311
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
311 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59020 readers
2730 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Here's some useless retro crap: the 8" disks almost certainly cost more.
There was absolutely a reliability scale as you moved down the physical disk size: the 8 inch disks were more reliable than the 5.25, which were more reliable than the 3.5, due in large part to the market was requiring them to get cheaper as the drive tech matured, and thus you ended up with cheaper, less reliable media as you went along through the evolution.
40 years later, 8" disks nearly all read, 5.25" disks mostly all read, and 3.5" disks are an absolute crapshoot: I find that less than half of the ones I come across are still actually accessible, compared to about 90% of the 5.25" and 8" ones.
That experience of course has some personal bias, but that's a story that holds pretty true talking to anyone who tries to archive old floppies, so it's probably reasonable enough to use for actual data.
So, if you wanted the most reliable option, and since the military probably doesn't care what it costs, you'd pick a 8" disk.