25 Sep
2008
25 Sep
'08
1:56 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:07:07PM -0500, Jim Brain wrote:
Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Do _not_ want. ;-)
Honestly, I can't speak for the 5.25" ones, as I only dealt with the
3.5" ones. Which sucked. It got to the point were I ran RAID1 on my
Sneakernet link (i.e. copying all data to _two_ disks instead of one,
hoping that I would be able to read at least one of them 30-60 minutes
later at home. That worked. Mostly. *sigh*).
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:08:57PM -0400, Doc
Shipley wrote:
Hehe, I think I have two boxes of 5.25 soft sectored disks of that
brand, still in the shrinkwrap. Since they are so infamous, is anyone
interested in them? I threw them in the pilke to go to the local CBM
show this weekend, but could pull them out. Chuck Guzis wrote:
Floppies and reliability is just a sad topic. Back when floppies were
still an integral part of the network (think Sneakernet), one brand got
its brand name expanded to "Byte Abweisende SchutzFolie" (translated:
"Byte
rejecting protective sheet") because they were _that_ bad.
Regards,
Alex.
Does CF as working storage even approach the
reliability of a floppy?
I can recall running 8" floppy read-write tests for many days at a
stretch.
I missed this first time around.
Of 20 or 30 CF cards I've used, only one was bad out of the box, and
I think a flaky connection killed that one.
Of the last 100-count tray of floppies I bought, at least 15 didn't
survive the first format, and another dozen or so didn't live through
the second overwrite.
That's my math and I'm sticking to it.