You should probably get those 5.25's copied off and archived somewhere
more safe/stable. Those floppies WILL eventually fail and be
unreadable.
MIKE POWELL wrote to GAMGEE <=-
You should probably get those 5.25's copied off and archived somewhere
more safe/stable. Those floppies WILL eventually fail and be
unreadable.
I actually think they already are, but it would not hurt to do it again
to be sure.
re-reads, but I was able to get most everything copied. Thankfully, the only sectors that failed contained one of the text files and I was able
to recover most of it.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit, Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit,
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they
were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive. It took a lot of sector re-reads, but I was able to get most everything copied. Thankfully, the
only sectors that failed contained one of the text files and I was able
to recover most of it.
a lot of sector re-reads, but I was able to get most everything
copied. Thankfully, the only sectors that failed contained one of
the text files and I was able to recover most of it.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5"
ones.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have used them though.
Re: Re: Thin Client Pc To Run
By: poindexter FORTRAN to MIKE POWELL on Thu Jan 15 2026 08:15 am
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when th were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most
people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have
used them though.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5" ones.
fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
i occasionally get stuff from eBay.. things i wished i had back in the day.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most
people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have
used them though.
fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
i occasionally get stuff from eBay.. things i wished i had back in the day.
What's the point of growing older if you can't buy the things you
couldn't afford as a child?
The companies manufacturing them were in their absolute peak and nearly every disk was perfect in every way.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit, Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies".
But it seems there is>some confusion about their name, especially today as most people haven't used
Maybe in your corner of the world, but over here disks failed. Kodak
was the worst brand I dealt with. Virtually every box had at least
a couple bad disks. Ironically, the no-name, sleeve-less disks I'd
get at Micro Center had better success rates.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5" ones.>eak and nearly every disk was perfect in every way. early production 3.5" dis
this isn't quite fair. the companies manufacturing them were in their absolut
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail. The 5.25 disks were a lot bigger yet held less data so writing to them was slower and each bit was also more spread out making them more stable...
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes
them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail.
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks. Stepper moters had more finer control, enabling them to create more tracks, along with data compression techniques.
Not in my experience. Sure you had bad disks from time to time,
but that's to be expected. In fact, the bulk of my 3.5" disks were
no-name bundles I bought at computer stores; their failure rate
wasn't any worse than name-brand versions.
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks.
Stepper moters had more finer control, enabling them to create
more tracks, along with data compression techniques.
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes
them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail. The 5.25
disks were a lot bigger yet held less data so writing to them was
slower and each bit was also more spread out making them more
stable...
Interesting.. I'd think it would be possible to make higher-density floppy disks reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are hard drives these days that are terabytes in capacity that are reliable.
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they
people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they wer
didn't want to add even more lingo. (or confuse hard disks with "regular disks" or something)
disks reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are har drives these days that are terabytes in capacity that are reliable.
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when
they
I think the 3.5s are likely to "go bad" sooner due to density. Physically larger disks with lower capacity should theoretically last longer than the smaller floppies with higher capacity.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically 1.44MB) and were incredibly slow for both reading and writing compared to hard drives or newer media.
Data Corruption:
Dust & Debris: Openings allowed dust, dirt, and even mold/fungi to enter, damaging the delicate magnetic surface and contaminating drive heads.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically
1.44MB) and were incredibly slow for both reading and writing compared
to hard drives or newer media.
Data Corruption:
Dust & Debris: Openings allowed dust, dirt, and even mold/fungi to
enter, damaging the delicate magnetic surface and contaminating drive
heads.
I think the two complement each other - low capacity means less data lost when the floppy drive inevitably fails. You didn't depend on them; I used to use the diskcopy command a lot to create backups of my traveling disk.
| Sysop: | Chris Crash |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huntington Beach, CA. |
| Users: | 631 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 205:05:04 |
| Calls: | 10,975 |
| Files: | 5 |
| Messages: | 587,378 |