3 Jun
2012
3 Jun
'12
5:17 p.m.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Fred Cisin wrote:
What I'm proposing is writing bona-fide 360K disks using a 1.2M drive.
The 360K disks I plan to read and write are stuff that a standard PC
controller would have problems with (chiefly Apple and Commodore). I
don't think any 1.2M disks I'm likely to come across would give a standard
PC controller a problem.
In any case, perhaps the most practical solution would be to put a 360K
and 1.44M drive in the combo case and put the 1.2M drive in a case by
itself. I don't anticipate doing 1.2M terribly often, but there is a
stack of them in my pile-o-stuff that need reading.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> I'm
pondering putting 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drives in a single chassis
> along with a Discferret / Kryoflux. The 3.5" can be HD with no
> problem. I'm leery of the complications of DD versus HD 5.25" drives.
> If I bulk-erase a DD disk and write to it with an HD drive, might
> there be any problems when the disk is used again on a DD drive?
> Would simply formatting the DD disk be enough?
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Chuck Guzis wrote:
The magnetic characteristics of 5.25" media
are very different
between 2D and HD recording modes. I wouldn't recommend mixing
things up. 2D on 2D media; HD on HD media.
You can get away with playing fast and loose with media on 3.5"
drives, but there, the differences are much smaller.
Yes, the coercivity of 5.25" is not very forgiving! HD diskettes used for
360K tend to self-destruct rather soon.
Whereas the 600 Oersted V ~730 of 3.5" is arguably within range for
non-critical use.
However, I interpreted wht he was asking differently. I assumed that he
was asking whether he could get away with 360K reading and writing on 300
Oerstedt diskettes using an HD drive.
We are looking at two different issues entirely!