[CoCo] 720kb vs 1.4mb 3.5" disks

[Chris Spry]

It just may be my bad luck with 1.44mb disks.  They go bad on me after a
while, even on PC systems.  The DD disks are highly more reliable in my
experience, but of course can't hold as much data (on a PC).

-Chris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore (Alex) Evans" <alxevans at concentric.net>
To: <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CoCo] 720kb vs 1.4mb 3.5" disks


On Dec 10, 2003, at 9:44 AM, Roger Taylor wrote:

> My CoCo's drive 0 is a 1.44meg 3.5", so I use the HD disks with a
> small sticky tab over the left hole so data gets written/read at the
> DD config.
>
> I have always heard not to put HD disks in a DD drive because of the
> difference in thickness of the disk surface, although before I knew
> this I had done this many times. Every single one of my DD and HD
> 3.5" floppy disks are error-free to this day and I've been known to
> use them in various drive types from time to time.

I am in much the same boat.  I have periodically used 1.44 M disks for
DD, and have never had any problems because of it.  It is actually my
understanding that a number of years ago (when everybody who made
floppy disks were still making DD disks) many manufacturers started
using the same magnetized film to make both DD and HD 3.5" floppies.


-- 
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco