD
http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/B76E07FDC7F51D99862574250063DE77/$file/US15K450_DS_final.pdf
Do you happen to have a SAS of FibreChannel interface at home? I very doubt it.

No, so what? Are you going to answer the question?

Have a look closely at the second page. 50000 start/stop cycles (wow, only 50k, when the consumer ones have typically at least 500'000 -> http://www.chip.de/preisvergleich/53719/Datenblatt-Hitachi-Travelstar-E7K100-60GB-HTE721060-G9AT00.html). Where did the rest of 450'000 S/S cycles go? Damn 24/7 availability ...

You're seriously telling me you believe a start stop cycle rating somehow directly correlates to whether it'll keep running 24/7 or not?? Funny stuff. Next you'll be telling me I can predict how long a hard drive will last through it's MTBF rating.
You do understand there's different types of head parking strategies which offer vastly different numbers of start stop cycles and the type used probably has no relationship to how long the platters can spin without a rest..... except of course when it comes to enterprise drives which are expected to be running 24/7.... why use the more expensive head parking method when the heads aren't going to be parked anywhere near as often?? Once again, you're confusing cause and effect.
You can read about the two methods here
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/qual/specCycles-c.html
and here
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/perf/qual/features_Head.htm
and then maybe rethink your theory.

And concerning the consumer type- here's a statement from IBM (luckily kept by techrepublic) -> http://techreport.com/discussions/3494, which mentions the nice figure of 333, printed by IBM on all consumer HDDs, until they sold the division to Hitachi.

"Our specifications indicate that the 333 power-on hours per month represent typical desktop PC usage. This assumes an 11-hour day based on a 30 day month. Users can and have successfully run the drive more than 11 hours a day and 333 hours per month; the drives have been used successfully in 24x7 environments."

Fortunately I can read the statement for what it is rather than extract a meaning I want to find.

Anyway, back to my question:
So what happened? Did people start running PCs without hard drives or did sales drop because more people switched to enterprise or special non-stop consumer type drives? Although wouldn't that be the objective?

ramicio

11th March 2011, 16:35

You start a new engine, run it for a few minutes to check for leaks, and then drive it like you intend it to be used, right away. If something was done wrong and it's going to have a catastrophic failure because of something done wrong, and out of tolerance or spec. then it is going to show itself during the time you let it idle to check for leaks and such.

I've had about 20 years worth of hard drives. Whenever I've discovered one about to die it was because of heat. Nothing else. There used to be a big disparity between commercial drive quality and consumer. NOW the only disparity IS price. Constant use is better for a drive than the idiots who turn their computers on and off multiple times a day. I don't know why any hard drive would fail if moved around while it's off. A head crash occurs while it's operating. When it's off the arm gets locked. This is getting downright childish arguing if an interface makes a drive last longer, or not. Enterprise drives just have a different mounting scheme, and most use SAS now. SAS is barely different from SATA, and most RAID controller cards that are SAS let you connect SATA drives, anyway. Fiber Channel for hard drives is not optical fiber, it's still copper...

How about flash memory? You can't argue any moving parts with that. That is truly something you can write to and forget about, and drop, and run over with a car. Optical media is gay. A ton of papers printed with 1's and 0's stored in a climate-controlled archive building would be the best, or perhaps a crapload of stones chiseled with 1's and 0's.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 16:56

All enterprises change their HDDs every 5 years. Not because they fail, but because it's safe to do this.
There are not so many S/S cycles in these 5 years, say 10 (revisions every 1/2 year). A consumer HDDs has at least 2000 S/S in this time, should it survive.
You can't be serious in what you say. Maybe in AUS the things are different because of the corrioli forces, you know, the HDDs spins differently, vortexes are differently created, air cushion etc. etc. etc. ...

I my whole PC experience I've seen only 2 broken HDDs, both consumer type. One was caused by the heat (as ramicio said), the other was dropped while working. The nice part was that the first one sit below of a SCSI "enterprise type", which HDD had no problem, even if supplementary heated by the second one. The problem was, in both cases, not the HW itself, but the info they carried. If one BDR/DVDR/CDR fails, it goes the info on that medium, not hundreds of MB/GB.

To put an end to this story, why don't you buy a HDD for consumer use (optimized for office work), store your most precious data (non redundant, of course) onto it, and let it run for days, month, years. I put my hand into fire you won't do this, because you know this, and like any other, prefer to find excuses rather than to accept the reality.

@ramicio:
enterprise HDDs are differently built, and if you think they are different, maybe you don't have access to the real ones (it's not just a change of interface, from SATA to SAS/FC). To your car example: it's like an M-BMW to a regular one, they use the same materials for non-important things, but the extra 100HP need a stronger clutch, stronger brakes etc. and of course a different engine management (chip tuning).

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 16:59

This is getting downright childish arguing if an interface makes a drive last longer, or not.

I agree but when Ghitulescu makes a statement regarding warnings about running consumer drives 24/7 and how those warning were withdrawn because it effected sales, and when someone questions that accuracy of that statement, an argument over interfaces is just one of the many interesting tangents he'll wonder off on to avoid answering the question.
We're probably not far off the stage where he'll be telling me I took the thread OT and how I should start my own if I want to continue the discussion.

ramicio

11th March 2011, 17:11

BMWs are gay, don't even use them for arguments. Yeah, more power needs different materials, in the car world, but nothing in the computer world is horsepower or torque. You really cannot be serious about a Enterprise drive being built differently, as if they are using some space-age materials that just came out from being developed by the military. They just have a different interface, and a different mounting scheme, and a higher rotational speed. There is nothing different between the two in the fundamental way a hard drive operates. If a cluster on a hard drive fails it doesn't wipe out the whole drive, I don't know where you're getting this "wiping out hundreds of MB or GB at once" crap. I run my consumer drives 24/7 anymore and they last 5 years at the minimum. What serious computers run Maxtor drives? They aren't even made anymore, they were acquired by Seagate. They just make external drives, which I'd think are Seagate drives inside a Maxtor-branded shell, since there are no internal Maxtor drives for sale.

I don't even have anything important that I would want to deal with trying to shrink to fit on optical media anymore. The difference between hard drive size and optical media size just keeps getting wider.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 17:15

You can't be serious in what you say. Maybe in AUS the things are different because of the corrioli forces, you know, the HDDs spins differently, vortexes are differently created, air cushion etc. etc. etc. ...

Or maybe it's just that in Australia we're capable of more logical thought than where you are.

I my whole PC experience I've seen only 2 broken HDDs, both consumer type. One was caused by the heat (as ramicio said), the other was dropped while working.

I've pretty much owned every drive I've ever bought until it died. I've got a 20GB Maxtor drive running an old P3 which still gets used several hours per day.

I'd be surprised if there's any way you could "know" heat killed the drive and you're not just assuming that's what killed it. A few years ago Google published a study which indicated drives which run hotter tend to last longer and that heat doesn't have an adverse effect until it's well over 50 degrees and yet so many people are so set in their beliefs that they'll still insist heat killed their drive because it got a bit warm.

The nice part was that the first one sit below of a SCSI "enterprise type", which HDD had no problem, even if supplementary heated by the second one.

So now you'll be able to offer specs of enterprise drives which show they have a greater range of operating temperature or do you think the fact that heat didn't kill one drive, even though the first helped it run hotter, might indicate heat didn't kill the first drive either? And maybe one drive being a consumer drive while the other wasn't led you to an incorrect assumption?

To put an end to this story, why don't you buy a HDD for consumer use (optimized for office work), store your most precious data (non redundant, of course) onto it, and let it run for days, month, years. I put my hand into fire you won't do this, because you know this, and like any other, prefer to find excuses rather than to accept the reality.

For the same reason I wouldn't buy an enterprise drive and store precious data on it then let it run for years and years for no apparent reason because either way it'd be stupid.
Once again the reality I'm supposed to accept is just your opinion and nothing more, only you're self-opinionated enough to think I should accept them as one and the same without question.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 17:22

I can't discuss the reliability of a brand new HDD, of course the Maxtors were some 5-6 years old when I saw them, and they are still working. Yes, the servers were Fujitsu-Siemens.

A Ferrari fundamentally use the same principles as a Skoda, to reuse your arguments. I agree however that more technologies from the enterprise series come into the consumer series, as soon as the costs are amortised, it helps against the competition.

Supposingly the head were above the FAT/NTSC partitions or tables, well, some data gets damaged. If the shock was strong, it might have damaged the heads and/or the plates. Physically. And only forensic companies, at enormous prices may (not can, may) recover the data.

So, it appears that the space/size advances in technology make anyway a HDD obsolete, much before it reaches its physical end, due to improper use. In this end, one can use a S/S optimised HDD for months, and a enterprise HDD for user applications, with no regard to their actual design.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 17:22

They just have a different interface, and a different mounting scheme, and a higher rotational speed. There is nothing different between the two in the fundamental way a hard drive operates.

I'd be inclined to believe that's quite possible.
Rather than a car analogy, I'll use a washing machine one. I bought one a year ago and I was trying to decide between two models, one which had a higher spin RPM and was a little more expensive than the model down. Even the salesman said to me he was pretty sure they use exactly the same parts but the more expensive one was balanced better due to the higher RPM. So the question was... would the more expensive machine last as long as the model down given it contained exactly the same parts, only they were expected to work harder. :)

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 17:24

I'd be surprised if there's any way you could "know" heat killed the drive and you're not just assuming that's what killed it. A few years ago Google published a study which indicated drives which run hotter tend to last longer and that heat doesn't have an adverse effect until it's well over 50 degrees and yet so many people are so set in their beliefs that they'll still insist heat killed their drive because it got a bit warm.

I know that study, it compares 28° with 50°. In my case it was more than warm, it was hot (the cabinet had the air supply broken, and the case fan recirculated the heated air on and on, till it cracked).

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 17:36

I know that study, it compares 28° with 50°. In my case it was more than warm, it was hot (the cabinet had the air supply broken, and the case fan recirculated the heated air on and on, till it cracked).

So how hot did the drives get? I assume you looked at the SMART attributes for the remaining drive to be certain it was running at a temperature hot enough to kill the first drive, or are we still working on assumption?
Maybe it was just that hard drive's time? Or maybe it did get way too hot, but that'd be a fairly untypical example. The average person wouldn't own hard drives which get hot enough to have their life expectancy reduced, so I still think your original statement that heat kills hard drives, not their use, isn't something which applies to 99.99% of PC users.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 17:43

So how hot did the drives get? I assume you looked at the SMART attributes for the remaining drive to be certain it was running at a temperature hot enough to kill the first drive, or are we still working on assumption?
Maybe it was just that hard drive's time? Or maybe it did get way too hot, but that'd be a fairly untypical example. The average person wouldn't own hard drives which get hot enough to have their life expectancy reduced, so I still think your original statement that heat kills hard drives, not their use, isn't something which applies to 99.99% of PC users.

That one was before SMART became standard.
However, the issue was that the consumer IDE placed near a SCSI enterprise one, in the same conditions, failed. I don't remember why it was put inside the server, but this doesn't change the facts. Erh, and it was new, while the SCSI one was some 2 years old at that time.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 18:08

That one was before SMART became standard.

So we're not talking modern hard drives. Was it a 5.25" 10MB model. :)

However, the issue was that the consumer IDE placed near a SCSI enterprise one, in the same conditions, failed. I don't remember why it was put inside the server, but this doesn't change the facts. Erh, and it was new, while the SCSI one was some 2 years old at that time.

Errr... and don't hard drives tend to fail pretty quickly or last for years? Regardless of heat?

So here we have a new drive which failed fairly quickly as they're prone to do if they're going to fail, running in the same case as another two year old drive, which kept running oblivious to the heat, so you made a consumer vs enterprise heat assumption without knowing how hot they were really getting and while now avoiding the question as to whether enterprise drives are rated to run at higher temperatures than consumer dives, which they're not, so there's nothing to suggest it'd be less prone to heat death than a brand new consumer drive which hadn't been subjected to two years of wear.

The consumer IDE placed near a SCSI enterprise one in the same conditions may have failed, but from the facts presented so far it keeps appearing less likely to be the heat which killed it, and more likely that it would have died regardless. At least to me.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 18:13

So we're not talking modern hard drives. Was it a 5.25" 10MB model. :)
It's pretty sad to reach 47 and to get bored so much that you feel the need to transform a forum, where people exchange advices and not theories for the sake of theories, into a chatroom.

ramicio

11th March 2011, 18:16

Washing machines get out of balance as soon as clothes are put in there.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 18:25

It's pretty sad to reach 47 and to get bored so much that you feel the need to transform a forum, where people exchange advices and not theories for the sake of theories, into a chatroom.

You can't be serious in what you say. Maybe in AUS the things are different because of the corrioli forces, you know, the HDDs spins differently, vortexes are differently created, air cushion etc. etc. etc. ...

It's lucky when living long enough to suffer from dementia you also become blissfully unaware of your own hypocrisy.

Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Where did you think you were posting? ;)