Re: Good source for "new" 5.25 and 3.5 inch floppy disks?

[winston19842005 <bjjlyates@bellsouth.net>]

On 9/19/07 11:36 AM, in article
08WdnRC6XtBg3GzbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@giganews.com, "Steven Hirsch"
<snhirsch@gmail.com> wrote:

> winston19842005 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/18/07 7:53 AM, in article
>> zOKdne9oWf62IXLbnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@giganews.com, "Steven Hirsch"
>> <snhirsch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> winston19842005 wrote:
>>>>> WalMart and other office supply stores sell *high density* disks.
>>>>> Though you can use such disks in a pinch (I'm told), what I'm looking
>>>>> for is 800k double-density disks.
>>>> Well, we Tiers use them all the time in our 720k drives, just tape over the
>>>> density hole.
>>> You must enjoy data loss, then.  The heads on low density drives cannot
>>> generate a field sufficient to fully saturate domains on the media.  Don't
>>> bet
>>> the farm on being able to read those disks back after a few years.
>> 
>> Sorry, you are confusing HD 5.25" with 3.5" HD (here we go again, <sigh>!).
> 
> Are you claiming that the coercivity specs are the same between 3.5"
> "standard" density and HD media?
> 
>> Besides, in my case I AM using an HD 3.5" drive, just in LD mode...
> 
> I genuinely am not sure of this, but doesn't the drive drop the write current
> in LD modes?  If 3.5" drives are different, can you point me to some
> documentation to confirm this?
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative, but your statements don't jive with my
> understanding and I'd like to get clear on the subject.
> 

No, sorry, I don't keep pointers to the Usenet threads where the relevant
documentation was - I decided to stay out of these arguments, but made the
mistake of mentioning that "they work for me" which has made this argument
rear its ugly head again - note the "sigh" above... That is regret at
bringing it up...