3.5 floppy imaging

[Sean Caron]

I'll second the suggestion of dd, that's how I always take disk images,
personally.Lots of support for these RAW files on other UNIX machines or on
DOS/Windows ... I guess if you have a Mac it makes more sense to try and
make Disk Copy images, but for most platforms I find dd is the way to go.

If you're having some trouble with the media, try something like:

dd if=... of=... bs=... conv=notrunc,noerror,sync

This will cause dd to persist if media errors occur; it will try to just
fill them in with NULs while still getting your image written out and
squared up to proper size; you can then often go back after the fact and
use filesystem repair utilities to clean up the holes, or often an at least
get a fair majority of files off the media with the holes in place... I've
used this to great effect more than once to image failing drives before
replacement.

Best,

Sean


On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 10:50 AM, supervinx <supervinx at libero.it> wrote:

> The only reason I guess is that they're bootable disks. Otherwise a simple
> filecopy is more than enough :)
>
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>
> Data:17/05/2015  16:40  (GMT+01:00)
> A: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <
> cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Oggetto: Re: 3.5 floppy imaging
>
> > If they are just plain old dos format (DD or HD) dd under linux will do
>
> IF they are just plain old DOS format (DD or HD), then COPY will do.
> IF they are just plain old DOS format (DD or HD), then there is no reason
> to "image"!
> IF they are just plain old DOS format (DD or HD), then the files are all
> that matters.
>
> IF they are NOT just plain old DOS format (DD or HD), THEN there might be
> reason to image, such as if they are some unknown and not understood
> format, and the files can not be extracted, or there is reason to believe
> that there is some form of information in the structure and format of the
> disk that should be preserved, such as system tracks on CP/M disks, etc.
>
> Or, if they are copy-protected, and stuff other than the files needs to be
> preserved to be able to use the files.  'Course then, your "imaging"
> methods are not likely to work, anyway.
>
>
> But, IF they are just plain old DOS format (DD or HD),
> then there is NO information other than the file content on the disks.
>
>
> If you format a 3.5" disk in a DOS/Windoze machine, and copy some file
> onto it, . . .
> Could you please explain to me WHY you would want an "image" of that disk?
>
>
>
>