[CoCo] 720kb vs 1.4mb 3.5" disks

[jimcox at miba51.com]

Chris:

Since you're not that far from Jim Creek Naval 
Communications Station, maybe your disks are getting 
trashed by the ELF transmissions.  It's either that or 
you're not cleaning the moss off your disks :)

Jim

(Yes I'm joking.  It's a poor attempt at NW humor)

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:52:31 -0800
  "Chris Spry" <bugster at cedarcomm.com> wrote:
>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
>
>
>-- 
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco