🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard RUDEK wrote:
> 
> tonyb@removeme.ramhb.co.nz (**Modify to email**) wrote:
> 
> >Hi and thanks for reading this
> >
> >I wonder if others have noted the seeming higher failure rate for floppy disks these days.
> >
> >I, and others that I have spoken to have all noted this.
> >
> >This is with prime spec disks (not rubbish) in brands like FUJI, SONY and VERBATIM
> >
> >The most common problem is with a Track ZERO error but I have also had disks that have been
> >formatted and a few days later have a data error.
> >
> >For myself I have replaced the floppy drive itself, but no change.
> >This also occurs under DOS 6.22, DOS 7 and WIN95
> >
> >What is happening ??????
> >
> 
> I've known this for many years. Way back when Diskettes were expensive, one
> would inspect, then bulk erase and reformat diskettes, and because they
> cost so much, manufacturers would test and control their output more
> stringently.
> 
> Today's experience leads one to believe that this is no longer the case. I
> have 5+ year old IBM and Fujitsu Branded 3.5" and 5.25" Diskettes, which
> work wonderfully. When I create a new diskette for my carry around
> collection, I always seem to have to go to great lengths to ensure their
> reliability.
>   __   __   _______________________________
>  //)) //)) | Richard RUDEK. MicroDek.      | Insert sh, ah,
> //\\ //\\  | Chatswood, Sydney. Australia. |  witty comment here. :)
>            `-------------------------------'

I started getting a lot of track 0 related problems about the time 
I installed Win95 (initial release) on one of my computers. The problem
could be one of many different things (bad drive, static electricity,
Win95)
but it is not cheap 3.25" diskettes - my 5+ year old (several name
brands,
from sealed 10-paks) have as many problems as newer diskettes.

Here is a snip from a somewhat rambling news group item from MARCH 08:
 >I can't count the number of times I have entered a
 >floppy into OS/2 that had been used on 95 to find that things aren't
right. 
 >I have to use Norton Diskedit to manually destroy the long names and
restore
 >the volume label to the right thing.  The long names reside in extra
file
 >entries that claim to be hidden system read-only volumelabel
directories
 >consuming up to 45MB on a floppy.  This often causes the volume label
to
 >appear as "sa" or some two letter combination.  I have to use diskedit
to
 >make the long-name entries into regular files so I can delete them and
then
 >everything is fine again.

I wonder if there is any truth in the above. I often encounter the
problem
using an OS/2 machine to read Win95 diskettes but I may have encountered
the reverse. Now I'm paying much more attention to these events but I
don't
use diskettes very often.