FUBARinSFO wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I'm looking for the most reliable floppy disc media. (1440KB)
>
> Does anybody know of a site that has actually tested various brands of
> floppy media? Or a research report perhaps?
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
>
> -- Roy Zider
I don't have any test data...
but can tell you that I have some Sony floppies that are over ten years
old and they are still good.
I bought some at Radio Shack and they were all bad within three weeks!
Yes, I do think that it was more likely to get high-quality floppy
disc media ten years ago than it is now. But I've got Sony colored
discs that have failed, along with Memorex and Office Depot. I'm
looking for some current data, hopefully test-based, on who is putting
out good media today.
Somewhere on teh intarweb "FUBARinSFO" typed:
> Philo:
>
> Yes, I do think that it was more likely to get high-quality floppy
> disc media ten years ago than it is now. But I've got Sony colored
> discs that have failed, along with Memorex and Office Depot. I'm
> looking for some current data, hopefully test-based, on who is putting
> out good media today.
Roy, you might just as well ask who makes the best papyrus scrolls too. Both
are technologies well beyond their use-by date and consequently it would
seem that, while both are still available, nobody is bothering to make
quality a priority for either.
--
Shaun.
In message <4817c11f$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz> "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@hooya.com.au> wrote:
>Roy, you might just as well ask who makes the best papyrus scrolls too. Both
>are technologies well beyond their use-by date and consequently it would
>seem that, while both are still available, nobody is bothering to make
>quality a priority for either.
Worse, you get old stock, and floppies don't exactly have the most
fantastic shelf life to begin with.
>Hi:
>
>I'm looking for the most reliable floppy disc media. (1440KB)
>
>Does anybody know of a site that has actually tested various brands of
>floppy media? Or a research report perhaps?
>
>Thank you in advance for your help.
>
>-- Roy Zider
Frankly I think it is a lost cause today. For about $15 you
can get a ATA adapter card and a 2GB, (1GB if you don't want
to look for a deal) Compact Flash card that is a few orders
of magnitude more reliable and holds about 700+ times as
much data. Since the CF card on ATA boots and runs equally
well even on most (but the very very old) legacy systems,
the remaining question is whether you can do this or have
some installer which insists on installing directly to a
floppy.
I have a half dozen spare floppy drives lying around but
frankly, today I would rather avoid anything that absolutely
requires one instead of having to reach over, grab one and
connect it if a few mouse clicks will avoid needing one.
A few months ago I finally threw away my last
(self-refurbished, restored to pristine clean condition) 5
1/2" floppy drive. I had boxed one up after refurb'd in
case I'd ever need it. Eventually I realized that anything
of value on 5 1/2", I'd backed up years ago and keeping
stock of extreme legacy parts just in case some random
vagrant needed it, was the reason why my basement looked
like a computer museum. Computers are meant to make things
easier, not more burdensome, so I pitched them all, every
floppy drive except for one 3.5" I refurbed and anything
that happened to be already installed in some system I have.
In summary, my main point is, just reject anything that
requires floppies made today. Use a floppy drive only to
retrieve information when someone is paying you enough to
hunt down the required drive if/when the time comes.
Points well made, and taken. I think more than a few of us have a
computer museum. I won't bore you with the sad tale of shipping off
(giving away) two pallets of Apple ][ gear. But DOS lives on, and I
still do my GL on it using Infostar.
But the point here you are making is to get rid of floppies in the
system. I'm doing spring housecleaning, and doing just that -- but
have considerably more than a dozen or two lying around. And I do use
them -- memtest86, for instance, when the CD doesn't work or isn't
installed.
FWIW, I've been using a floppy with winnt.sif on it for an unattended
install of Windows XP for a while now, which obviates the requirement
to burn a refreshed boot CD every time I make a change to the boot
process or driver loading. A floppy for each machine, easily
modified, is easier to keep track of than the CDs (at the moment).
So I cede to anyone who says floppies are losers. I just want to find
out if there are any current tests out there of what, if any, are any
good any more.
-- Roy
P.S.: I have a couple of Shugart 5 1/4 inch 720KB quad density drive
still available, in the unlikely event anybody is anxious to offload
to another media their Fastback backups they made to this media. It's
one of the projects in my extensive (and growing) backlog.
> I'm looking for the most reliable floppy disc media. (1440KB)
>
> Does anybody know of a site that has actually tested various brands of
> floppy media? Or a research report perhaps?
I believe you have to go back to the 1980s to find reviews of floppy
media, but generally the shiniest disks are the best ones. If you're
using old stock, look for 3M, Verbatim, BASF, Kodak, Sony, Fuji,
Maxell, which may still be warranted.
Don't use 360K or 720K low density disks at 1.44M (3.5") or 1.2M
(5.25"), despite some "experts" wrongly claiming the disks are
identical and the formatting process weeds out marginal sectors.
Disks used that way will not be reliable for long, and in reality the
magnetic coatings for high and low density disks are very different in
thickness and grain size. You can verify this by looking through the
read/write window under strong light. 360K and 720K disks completely
block the light, 1.44M and 1.2M disks are transparent brown or red.
The best way to test MFM floppy disks (high or low density) is to fill
them with either a b66d or 6db6 hexadecimal pattern. Unfortunately
almost no formatting utilities write this 2-byte pattern but instead
write a 1-byte pattern that will pass far more marginal sectors. I
strongly recommend you test any unknown brands or old disks with b66d
or 6db6.
Don't rule out bad floppy disk drives since they can develop dirty
head positioners (wash off dust or sticky grease and apply new grease
to lead screws, except gold colored ones mean to run dry) or Track 0
sensors (also blow out dust), but track misalignment is also common,
even on TEACs and hard to adjust.
> P.S.: I have a couple of Shugart 5 1/4 inch 720KB quad density drive
> still available, in the unlikely event anybody is anxious to offload
> to another media their Fastback backups they made to this media. It's
> one of the projects in my extensive (and growing) backlog.
Will you offer to help buyers who encounter the pin34 Ready/
Disk_Changed signal problem? :)
I had some 3" tall Shugart 5.25" 720K drives, and they didn't read
disks nearly as well as my BASF 720K drives or any 1.2M drives could.
This wasn't noticeable with IBM PCs, but the aftermarket floppy
controller for my Radio Shack TRS-80 had a poor data recovery circuit
design and didn't like the Shugart.
Your comments must reflect some extensive experience with these media
and drives.
I've still got several hundred 5 1/4" media in storage -- I can't
imagine that most of it is not unrecoverable. But we'll see.
In the meantime, I've recertified my 3 1/2" media, tossed most of
them, and went and bought a 50-pk of Verbatim. Surprisingly, some of
the old media were still good after ten years. This should solve the
problem for the moment.
DevilsPGD wrote:
> FUBARinSFO <file1303@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine that most of it is not unrecoverable.
>
> You might want to add another negative just to clarify that sentence.
OK. "I can't imagine that not most of it is not unrecoverable".
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
In message <4820FD1D.8D7E7446@yahoo.com> CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> FUBARinSFO <file1303@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't imagine that most of it is not unrecoverable.
>>
>> You might want to add another negative just to clarify that sentence.
>
>OK. "I can't imagine that not most of it is not unrecoverable".
> >> FUBARinSFO <file1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I can't imagine that most of it is not unrecoverable.
>
> >> You might want to add another negative just to clarify that sentence.
>
> >OK. *"I can't imagine that not most of it is not unrecoverable".
>
> Thanks.
Good catch, guys. I wonder what I was thinking when I wrote that.
WTF? At the moment, I have no idea if the old stuff is recoverabe or
not.
In message
<bf819520-754e-4725-b2a4-5c218b70b108@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
FUBARinSFO <file1303@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> FUBARinSFO <file1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I can't imagine that most of it is not unrecoverable.
>>
>> >> You might want to add another negative just to clarify that sentence.
>>
>> >OK. *"I can't imagine that not most of it is not unrecoverable".
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>Good catch, guys. I wonder what I was thinking when I wrote that.
>WTF? At the moment, I have no idea if the old stuff is recoverabe or
>not.
Floppy disc media reliability tests 
Linear Mode
