bushmechanic
Experienced Member
It's always seemed to me that 5.25" disks are much more reliable than 3.5" disks.
Perhaps it's better production standards, given their age. Maybe it's data density, and less is indeed more in this venue. I've even wondered if the nature of their proper floppiness has anything to do with it; giving in the wind, rather than resisting, as it were.
It could just be that I've repeatedly ended up with bad 3.5" disks over the years, by chance alone. Perhaps you all got the good ones.
Or perhaps I've been seeing something that isn't really there.
EDIT: Corrected
Perhaps it's better production standards, given their age. Maybe it's data density, and less is indeed more in this venue. I've even wondered if the nature of their proper floppiness has anything to do with it; giving in the wind, rather than resisting, as it were.
It could just be that I've repeatedly ended up with bad 3.5" disks over the years, by chance alone. Perhaps you all got the good ones.
Or perhaps I've been seeing something that isn't really there.
EDIT: Corrected
Last edited: