cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) (02/05/91)
I have been experiencing some strange problems with some older
3.5" floppies. I have noticed that for some reason my Amiga floppies
(Ie: 3.5") go bad faster than my old 5.25" C-64 floppies did. The
average lifetime I have noticed for Amiga formatted 3.5" disks seem
to be under 2 years! Compare this to my old C-64 floppies (which I
don't use, but still have about 500 of them floating around), some of
which are over 6 years old and still going strong! I realize that
storage conditions and use have an affect on them, but they are kept
within normal specs, and usage on most of them is low.
I started noticing this when I was recycling some older disks
for use as temporary HD back-up disks and Q-Back started rejecting them
left and right! I tried to format a few in AmigaDOS a little later and
results were pretty erratic, most developing R/W errors rather quickly.
Many of these disks were High Densisty disks, but most were normal
DS/DD disks. Comments? Suggestions?
--
==========================================================================
Chris Cebelenski UUCP: portal.com!gdc!aminet!czaeap!cpc
The Red Mage Internet: czaeap!cpc@aminet.gdc.portal.com
GEnie: C.CEBELENSKI
// "Amiga - The way REAL people compute"
"Better dead than mellow" \X/
==========================================================================
NOTE: Due to brain dead mailers, this message can *NOT* be REPLIED to, to
reach me you MUST send a NEW message. Sorry!stevem@hal.CSS.GOV (Steve Masters) (02/08/91)
cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) writes: > I have been experiencing some strange problems with some older > 3.5" floppies. I have noticed that for some reason my Amiga floppies > (Ie: 3.5") go bad faster than my old 5.25" C-64 floppies did. The > average lifetime I have noticed for Amiga formatted 3.5" disks seem > to be under 2 years.... I have had similar experiences. I am concerned about data I need to keep several years but can not keep on my hard disk. Many of my 3.5" floppies develop R/W errors after a year or two. Often they will subsequently reformat, but it doesn't give me a warm feeling about the disk, and the data on the disk is now gone. Wish I could afford a tape system...my MS-DOS friends love to brag about their tape backup that uses the small video-tapes, works like a charm, and cost only about $200. But then, they love to brag about a lot of things I can't get for my Amiga until years after they are out for the rest of the computing world (e.g. CD-ROM readers...hard drives under $1000...) sigh... I know I've got a wonderful computer...I love to use it...but it gets tiresome trying to explain its virtues while they are loading up their systems. *** Sorry for this rambling that belogs in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy *** Steve Masters stevem@hal.CSS.GOV ENSCO, Inc. Melbourne, FL USA 32940
sparks@disk.uucp (John Sparks) (02/08/91)
cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) writes: > I have been experiencing some strange problems with some older > 3.5" floppies. I have noticed that for some reason my Amiga floppies > (Ie: 3.5") go bad faster than my old 5.25" C-64 floppies did. The > average lifetime I have noticed for Amiga formatted 3.5" disks seem > to be under 2 years! I would have to say that it all depends on the quality of your 3.5" disks. Other factors that can affect the life of a floppy can be storage conditions, how much writing you do to the disk. I have had my Amiga 1000 since 1985 and I still have some floppies from when I first bought it, and they still work fine. That's over 5 years now. But then I have had some floppies fail on me within a month of their first format. On the whole I find that the 3.5" disks are much sturdier and longer lasting than 5.25" disks. The 5.25" disks are more likely to fail do to mishandling long before a 3.5" one will. It's easy to spill things on the 5.25" disks, or to crease them, etc. Oh, and before someone comes out and says that the bad floppies are the bulk buys and that you should stick with brand names, let me say this: My best disks have been the bulk disks from MEI (39 cents) and the worst have been Sony brand, with Maxell almost as bad. The Maxells seem to start getting hard format errors after a moderate ammount of rewriting, and the Sony's seem to have more trouble with the mechanics of the disks (sticking shutters, warped cases, cases coming apart.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Sparks |"Help Fight Continental Drift!"| (502)968-DISK 2400 BPS D.I.S.K. Management| Email: sparks@disk.UUCP | 7 lines, public access unix *Online Games*Usenet*Email*Chatting*Downloads*Supporting all computers*
martens@dinghy.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (02/08/91)
My nomination for lowest quality 3.5" diskette goes to Verbatim, who are maintaining their low standards established with horrendously unreliable 8" and 5.25" diskettes. -- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) "We have to shoot and kill and destroy. We represent everything that's good in the world." -- Max Smart
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (02/09/91)
In article <cpc.3002@czaeap.UUCP> cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) writes: > > I started noticing this when I was recycling some older disks > for use as temporary HD back-up disks and Q-Back started rejecting them > left and right! I tried to format a few in AmigaDOS a little later and > results were pretty erratic, most developing R/W errors rather quickly. > Many of these disks were High Densisty disks, but most were normal > DS/DD disks. Comments? Suggestions? Unless Amiga drives are radically different from IBM drives, using High Density disks in a normal drive is something I'd be wary of. I know that 5.25" HD disks require a stronger magnetic field to magnetize them [what is the term for this? Coercivity?], and quite often won't work in normal-density drives. I don't know if 3.5" disks work the same way, but I'd suspect it. There's got to be *some* reason the darn things are so expensive. -- ~ From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises 37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush)
jtravis@dworkin.Amber.COM (Jim, Sysop) (02/15/91)
sparks@disk.uucp (John Sparks) writes: > cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) writes: > > > > I have been experiencing some strange problems with some older > > 3.5" floppies. I have noticed that for some reason my Amiga floppies > > (Ie: 3.5") go bad faster than my old 5.25" C-64 floppies did. The > > average lifetime I have noticed for Amiga formatted 3.5" disks seem > > to be under 2 years! > > I would have to say that it all depends on the quality of your 3.5" disks. > Other factors that can affect the life of a floppy can be storage conditions, > how much writing you do to the disk. I have had my Amiga 1000 since 1985 and > I still have some floppies from when I first bought it, and they still work > fine. That's over 5 years now. But then I have had some floppies fail on > me within a month of their first format. > > On the whole I find that the 3.5" disks are much sturdier and longer lasting > than 5.25" disks. The 5.25" disks are more likely to fail do to mishandling > long before a 3.5" one will. It's easy to spill things on the 5.25" disks, > or to crease them, etc. > > Oh, and before someone comes out and says that the bad floppies are the > bulk buys and that you should stick with brand names, let me say this: > > My best disks have been the bulk disks from MEI (39 cents) and the worst have > been Sony brand, with Maxell almost as bad. The Maxells seem to start getting > hard format errors after a moderate ammount of rewriting, and the Sony's seem > to have more trouble with the mechanics of the disks (sticking shutters, warp > cases, cases coming apart.) > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > John Sparks |"Help Fight Continental Drift!"| (502)968-DISK 2400 BPS > D.I.S.K. Management| Email: sparks@disk.UUCP | 7 lines, public access u > *Online Games*Usenet*Email*Chatting*Downloads*Supporting all computers* I agree. I've got disks that work from the very first days of my Amiga 1000 (bought back, 4 months after the Byte mag rollout), including VERY old versions of Kickstart that still work on a friends 1000 (pre v1.0) It REALLY depends upon the disks - I've found these to be the most reliable, in proper order of importance: 1. Sony 2. Maxell 3. Fuji NEVER had a problem with any of those brands. I HAVE found MAJOR problems with: 4. BASF 5. KAO (should read KAOS, as far as I'm concerned) 6. VERBATIM If I'd have to suggets anything, use the first 3 brands - and get Quarterback Tools. It's GREAT! Saved my harddrive and floppies a number of times. For floppies, you're lost without DiskSalv I might add. -------///----------------------------------------------------------- /// Jim Trascapoulos * CSAccess BBS * 609-584-8774 /// "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever \\\/// count on having both at once." - Lazerus Long --\XX/--------------------------------------------------------------- "Oh-HO! So you're hiding him in the oven, are you?" "If I was, would I throw a lighted match in there.." >>BLAM!<< "You might rabbit, you might.."
pvallis@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Paul Vallis) (02/16/91)
/ hpcupt1:comp.sys.amiga.misc / cpc@czaeap.UUCP (Chris Cebelenski) / 12:06 pm Feb 4, 1991 / > I started noticing this when I was recycling some older disks > for use as temporary HD back-up disks and Q-Back started rejecting them > left and right! I tried to format a few in AmigaDOS a little later and > results were pretty erratic, most developing R/W errors rather quickly. > Many of these disks were High Densisty disks, but most were normal > DS/DD disks. Comments? Suggestions? -- I too have noticed similar problems and I'm not sure it's totally a problem with the floppies. Quarterback does not use AmigaDos format for storing its data. It uses its own format, which I suspect is so they can pack a whole lot more stuff in the same amount of space. I suspect that many of the floppy disks that Quarterback is rejecting would work perfectly fine as AmigaDos formatted disks (this is the case with a number of my 3.5" disks). Some of your floppies, of course, may actually BE bad. This is not to blame Quarterback. I just suspect that Quarterback is a LOT more picky about the quality of disks you use. Using your old floppies with Quarterback is probably a good way to "weed out" the marginal ones. ========================================================================== .signature file under construction Paul Vallis (pvallis@hpcupt1.hp.com)
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/17/91)
In article <o81eX2w163w@dworkin.Amber.COM> jtravis@dworkin.Amber.COM (Jim, Sysop) writes: |[mondo stuff deleted] | It REALLY depends upon the disks - I've found these to be the |most reliable, in proper order of importance: | | 1. Sony | 2. Maxell | 3. Fuji | | NEVER had a problem with any of those brands. I HAVE found MAJOR |problems with: | | 4. BASF | 5. KAO (should read KAOS, as far as I'm concerned) | 6. VERBATIM Just to add my $.02, I use TDK disks with good success. Once I bought some Kodak disks, and had about 50% go south. I don't know if it was just a bad batch or not, but I don't really want to find out, either. | /// Jim Trascapoulos * CSAccess BBS * 609-584-8774 -- Dave Schaumann | DANGER: Access holes may tear easily. Use of the access | holes for lifting or carrying may result in damage to the dave@cs.arizona.edu | carton and subsequent injury to the user.
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (02/20/91)
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: >Just to add my $.02, I use TDK disks with good success. Once I bought some >Kodak disks, and had about 50% go south. I don't know if it was just a bad >batch or not, but I don't really want to find out, either. I have had good luck with TDK disks too, and they look kool. Kodak are trash, I have never had one last to long. I havn't had any real problems with sony thougth. -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
cadp16@vaxa.strath.ac.uk (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb19.163610.22812@infonode.ingr.com>, hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes: > dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > >>Just to add my $.02, I use TDK disks with good success. Once I bought some >>Kodak disks, and had about 50% go south. I don't know if it was just a bad >>batch or not, but I don't really want to find out, either. > > I have had good luck with TDK disks too, and they look kool. > Kodak are trash, I have never had one last to long. I havn't had any > real problems with sony thougth. > -- The disks I buy are probably about the cheapest in Britain, coming in at about 30p each (Thats about 55c to you guys over the big pond) Normally out of roughly 100 disks I find 2 or at the most 3 disks which won't format, due to verify errors. These are of course fully gauranteed and I'm sure If I returned them they would be replaced for me. I use them mainly for P.D. software, which means they don't get a lot of heavy use, but any disks I do use heavily seem to stand up to it no problem. If I had some REALLY important data to store, I would probably go for Sony or TDK disks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Electric Monk ~~~ ~~\___/~~ | | /o o\ | | Strathclyde University | ___ | | | Computer Science \___/ | | 3rd Year /I\ | | Amiga and X-Windows a speciality /III\ | | / etc.\ | | (Well, you try drawing a monk with characters :-) | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Binary Warlock (02/23/91)
>In article <o81eX2w163w@dworkin.Amber.COM> jtravis@dworkin.Amber.COM (Jim, Sysop) writes: >| 5. KAO (should read KAOS, as far as I'm concerned) Watch it matey. ;-) -- Khaos the Binary Warlock; the most bitwise dude on the block. ( ;-) )