Re: Disk imaging

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Paul Grammens writes ...
> 
> Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote
> >
> >      Most likely, it has to do with less tolerance 
> > for error combined with higher probability of error. 
> > For instance, a much smaller error in head
> > positioning can lead to overwriting bits in an adjacent track.
> >
> 
> I kind of wonder if it's just poor quality diskettes; I got some made in
> China that seem to be much less reliable than others, for example.
> 
> You may be right, but if so, it's design problems. Consider the 3.5" hard
> disk. The early ones were 20 megs, now they are 
> 40 gigs. And more reliable.
> That's 2,000 times the data in the same space.
> There's also the zip/LS-120  disks vs. floppy comparison, though the
> technology is substantially different. Still, the head positioning
> consistency in these cases is far better than that required of 3.5"
> diskettes...
 ....

     Looking at current hard disks and Zip disks does make you wonder why
there should be any problem at all with getting a pissant 800k on 3.5"
diskettes. Still, after all, we are talking about IIgs drive mechanisms and
diskettes designed nearly 15 years ago.



Rubywand