| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 30 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 67:33:29 |
| Calls: | 414 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,015 |
| Messages: | 94,286 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
Utopian Galt wrote to All <=-
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used
to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used
to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs back on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used to customi system and they always corrupted :(
I don't even have a floppy drive anymore but when I did they always
worked well for me. I have a vague recollection of 1 floppy failing on
me back then but it was an old disk I used forever so I guess it gave up.
Utopian Galt wrote to All <=-
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used
to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
I've still got several including an external USB 3.5" drive. Some of them are the 1.2M 5 1/4inch variety. Those are still my favourite disks.
Ogg wrote to boraxman <=-
Hello boraxman!
** On Monday 28.04.25 - 00:12, boraxman wrote to Al:
I've still got several including an external USB 3.5" drive. Some of them are the 1.2M 5 1/4inch variety. Those are still my favourite disks.
Not me:
http://kolico.ca/fidonet/echos/win95/#diskettes
I found an old floppy disk with my global war license key and Qedit licensed for DOS a few years back. I borrowed a USB floppy and copied
I had more CDs go bad than floppies, but I wasn't exactly buying top quality CD blanks... :(
Wow... I've still got a LOT of disk
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
When was this?
I found floppies were pretty reliable in the early 90s and earlier.
By the mid 90s, they turned to crap. By the late 90s, early 2000s, if
you bought a "new" box of floppies, they were duds. 360K disks I
found pretty solid.
I've only had one CD go bad, and it was a CD-RW. I'd used it as a
backup for some of my college work (for some reason I thought I'd burn
an updated version of my college work on it some day). Just months
later, I tried to copy it back to my computer and it was having a hard time copying from one spot on the disc. Apparently it started to go
bad.. I found a program that would keep trying repeatedly to copy a
file until it succeeded, and I tried that with my CD-RW disc. After a
Got any single density 5.25" disks
you'd want to get rid of?
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Utopian Galt on Sun Apr 27 2025 09:11 am
I found an old floppy disk with my global war license key and Qedit licensed for DOS a few years back. I borrowed a USB floppy and copied
I used QEdit a lot in the early-mid 90s; mainly due to my dad using it.
I never had a licensed version though (and I'm not sure he did
either).
I had more CDs go bad than floppies, but I wasn't exactly buying top quality CD blanks... :(
I've only had one CD go bad, and it was a CD-RW. I'd used it as a
backup for some of my college work (for some reason I thought I'd burn
an updated version of my college work on it some day). Just months
later, I tried to copy it back to my computer and it was having a hard time copying from one spot on the disc. Apparently it started to go
bad.. I found a program that would keep trying repeatedly to copy a
file until it succeeded, and I tried that with my CD-RW disc. After a
few hours, it finally was able to successfully copy everything from
that disc (thankfully). I never used any re-writeable optical discs again.
Joe Phigan wrote to boraxman <=-
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: boraxman to Ogg on Mon Apr 28 2025 01:07 pm
Wow... I've still got a LOT of disk
Got any single density 5.25" disks
you'd want to get rid of?
neoshock wrote to boraxman <=-
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
When was this?
I found floppies were pretty reliable in the early 90s and earlier.
By the mid 90s, they turned to crap. By the late 90s, early 2000s, if
you bought a "new" box of floppies, they were duds. 360K disks I
found pretty solid.
Unlike other media like audio tape or VHS, it was quite important to
pick the right brand of floppy disks or even cd-r's. There were a few crappy brands out there that could result in failure. I main stuck with only a couple of brands. Verbatim or Sony for cd-r, or Verbatim and
Maxell for floppies.
Zip disks were a life saver for me before CD-R's, I can't recall ever having an issue with any zip-disks.
Not me:
http://kolico.ca/fidonet/echos/win95/#diskettes
Wow... I've still got a LOT of disks, mostly 1.44M, but
some 1.2M and a couple of disk boxes of 360K floppies from
when I had an XT. The 1.44M disks are kind of dying, but
the 5 1/4 inch disks, mostly holding up well, despite being
30+ years old.
Would be good if you could still buy new disks and drives,
just for the thrill of it.
There was a time, around 95/6 where the with burning software was ALL buggy. If you burnt a CD using win95, it would become useless on any later O/S I'm can't attest to what the actual error is, but I can attest it was a thing.. had a series of CDs that wouldn't read, hung on to them for years til I discovered what the issue was.
I once bought a spindle of cheap, no name disks. They were duds, didn't last.
I always purchased Verbatim, and on occasion TDK. I have disks now 20+ years old that are still find. Only once, with one spindle of Verbatim disks, did I get a manufacturing defect, that resulted in a few failing after a year or two.
Apart from that, which clearly was a manufacturing defect, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs have been rock-solid.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I've only had one CD go bad, and it was a CD-RW.
I've seen some weird things like that. One thing I noticed is that if I burned CDs on the maximum speed, they'd often read okay in my PC, but other CD-ROMs and CD players might have trouble reading it. I found
that it was best to burn CDs at the slowest speed available, and that generally helped.
Thinking back to those times, having to use physical media in vehicles, makes me appreciate how far we've come. Now I can just talk to my car and ask it to play nearly any song that's available on a streaming service without having to worry about which disc it was on or having to changes tapes or discs when I want to listen to a different artist.
Tired of music? Just tap the podcast button on the dashboard and listen to someone ramble on about any variety of subjects, fiction or otherwise.
Ogg wrote to boraxman <=-
Hello boraxman!
Not me:
http://kolico.ca/fidonet/echos/win95/#diskettes
Wow... I've still got a LOT of disks, mostly 1.44M, but
some 1.2M and a couple of disk boxes of 360K floppies from
when I had an XT. The 1.44M disks are kind of dying, but
the 5 1/4 inch disks, mostly holding up well, despite being
30+ years old.
I actually still have some unused, still sealed, sets of 1.44M
disks. I probably should try to sell them.
I also have some kept in the off chance that I would like to
re-visit their contents. But now many years later, there is
probably no point.
Even the disassemblying for recycling seems to be no point.
Black coloured plastic is not considered recyclable. And the
lint-free liner is minimal for a fire-starter.
Would be good if you could still buy new disks and drives,
just for the thrill of it.
It could bring some memories back, but I wouldn't call it a
thrill. ;) I might come across some license-keys or something
though - that would be amusing.
Nightfox wrote to StormTrooper <=-
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: StormTrooper to Nightfox on Mon Apr 28 2025 09:28 am
There was a time, around 95/6 where the with burning software was ALL buggy. If you burnt a CD using win95, it would become useless on any later O/S I'm can't attest to what the actual error is, but I can attest it was a thing.. had a series of CDs that wouldn't read, hung on to them for years til I discovered what the issue was.
I've seen some weird things like that. One thing I noticed is that if
I burned CDs on the maximum speed, they'd often read okay in my PC, but other CD-ROMs and CD players might have trouble reading it. I found
that it was best to burn CDs at the slowest speed available, and that
generally helped.
Nightfox wrote to boraxman <=-
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: boraxman to Nightfox on Tue Apr 29 2025 02:05 am
I once bought a spindle of cheap, no name disks. They were duds, didn't last.
I always purchased Verbatim, and on occasion TDK. I have disks now 20+ years old that are still find. Only once, with one spindle of Verbatim disks, did I get a manufacturing defect, that resulted in a few failing after a year or two.
Apart from that, which clearly was a manufacturing defect, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs have been rock-solid.
Yeah, I've seen people mention optical discs going bad (disc rot) but I can't say I've experienced that myself. I still have one of the first
DVD movies I ever bought (in 2000; and commercially made, not a DVD-R)
and I just played it again last year and it was fine.
As far as CD-Rs and DVD-Rs, I generally haven't had a problem with
those either. I think TDK was one of the better brands. I often saw a lot of Memorex CD-Rs and DVD-Rs in stores, but I wasn't confident in
them anymore after a while and generally tried to look for other
brands.
Warpslide wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 28 Apr 2025, Nightfox said the following...
I've seen some weird things like that. One thing I noticed is that if I burned CDs on the maximum speed, they'd often read okay in my PC, but other CD-ROMs and CD players might have trouble reading it. I found
that it was best to burn CDs at the slowest speed available, and that generally helped.
One of my car stereos was like that. It would play burned audio CDs if burned at a slower speed (4X I think), but if burned at faster speeds
it would sometimes recognize the disc, other times not. If it did recognize the disc it would often just skip or start playing and then
just stop.
A later car stereo I had that played MP3 CDs seemed perfectly fine
reading discs burned at higher speeds.
Thinking back to those times, having to use physical media in vehicles, makes me appreciate how far we've come. Now I can just talk to my car
and ask it to play nearly any song that's available on a streaming
service without having to worry about which disc it was on or having to changes tapes or discs when I want to listen to a different artist.
Tired of music? Just tap the podcast button on the dashboard and
listen to someone ramble on about any variety of subjects, fiction or otherwise.
We're honestly spoiled for choice, which I appreciate.
A rule of thumb that I used was to use half the speed of the disk, or burner. Burning TOO slow could yield suboptimal results. The dyes and burners are designed for higher speeds.
The oldest CD I've got is 30 years aold, and its still fine. No music CD I've bought has "gone bad". Burned CD are still good, except for a few which were probably made bad from the start.
STor them well, not in sunlight or excessively hot and humid conditions.
I actually still have some unused, still sealed, sets of 1.44M
disks. I probably should try to sell them.
What was interesting about floppies was they could be formatted to different capacities. There was this DOS program called 2M that was pretty cool that let you format disks to greater capacities, by putting more sectors per tracks, and more tracks. You could get over 800K on a
5 1/4" DS/DD diskette, and up to 1.8M on the 1.44 M disks.
Zip disks were a life saver for me
before CD-R's, I can't recall ever
having an issue with any zip-disks.
now though I see its single you're
looking for.. I think everything is
DD..
reading it. I found that it was bes
to burn CDs at the slowest speed
available, and that generally helped
normally, to save battery power, I
don't have bluetooth enabled on my
phone unless I'm actively using it
Maybe something similar will be reinvented again, or come back, the way thet vinyl has come back, and that music CD's are kind of coming back,
or at least, people are saying they're coming back.
Not that I have any good way of getting data for these assertions. But vinyl has been trending up for years, and CDs have only just begun increasing again, for whatever that means.
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: boraxman to Nightfox on Tue Apr 29 2025 10:40 am
A rule of thumb that I used was to use half the speed of the disk, or burner. Burning TOO slow could yield suboptimal results. The dyes an burners are designed for higher speeds.
Interesting.. I started to just always burn at the slowest speed the drive allowed, and I didn't have problems doing that.
What was interesting about floppies was they could be formatted to different capacities. There was this DOS program called 2M that was pretty cool that let you format disks to greater capacities, by putti more sectors per tracks, and more tracks. You could get over 800K on 5 1/4" DS/DD diskette, and up to 1.8M on the 1.44 M disks.
The Apple II world had something similar. DOS 3.3 nominally wrote 35 tracks per disk side. Even straight out of the factory you could generally get at least an extra 2 tracks onto the disk. In some cases
as many as 4. Only trouble was it wasn't reliable across the board. If you only wrote 1 or 2 extra tracks you'd be reasonably sure anyone could use it, but you'd come across drives that could only do 35 and then it'd be useless. Above that was even worse, basically just tailored to your
own personal setup. You also had to patch DOS to do it, no biggy it was just a poke once it was loaded, but std DOS couldn't see the extra
tracks even though they'd be referenced in the directory.
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: StormTrooper to Joe Phigan on Mon Apr 28 2025 09:32 am
now though I see its single you're
looking for.. I think everything is
DD..
DD is still useful, but iirc my C64
floppy drive might only like SD. I
should double-check that it wasn't DD
vs HD.
Maybe something similar will be reinvented again, or come back, the w thet vinyl has come back, and that music CD's are kind of coming back or at least, people are saying they're coming back.
From my understanding, vinyl records have come back because it gives a different listening experience, whether with the audio or the various tactile aspects of handling records.
I think, with music CDs and DVDs, it's more about ownership, and the
fact that streaming does not offer this, and the industry keeps giving examples of where things disappear.
Not that I have any good way of getting data for these assertions. But vinyl has been trending up for years, and CDs have only just begun increasing again, for whatever that means.
Adept wrote to boraxman <=-
From my understanding, vinyl records have come back because it gives a different listening experience, whether with the audio or the various tactile aspects of handling records.
I think, with music CDs and DVDs, it's more about ownership, and the
fact that streaming does not offer this, and the industry keeps giving examples of where things disappear.
boraxman wrote to Adept <=-
Some talked about getting original CD's, before the remaster where they make it loud or "correct" things or autotune Freddie Mercury.
normally, to save battery power, I
don't have bluetooth enabled on my
phone unless I'm actively using it
Do you actually notice a difference in
battery life when you do that? I've got
Yeah, I have some CDs where I bought the original, then bought the remastered version with additional tracks, and couldn't believe how bad the new versions sound on a proper stereo. Sure, I didn't need to turn the volume up on my phone+earbuds with the remastered versions, but they sound horrible compared to the originals!
Maybe it's all a scam to sell the originals at a higher premium?
Quoting Boraxman to Phigan <=-
Most Commodore disk drives took DD disks. They were single sided
drives. You could of course, use a Double Sided disk anyway, just one side would go unused. Unless you flipped it, but you had to cut a
notch on the other side to do that.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Adept <=-
Adept wrote to boraxman <=-
From my understanding, vinyl records have come back because it gives a different listening experience, whether with the audio or the various tactile aspects of handling records.
My wife and I have been trying to explain to my daughter the added
dimension of liner notes and cover art - they were works of art unto
themselves so much that people would hang them on the wall, we'd say.
I think, with music CDs and DVDs, it's more about ownership, and the
fact that streaming does not offer this, and the industry keeps giving examples of where things disappear.
For my daughter, it's about the immediate gratification of being able
to pull up a song on Spotify or YouTube. I can see that, I suppose. We
also tried to paint a picture of listening to the radio and *waiting*
to hear your song, that seemed pointless to her.
The one area where Spotify does a better job is sharing music tastes
with her friends. They create playlists and share them, definitely
beats the mix tape - although making a mix tape in my day was an
integral and deliberate part of the courting process. Gotta make sure
the labels are straight, use your best writing, order is important...
Now, not so sure with playlists.
That said, she does want a turntable - new artists are releasing LPs
in
limited editions. She doesn't want a collection of everything, she
just
wants to have copies of LPs for 2 artists she loves.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to boraxman <=-
boraxman wrote to Adept <=-
Some talked about getting original CD's, before the remaster where they make it loud or "correct" things or autotune Freddie Mercury.
Yeah, I have some CDs where I bought the original, then bought the remastered version with additional tracks, and couldn't believe how bad the new versions sound on a proper stereo. Sure, I didn't need to turn
the volume up on my phone+earbuds with the remastered versions, but
they sound horrible compared to the originals!
Maybe it's all a scam to sell the originals at a higher premium?
Some time ago, I saw an article about the ever-increasing volume of remaster and re-remasters & such. I thought it was interesting.. One side-effect of increasing the volume is that for CDs, the volume can start to approach the limit of what it can be with digital audio, and that can cause problems (digital audio clipping & such). I don't think there was anything really 'wrong' with the lower-volume releases, as you can always turn the volume up on your stereo.
LAstly, streaming doesn't help at all. If you produce an album,
intended to be
listened to from start to finish, you can mix it so that each musical component
is at a particular level. Perhaps you have a LOT of layers,
instruments to fit
in to the soundspace, you need to mix carefully, so that they all are distinct.
But if its going to be played with streaming services, you have the
same issue with radio. Someone is going to listen to something from a completely different artist, genre, producer, and your song will come,
I didn't occur to me know (because I never really thought about it), that a SS disk would just be a DS disk sold as a SS disk, perhaps simply because one side of the disk failed a QC check.Quoting Boraxman to Phigan <=-
Most Commodore disk drives took DD disks. They were single sided drives. You could of course, use a Double Sided disk anyway, just on side would go unused. Unless you flipped it, but you had to cut a notch on the other side to do that.
I bought one of the notch clippers at a show and used it to make single
sided into double sided. Lots of users said this was bad, as the second
side of the disk was most likely defective and that's why it wasn't
used to begin with. But I never had problems with the disks, or the
drives when doing this.
LAstly, streaming doesn't help at all. If you produce an album, intended to be
listened to from start to finish, you can mix it so that each musica component
is at a particular level. Perhaps you have a LOT of layers, instruments to fit
in to the soundspace, you need to mix carefully, so that they all ar distinct.
But if its going to be played with streaming services, you have the same issue with radio. Someone is going to listen to something from completely different artist, genre, producer, and your song will com
There was a time I'd agree with that. But I think that was either done,
or in severe decline by the end of the 70s. After that its wsa nothing
to buy an album for some track, and the rest were a bunch of duds.
ST
I always thought remasters were supposed to sound better, and maybe in some cases that was true, but often I didn't notice much (if any) improvement in sound quality. I've replaced some of my older CDs with remasters, but I've thought maybe I should have kept those original CDs. I like the extra tracks they sometimes release with remasters, but it's a bummer that the sound qualit
might be lower.
the new versions sound on a proper stereo. Sure, I didn't need to turn
the volume up on my phone+earbuds with the remastered versions, but
they sound horrible compared to the originals!
Maybe it's all a scam to sell the originals at a higher premium?
Situations where there actually was something wrong with the originals aside, I have never really understood the point of remasters. In most
Makes sense now. You manufacture DS disks. If both sides are bad, bin it. If one side is bad, use the other side in a SS disk. If both pass, its a DS disk. Is that how it worked?
Most Commodore disk drives took DD disks. They were single sided drives. You could of course, use a Double Sided disk anyway, just one side would go
Oh nice, then the disks I tried that didn't work for me must have been high density.
Adept wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
the new versions sound on a proper stereo. Sure, I didn't need to turn
the volume up on my phone+earbuds with the remastered versions, but
they sound horrible compared to the originals!
Maybe it's all a scam to sell the originals at a higher premium?
I think it's so that songs are comparatively louder when on the radio and/or streaming.
Though it's weird to me that they didn't compress things as much, with
the original versions.
Though maybe not _that_ weird, because more dynamic range is better, because, yeah, we can turn up the volume, while we can't increase the dynamic range.
(Though this does remind me of the sound mixing in video where they
have voices much lower in volume than the loud things. Which is the one time when I'd _love_ for them to decrease the dynamic range, because I want the loud things to be softer, and the voices to be easy to understand.)
StormTrooper wrote to boraxman <=-
Makes sense now. You manufacture DS disks. If both sides are bad, bin it. If one side is bad, use the other side in a SS disk. If both pass, its a DS disk. Is that how it worked?
I never saw them so I can't add a great deal real info on SS SD. But
by the time DS DD arrives there's no difference between any of the physical media. All of it is DD, only one type of media is coming out
of the factory. You'd QC both sides as part of production, after that
its just sleeving and labels.
Phigan wrote to boraxman <=-
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: boraxman to Phigan on Wed Apr 30 2025 01:11 am
Most Commodore disk drives took DD disks. They were single sided drives. You could of course, use a Double Sided disk anyway, just one side would go
Oh nice, then the disks I tried that didn't work for me must have been high density.
So yeah, was there more than one person that might have some extra DD floppies? :) --- SBBSecho 3.24-Linux
Quoting Boraxman to Cougar428 <=-
I didn't occur to me know (because I never really thought about it),
that a SS disk would just be a DS disk sold as a SS disk, perhaps
simply because one side of the disk failed a QC check.
Makes sense now. You manufacture DS disks. If both sides are bad,
bin it. If one side is bad, use the other side in a SS disk. If both pass, its a DS disk. Is that how it worked?
Even DD discs written to in HD drives,
could have problems if read on a DD drive subsequently.
Re: Re: floppy disks
By: boraxman to Phigan on Thu May 01 2025 10:29:28
Hi, Boraxman.
Even DD discs written to in HD drives,
could have problems if read on a DD drive subsequently.
I was told that this is because the HD drives have narrower heads in
order to use the narrower tracks on high density disks. As a side effect when you write to a DD disk with an HD drive you get narrow tracks
written with bigger gaps between them.
My understanding is that real DD drives with wider heads then struggle to understand the data because it doesn't span the full track width. This is especially troublesome if there was previously data written to the full width of those tracks by a DD drive then overwritten an HD drive as it will detect a mixture of both.
I think. Now I have to go and read up...
BobW
Situations where there actually was something wrong with the originals aside, I have never really understood the point of remasters. In most
I think it made sense for Taylor Swift, but only because (Taylor's version) meant that she controlled the rights on it.
Though I guess those were re-recordings, which is not the same thing, even if it's remastering of a sort.
Makes sense now. You manufacture DS disks. If both sides are bad, bin it. If one side is bad, use the other side in a SS disk. If both pass, its a DS disk. Is that how it worked?
I never saw them so I can't add a great deal real info on SS SD. But by the time DS DD arrives there's no difference between any of the physical media. Al
of it is DD, only one type of media is coming out of the factory. You'd QC both sides as part of production, after that its just sleeving and labels.
I was told that this is because the HD drives have narrower heads in order to use the narrower tracks on high density disks. As a side effect when you write to a DD disk with an HD drive you get narrow tracks written with bigger gaps between them.
So when I got an IBM XT (second hand, old!), imagine my confusion when I find the disks don't work when you flip them upside down. Why would the
I know for 3.5" discs, there was a small difference in the thickness of the actual disk. Higher density disks had I think a thinner magnetic coating, as it had to be more sensitive. Even DD discs written to in HD drives, could have problems if read on a DD drive subsequently. Im guessing subtle differences in the sttrenght and size of the magnetic field, and in the responsiveness of the magnetic layer made HD discs unusuable in DD drives.
I never saw them so I can't add a great deal real info on SS SD. But by
The only experience I had with SS floppies was when using a C64. IIRC,
Mostly it will 'just work'. I've absolutely written DD disks in HD
drives, then read them on DD drives just fine, plenty of times in the past.
The only experience I had with SS floppies was when using a C64. IIRC,
Single sided floppies were pretty ubiquitous for a time there.. what I have never seen is the SD portion... single density.... I was warned about purchasing SD disks when I first bought a few floppies for school. Presumably
they hold less than a DD disk does in realation to an HD floppy. But in practice although they must've been around at some point, I never saw one either in a store, or in the wild....
In the your mileage may var
category, it is generally NOT
reliable. But if you have to do
it, and expect the DD drive to read
it happily, then the best course
was to format it on the DD drive
and then write to it with the HD
drive ONCE only... It appears very
device dependent though.
Dumas Walker wrote to STORMTROOPER <=-
I don't ever remember seeing one marked SD, either, but they may have
been before my time. The first computer I got that used floppies used
the DS/DD 360k 5.25" disks.
But double sided became a better
deal since you, effectively, got 2
phigan wrote to Dr. What <=-
There were definitely single density disks, but I don't think they ever commercially sold single sided 5.25" disks.
But this one has a side that is
much duller than the other.
phigan wrote to Dr. What <=-
Interesting. Have you tried it just for kicks?
I am betting those are rare.
Quoting Phigan to Dr. What <=-
But double sided became a better
deal since you, effectively, got 2
There were definitely single density disks, but I don't think they
ever commercially sold single sided 5.25" disks.
In the your mileage may var category, it is generally NOT reliable. But if you have to do it, and expect the DD drive to read it happily, then the best course was to format it on the DD drive and then write to it with the HD drive ONCE only... It appears very device dependent though.
I hated floppy disks because they always failed on me. I had my bbs backups on them such as my user base or the wwiv 4.x code base i used to customize my system and they always corrupted :(
I've still got several including an external USB 3.5" drive. Some of
them are the 1.2M 5 1/4inch variety. Those are still my favourite disks.
I had more CDs go bad than floppies, but I wasn't exactly buying top quality CD blanks... :(
disks are kind of dying, but the 5 1/4 inch disks, mostly holding up
well, despite being 30+ years old.
Would be good if you could still buy new disks and drives, just for the thrill of it.
Got any single density 5.25" diskshey i want some!
you'd want to get rid of?
Wow... I've still got a LOT of disk
When I didn't know much about computers as a youngster, I just assumed a "double sided" disk was one you could turn over, flip and put in the
disc drive upside down and still use, as with the Commodore 64 disc
drive.
So when I got an IBM XT (second hand, old!), imagine my confusion when I find the disks don't work when you flip them upside down. Why would the Commodore 1541 be able to use both sides, and the IBM only one side?
Then when I got 1.44M you could only put them in one way, but they were marketed as double sided!
I did learn that it writes to both sides at once, but for a while, I assumed disc drives only write on the upper side.
Yep, same here. I used to use my 486 with a 1.2MB drive to write
floppies for my XT which has a 360Kb drive. It would generally work but the hit or miss errors after a while would drive me nuts.
I ended up just putting a 360kb drive in my 486 for this to avoid the HD to DD and visa versa reading/writing errors.
I did that about 20 years ago and haven't had issues since. (I actually used both of those computers tonight... though not the floppy drives.)
I did learn that it writes to both sides at once, but for a while, I
i did not know about this of ther c64 drive (i never had one)
I've still got several including an external USB 3.5" drive. Some of them are the 1.2M 5 1/4inch variety. Those are still my favourite disks.
5.25 is my favorite too! :D gang gang~
I just realised in another message I said I preferred 3.5". Maybe I don't know, but the 1.2M were kind of "exotic" as I rarely actually saw them used. I only obtained the drives and disks in the early 2000s! Before then I hadn't really used them. In the 90's they were this format which existed, but didn't get to see. Hence the mystery.