HD floppies were much worse, both 1.44MB and 1.2MB. They are just much more susceptible to defects from wear and tear because of the shrunken sector size. DD 3.5" wasn't as bad.
I am guessing a combination of tighter manufacturing tolerances, smaller sector sizes, and manufacturers over time cheaping out would contribute to decreased reliability of 3.5" disks. People also, as far as I remember, universally used sleeves for 5.25" disks, but almost never had cases for 3.5" disks.
On the other hand, 3.5" disks have higher magnetic coercivity, which makes them less susceptible to data loss from stray magnetic fields (e.g. nearby motors).
HD floppies were much worse, both 1.44MB and 1.2MB. They are just much more susceptible to defects from wear and tear because of the shrunken sector size. DD 3.5" wasn't as bad.
Do you know the reason why?
I am guessing a combination of tighter manufacturing tolerances, smaller sector sizes, and manufacturers over time cheaping out would contribute to decreased reliability of 3.5" disks. People also, as far as I remember, universally used sleeves for 5.25" disks, but almost never had cases for 3.5" disks.
On the other hand, 3.5" disks have higher magnetic coercivity, which makes them less susceptible to data loss from stray magnetic fields (e.g. nearby motors).