9 May
2003
9 May
'03
2:35 p.m.
Nick Garnett wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for your replies! From today's digest, they are:
?. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Fred Cisin,
from an earlier digest)
2. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Ethan Dicks)
4. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Jochen Kunz)
7. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Peter Turnbull)
11. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)
12. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)
Including all of these messages in my reply would be a
misuse of bandwidth. Please see the original text of the
replies.
? Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Fred Cisin)
from yesterday's digest?
Fred asks if we have considered substituting 1.2M 5.25"
drives. Hmmmm. I didn't know there were such drives.
I know of DSDD 360K 5.25 drives and 1.44M 3.5 drives,
even 720K 5.25 drives, but not 1.2M 5.25 drives.
1.2M drives are/were very common. I have a 286 that has the option
to specify a 1.2M 5.25" in the bios, so they go back fairly far.
Most PC's > 286 came with 1.2M instead of the 360K, when
they were shipped with 5.25" drives.
On the general subject of using a substitute drive.
I
have actually been considering if this could be done. I
have not suggested doing that because I need to find out
the feasibility. I would hope we could at least get into
the 1990s with a 1.44M 3.5 in floppy drive.