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.
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...>s reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are hard driv
Interesting.. I'd think it would be possible to make higher-density floppy d
Not in my experience. Sure you had bad disks from time to time, but that's t>e expected. In fact, the bulk of my 3.5" disks were no-name bundles I bought
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks. Stepper mot> had more finer control, enabling them to create more tracks, along with data
The biggest problem with the 3.5 was.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically 1.44MB) and
You're talking about solid platters vs wobbly plastic sheets :)
We were talking about the difference in reliability between 5.25" and 3.5" disks. Or at least I was. Even at high density, the 5.25" held 1.2mb vs the 3.5"'s 1.44mb. Smaller heads, smaller tracks on the disks, etc.
Rob Mccart wrote to NIGHTFOX <=-
I have lost data on more flash drives than I care to think about
though..
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
Mortar wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Re: Re: Thin Client Pc To Run
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Rob Mccart on Thu Jan 22 2026 11:30:29
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
He was just being cuticle.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies".
I still have a couple of original boxes of them here and they call
them Microfloppies right on the box.
Yes, it's the disk that is floppy, not the sleeve it comes in.. B)
I still have a couple of original boxes of them here and they call them
Microfloppies right on the box.
[...]
Yes, it's the disk that is floppy, not the sleeve it comes in.. B)
Nightfox wrote to Ogg <=-
That may be, but it was common to just call the whole thing a floppy
disk.
That may be, but it was common to just call the whole thing a floppy
disk.
I think I mentioned this before, when there were 8 inch floppies, they were called "floppy" disks. 5 1/4 were mini-floppies, until 8 inch floppies became rare, then they became floppies. When 3 1/2" floppies came around, they were microfloppies, until they became the standard.
Maybe it's regional, but I don't recall anyone ever calling the 3 1/2" ones "microfloppies". Just 3 & 1/2" floppies or 3 & 1/2" floppy disks.
I still have a couple of original boxes of them here and they call>disc-notepad
them Microfloppies right on the box.
This outfit is repurposing them this way:
https://atticjournals.com/collections/other-bookish-goods/products/floppy-
A novelty. But I wouldn't pay that much for that.
Maybe it's regional, but I don't recall anyone ever calling the 3 1/2" ones "microfloppies". Just 3 & 1/2" floppies or 3 & 1/2" floppy disks.
Re: Re: 3.5 floppies
By: Nightfox to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Feb 16 2026 02:08 pm
Maybe it's regional, but I don't recall anyone ever calling the 3 1/2" "microfloppies". Just 3 & 1/2" floppies or 3 & 1/2" floppy disks.
I think what he meant is that was what was printed on the packaging, vs what people in the real world actually say out of their mouths when referring to said object.
Do people "call" them miniSIM, microSIM, and nanoSIM when referring to
the little cards they used to put in their phones? No, they call them
SIM cards. Doesn't mean they didn't have some other "official" name :D.
Do people "call" them miniSIM, microSIM, and nanoSIM when referring to the little cards they used to put in their phones? No, they call them SIM cards. Doesn't mean they didn't have some other "official" name :D.
| Sysop: | MSGRetired |
|---|---|
| Location: | Oxford, MA |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 08:02:55 |
| Calls: | 0 |
| Files: | 10,599 |
| D/L today: |
119 files (27,979K bytes) |
| Messages: | 4,926 |
| Posted today: | 2 |