Date : Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:19:04 +0000
From : "Paul J" <peterbilt@...>
Subject: 3.5 / 5.25 floppy disk reliability
Hi,
Have been running my beeb with a 3.5 pc drive for a few months now, and
running out of old 3.5 double density disks. Have heard that you can use
modern high density disks by covering a hole, but may have problems with
long term reliability because the magnetic layer is different to double
density disks. Would be interested to hear about your experience if you hav
e
been using high densitiy disks as double density.
I started off using 5.25 disks, but had to clean the heads every week or so
with the brown gunk from the disks. Is this a common problem or do I just
have a poor batch of disks ?
Which disks should be more reliable, have heard that technically 5.25 disks
should be, but just wondering if in practice that 3.5 disks are a better
option ?
Regards,
Paul.
<div>Hi,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Have been running my beeb with a 3.5 pc drive for a few months now, an
d running out of old 3.5 double density disks. Have heard that you ca
n use modern high density disks by covering a hole, but may have problems w
ith long term reliability because the magnetic layer is different to d
ouble density disks. Would be interested to hear about your experience if y
ou have been using high densitiy disks as double density.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I started off using 5.25 disks, but had to clean the heads every week
or so with the brown gunk from the disks. Is this a common problem or do I
just have a poor batch of disks ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Which disks should be more reliable, have heard that technically 5.25
disks should be, but just wondering if in practice that 3.5 disks are a bet
ter option ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Paul.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>