← Back to context Comment by spullara 17 hours ago 3.5" disks were much much worse. 2 comments spullara Reply kevin_thibedeau 11 hours ago 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. throwaway2037 13 hours ago Do you know the reason why?
kevin_thibedeau 11 hours ago 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.
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?