grisanti@plains.UUCP (Ames Grisanti) (02/12/90)
I was wondering if anyone out there knows of a program to backup 3.5" disks to multiple 5.25" disks. What would be nice is if it would function similar to the BACKUP command of MS-DOS. Ames Grisanti [grisanti@plains.NoDak.edu -- Internet] [grisanti@plains or ndsuvax -- Bitnet ] [uunet!plains!grisanti -- UUCP ]
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (02/13/90)
In article <3393@plains.UUCP> grisanti@plains.UUCP (Ames Grisanti) writes: >I was wondering if anyone out there knows of a program to >backup 3.5" disks to multiple 5.25" disks. What would be nice >is if it would function similar to the BACKUP command of >MS-DOS. My Davex 8 command shell comes with a pair of commands called 'vstore' and 'vrestore' that can save and restore ProDOS volumes to and from ProDOS files, and they're smart enough to ask for more disks when they need to. I was actually thinking of folks saving RAMdisk images onto real disks, but the commands will work for backing up 3.5s onto 5.25s if you really want to. I don't know how BACKUP works in MS-DOS, so I don't know if mine is similar. The syntax is vstore volume-name pathname and vrestore pathname device-number. -- --David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (02/15/90)
In article <3393@plains.UUCP> grisanti@plains.UUCP (Ames Grisanti) writes: > >I was wondering if anyone out there knows of a program to >backup 3.5" disks to multiple 5.25" disks. What would be nice >is if it would function similar to the BACKUP command of >MS-DOS. You could use shrinkit to compress the disk, then binscii to write the disk in segments to 5 1/4 inch disks. I could write a routine to do this for you in a matter of minutes, I have already written one very similar. But I find myself asking one question, why would you want to? 3.5 inch disks are MUCH mroe reliable, and easier to use. If you have a decent reason let me know, I'll write you one by Monday... --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. W.O.S. is not dead. greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. ...its time to get started, greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester, Ma 01609 there is much to be done. If my next computer isn't a IIgs, it won't be an apple... Me.
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (02/15/90)
In article <8277@wpi.wpi.edu> greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) writes: >I have already written one very similar. But I find myself asking >one question, why would you want to? 3.5 inch disks are MUCH >more reliable, and easier to use. I would also have to question the original poster's logic behind backing up 3.5" disks on 5.25" disks. However, I do question Mr. Pender's claim that 3.5" disks are more reliable than 5.25" disks. I've had the opposite experience. In four-and-a-half years I've never had a disk go bad on my IIe. When I came to the University of Illinois and started using Macs in some of my classes, I had to start getting 3.5" disks. I've had at least three disks go bad in the six months I've been here. 3.5" disks are nice for their large capacity, but I question their reliability, at least as you claim that they are "MUCH more reliable." Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple IIe: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
huang@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Howard Huang) (02/15/90)
>... When I came to the University of Illinois and started using Macs in some >of my classes, I had to start getting 3.5" disks. I've had at least three >disks go bad in the six months I've been here. 3.5" disks are nice for their >large capacity, but I question their reliability, at least as you claim that >they are "MUCH more reliable." > >Scott Alfter Are you using the new Macs with FDHD 1.44 MB disks? A lot of people seem to have disks chomped by the drives. I don't really know what the situation is with the FDHD. But in 3.5 years with a IIgs, and 1.5 years with 800K Mac drives, I've never had any problems with a 3.5 inch disk. I guess some reasons why they're "more reliable" than 5.25 disks is: a) they're hard plastic and less likely to be bent. b) the disk surface is covered by that little slidey thing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard C. Huang Internet: huang@husc4.harvard.edu Sophomore Computer Science Major Bitnet: huang@husc4.BITNET Mather House 426, Harvard College UUCP: huang@husc4.UUCP (I think) Cambridge, MA 02138 Apple II: ftp husc6.harvard.edu
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (02/15/90)
In article <38570@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: >I was actually thinking of folks saving RAMdisk images onto real disks, >but the commands will work for backing up 3.5s onto 5.25s if you really >want to. I wrote a command a little while ago to copy the image of my 3.5 inch system disk onto my slot 5 ramdisk so that I could access the normal utilities at high speed. I didn't think there would be any interest im my posting it, so I didn't. Maybe I should.
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb14.210246.8176@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: >I would also have to question the original poster's logic behind backing up >3.5" disks on 5.25" disks. However, I do question Mr. Pender's claim that >3.5" disks are more reliable than 5.25" disks. I've had the opposite >experience. In four-and-a-half years I've never had a disk go bad on my >IIe. When I came to the University of Illinois and started using Macs in some >of my classes, I had to start getting 3.5" disks. I've had at least three >disks go bad in the six months I've been here. 3.5" disks are nice for their >large capacity, but I question their reliability, at least as you claim that >they are "MUCH more reliable." I have had roughly twenty 5.25 inch disks go bad on me in the eight years I've been using apples, but have never had a 3.5 inch disk go bad on my machine (except for the time I shorted the address lines :^) The construction of 3.5 inch drives is superior, the control circuitry is much more precise. In addition 3.5 inch disks have a longer useful lifespan. They are much less accident prone, since the shutter keeps out stray dust particles (and fingers, don't forget fingers). The metal hub ring causes more accurate seating, and the rigid case causes less flexing on the disk media itself. I have a friend who killed a 3.5 inch disk once. She left it in her pants pocket and it went through the wash. That is not to say you can't get the occasional bad piece of media out of the box, especially with the cheapies I buy. --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. W.O.S. is not dead. greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. ...its time to get started, greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester, Ma 01609 there is much to be done. If my next computer isn't a IIgs, it won't be an apple... Me.
cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (02/16/90)
Obviously, 3.5" disks are more physically rugged and durable than their 5.25" counterparts. That is, they can take more physical abuse: dropping, scratching, bending (?), heat, cold, liquids, dust, etc. The reason is pretty clear: they're jacketed by a rugged, firm plastic case with a metallic shutter protecting the media itself from direct exposure from anything. From this standpoint, 3.5" disks should be expected to outlive 5.25" in a less than ideal environment. Basically, they are far more accident proof. Pass for pass, however, 3.5" disks are (rumored to be) far worse than 5.25" disks! The data is packed far more densely, and there is more of it; normal wear and tear from disk usage affects the media itself at least as much as that of 5.25" disks, probably even more. Plus, the data density is so much higher that the same imperfections or random magnetic interference/contamination of the disk surface will affect the 3.5 far more than a 5.25. Thus, it is actually true that the magnetic media itself lasts considerably longer for 5.25" disks than for 3.5" disks. People who use Macs or PS/2 --ahem-- computers can probably attest to this. It really isn't just your imagination: 5.25" lasts longer! -- rubio