Re: Disk imaging

[Matt Mills <blackintrepid@crosswinds.net>]

Paul Grammens wrote:

> 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...
> -Paul

Look at the Sentences I put [[[[ on, Anyway, Paul is wrong. They are not that
much more data stored on one thing, The old 20 meg drives had 1 plate on it, and
spinned slow, now my drive has 4 or 5 and spins at about 8000 rpms thats twice
as fast as a fast car