>Hi George,
>
>>Why? Because another condition could exist that would cause it to return 0.
>
>I haven't yet received the printed issue, but if the check is for >0 (as in your initial message) and not for >=0, that's wrong. Maybe you can point that out in your feedback, too?
>
Christof,

I will and the published tip did say just ">". Further, since -1 is returned, the drive also could not have a disk in it.