dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (01/22/89)
How popular is the 720k format for 3.5" disks? Would it be worth my while to get a 3.5" drive, considering that my current drive controller won't handle anything more than 720k on one of 'em? Doug.deJ
johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) (01/23/89)
In article <8XqJz8y00WB8N7e10q@andrew.cmu.edu> dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes: >How popular is the 720k format for 3.5" disks? Would it be worth my >while to get a 3.5" drive, considering that my current drive >controller won't handle anything more than 720k on one of 'em? The 720K format is quite popular. Most laptops as well as all of the IBM PS/2 models use it. The larger PS/2s (30-286 on up) also support 1.44MB disks, but I use 720K on my model 50 for several reasons: - It works reliably. Unlike the 360K - 1.2M fiasco, the track spacing on all 3.5" disks is the same so 1.44M drives format and write disks correctly. - It is more compatible. My wife has a Zenith laptop with a 720K drive, and I have an old XT to which I added a 720K drive. Now all three machines can exchange disks. - It's a lot cheaper. 720K disks run about $1.25, 1.44M disks about $5.00. Stupid but true. Any DOS software you buy on 3.5" disks is in 720K format. I find that the $100 I spent for the 3.5" drive was well worth it, since now my 5.25" disks are up on the shelf and I use mostly smaller more capacious disks that don't fill up with dust if dropped on the floor and don't need those silly paper jackets. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood.