Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs225af
From: cs225af@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: backing up 3.5" disks
Message-ID: <15800073@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 90 00:46:36 GMT
References: <3393@plains.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:plains.UUCP:3393:ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:15800073:000:1242
Nf-From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs225af    Feb 14 22:19:00 1990



Obviously, 3.5" disks are more physically rugged and durable than
their 5.25" counterparts.  That is, they can take more physical
abuse:  dropping, scratching, bending (?), heat, cold, liquids,
dust, etc.

The reason is pretty clear:  they're jacketed by a rugged, firm
plastic case with a metallic shutter protecting the media itself
from direct exposure from anything.

From this standpoint, 3.5" disks should be expected to outlive
5.25" in a less than ideal environment.  Basically, they are
far more accident proof.


Pass for pass, however, 3.5" disks are (rumored to be) far worse
than 5.25" disks!  The data is packed far more densely, and there
is more of it; normal wear and tear from disk usage affects the
media itself at least as much as that of 5.25" disks, probably
even more.  Plus, the data density is so much higher that the
same imperfections or random magnetic interference/contamination
of the disk surface will affect the 3.5 far more than a 5.25.

Thus, it is actually true that the magnetic media itself lasts
considerably longer for 5.25" disks than for 3.5" disks.  People
who use Macs or PS/2 --ahem-- computers  can probably attest to
this.  It really isn't just your imagination:  5.25" lasts longer!


-- rubio