First of all they maybe are still used by the old old people who just don't want to upgrade or use new technology or just have no time to learn how to use new technology. They are unreliable and i can gurantee you on that, yes they might be enough for some people, but the demand for capacity is ever so increasing in today's world, a storage medium in such a large size, and only able to store so little data is really in the obsolete category.
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
5 1/4 Inch Floppy (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ohne
- Start date
- Status
Obselete? I certainly don't think so. As I have stated in previous posts they STILL have PRACTICAL uses. I have no problem with newer technologies working alongside floppies however. Obviously for graphics/multimedia, floppies are not suitable due to their relative lack of size and speed and thus CD/DVD-R/USB should be used. Reliability is an issue but the same can be said about newer technologies. Sure floppies are vunerable to magnets, but CD/DVD can be scratched easily and USB has its problems. You are also ignoring the issue of cost. Floppies provide a far more cost effective method of transporting data. CD burners cost significantly more than that of floppy drives. DVD burners and USB can cost over ten times that of floppy drives, and thats not to mention the cost of discs.
Since when are floppies used only by old people. What world are you living in? Numerous people in this thread have openly stated that they still use floppies. Why do they still use floppies? In my opinion, not because they 'don't want to upgrade or use new technology or just have no time to learn to use new technology'. But because of the reasons I have stated:
1. They are good enough in terms of speed and capacity for what they are needed for.
2.They are relatively reliable.
3. They are relativey compact.
4. They are cost effective.
5. They are widespread and almost all computers contain floppy disc drives (at least in 3.5 inch format).
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
Good argument ohne 
I think however that people need a push to take up new technology (there's a term for this in marketing... i forget though) which hasn't really occurred yet - the only people really aware of the functionality, portability, cost-effectiveness etc of (say) USB flash drives are those 'in the know'; that is, professionals, IT workers, CSE students, et al. The layperson is in general ignorant of the OH SO WONDERFUL usefulness of such a product!
My major dislike of 3 1/2" floppies is their lack of robustness - not just the floppy disks themselves but the drives.. I've seen my share of broken drives and it drives me insane (especially if it eats my disk). That sort of problem is avoided with USB-capable products since USB hubs tend to be more stable (physically) as well as multifunctional.
I think however that people need a push to take up new technology (there's a term for this in marketing... i forget though) which hasn't really occurred yet - the only people really aware of the functionality, portability, cost-effectiveness etc of (say) USB flash drives are those 'in the know'; that is, professionals, IT workers, CSE students, et al. The layperson is in general ignorant of the OH SO WONDERFUL usefulness of such a product!
My major dislike of 3 1/2" floppies is their lack of robustness - not just the floppy disks themselves but the drives.. I've seen my share of broken drives and it drives me insane (especially if it eats my disk). That sort of problem is avoided with USB-capable products since USB hubs tend to be more stable (physically) as well as multifunctional.
I agree with some of your points, BUT... they aren't reliable, they have far too many errors in comparison to new technologies, someone stated they have to put data on 3 disks just in case it doesn't work. But the main core issue is, it's capacity, i don't think capacity wise it's good enough, 2 -3 large documents have already filled the disk capacity. Nearly all PC's will contain CD-ROM drives in a year or two. But you see, if everyone thinks like you, then we will be pretty much behind in this world, we only ever look forward in technology and try to adopt to new technology, as software becomes ever so demanding, and will be in the new coming technologies, i highly doubt you can store much with a floppy disk, and don't you think havign a load of floppy disks at home is a little too messy as well as unsecure, anything can happen to your data, if it comes in contact with magnets or too much exposure to heat, it can just go like that, sustainability wise i think CD's will last far longer than Floppys, surely not all floppies can last yrs and yrs of storage and brought back out and still be used... Because i've had some old floppies that just died like that, but CD wise, you can store them for a fair amount of time.
I think overall, floppies are actually better for long term storage than CD's/DVD's, especially when all of the data is stored on a single disc. Floppies have cases which protects the actual disc, preventing scratches and other forms of damage, CD's/DVD's do not have this protection and can become scratched/damaged even when placed in cases. Sure, heat and magnets can damages floppies, but this disadvantage is more than outweighed by the fact they do not become scratched. I am still able to read most floppies in my house which have existed since the early ninties, whereas many CD's from the late 90's, even early this decade, have become sractched and rendered useless.
I admit that capacity can be an issue with large/multiple documents, however this is extremely rare for most document types I have stated in previous posts and don't forget 3.5 inch floppy discs can be compressed to 2.6mb.
If everyone in this world was like me, we would not be behind and never advancing technology. If you looked at my computer you would notice that directly above my 3.5 inch and 5.25 inch floppy drives, I have both a CD burner and DVD burner, which I use for games, movies, graphics, multimedia etc. My argument in favour of floppies purely rests for usage with small comonly used documents.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
LoL, y all this arguing abt. floppy disks!
anti
aww.. baby raccoon ^^
haha I remember that, wogboy
but we had disks for c64 too!
but we had disks for c64 too!
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
teh winnar, you rockOriginally posted by teh winnar!
AHAHAHAHA NERD AHOY!
yet so uncool it's kind of cool
YES!
Our SysAdmin at school had a bunch of them on his wall, I wanted to tax them.
Who? I don't know anyone who "prefers floppy disfs over newer technologies". And I know quite a formidable number of people!
Don't forget that the reason floppies "decay" in terms of data integrity is that they are highly succeptible to magnetic interference. Even a bunch of ions floating around for a few months can fudge them over...
I don't know anyone who prefers floppy 'disfs' over newer technologies either. I do however know many people who prefer floppy disks over newer technologies.Originally posted by Lexicographer
Who? I don't know anyone who "prefers floppy disfs over newer technologies". And I know quite a formidable number of people!
Do you know a formidable number of people? I think the fact that you have made over 3400 posts suggests you need to get out more.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
LoL- good one!
mitochondria
*Rawr*!
Okay.. I'm neutral --> point made, so accept it
I think there are many things which have been exaggerated or ignorant in both of your arguments (and some other's). First of all, floppy disk isn't THAT reliable [exaggerated] a few years up to 4 (maybe more) is probably the average life time of a floppy that has been taken care of (i.e. protected by following the instructions in the package and the floppy drive is cleaned constantly).
For chocolate's sake there is actually a large amount of people who are still using floppy disk out there [ignorant] because they don't have the kind of money that you (maybe) self-termed-technology-junkies have to spend on some blanky Flash USB drive to REPLACE their existing storage medium. And please consider that not everyone use up-to-date software (or even use them) which produces some rediculus large file-size documents [ignorant].
And by the way, it's not like we delibrately want to rub a magnet on a floopy disk or put it near a huge speaker and say: "bye bye data" or "die! die floppy die!" if we have a brain.[ignorant]
Also, if please correct me if I'm wrong about this: a bunch of ions floating around? around the place where you put your floppy disk safely? In that case the following consmptions, which are based on standard SOHO or even BOMO (Big Office Manson Office) environment:
1. I think the ions has gone insane; or
2. They used gameshark code or something; or
3. The Sun isn't feeling to well that day and puked an uber stream of ions to the Earth; or
4. we get melanoma before they floppy disk die in their protective cover (provided they they are usually stored in a floppy disk box or something
oooh.. forgot to mention.. not everyone is into technology or understand it. Some people just simply DON'T understand it.. and there's something else, what percentage of the whole blanky population do you think in Australia do own a laptop that is fairly new?
Compatibility issues should be consider in the IT area, including hadware. There's no point buring a DVD data disc and give it to a person who hasn't got a DVD drive.
Key:
floppy = 3.5"
Anyhow.. floppies are not preferable if you are financially capable of upgrading to a optical drive which is capable of writing or USB drives. Despite the fact that optical drives themselves are more expensive than floppy drives, in the long run it's worth it [ignorant]. Just take a CD-RW as an example, it's capable of being read and written just like floppy disks. Also, one CD-RW is at least 450 floppy disks in terms of storage and if you don't go and:
1. play it with your cat; or
2. lick it like a candy; or
3. use it as a Frisbee(TM); or
4. train your finger strength with it (i.e. bend it.. etc.)
A CD should last heaps longer than (a conservative estimation of 8 years +) a floppy disk unless it catch a mould or got a cold.. or some werid biological unknown substance that grows on CD. Not to mention that optical discs generally have a lower $/MB [ignorant], and we are talking about another conservative estimation of about 0.25:0.01 = 25:1 (1.44MB floppy:650MB CD-RW). USB drives are just a tiny bit more expensive than the equivalant amount of storage on floppy disks.
In both cases, optical discs and USB drives are a lot faster than floppy disk (note: speed may vary for CD-RW writing depending on the drive, but even 4x CD-RW speed can write 650 in ~8 minutes, floppy disks can't do that [condition: files being chopped down into pieces])
ahhhh... da**it.. need to take my little cousin home from school now.. points made ----> accept them both are right and both are wrong
Last edited:
You make some very good points here and whilst I can't say any of your points are wrong, several of your final points are slightly narrow.
I believe floppy drives are preferable even if you are financially capable of upgrading. If you use floppies and wish to tranfer data to someone elses system, you can pretty much be guaranteed that they will have a floppy drive, on the other hand relatively few people have replaced floppy drives with USB/optical. CD's are another issue all together, they have a lot more space, but this doesn't count for small office type documents (neither does performance largely). This is why I believe floppies should be used in conjunction with newer technologies for multimedia.
CD's can still become scratched accidentaly through normal use and for this reason I don't regard them to be any more reliable than floppies.
Most of your arguments are based upon the fact that increased speed and storage space make something better. In my opinion this argument is invalid as floppies are presently used mainly for office type documents and thus newer technologies would not do a significantly better job, despite costing several times more. As hardware requirements for many PC programmes becomes more demanding, new technology does need to be adapted and developed for use alongside floppies. However, I suspect that for some time to come, there will be need for a storage medium to store office type documents. Floppies have for some time and will continue to be the best storage medium for performing this task.
mitochondria
*Rawr*!
Your points are very true and I do agree to all of them. However, (just to rescue my reputation
) I have not disregarded the fact floppy disks/drives are still preferable even if one is financially capable of upgrading - and that was mentioned in the compatibilty issue in my argument. Also, yes, you are right about the scratching of CDs. In fact, I do take care of the CDs I like most very very carefully (i.e. either in a case, or a CD drive/player) but they still have scretches on them for some mysterious reasons. Although, a few scretches would still let the CD to survive for many years and function normally. And finally, most systems in many offices/organisations are now network, the transferr of files are mostly done without the use of external storage. (I'm not talking about all, just many) And for backup they usually use CDs (backup copies for softwares) or harddrives/tapedrives... etc. So the use of floppies is getting less and less. These are just my opinions and observations please do correct me if i'm wrong on any of them.Btw, I like your signature
It's very true
Last edited:
I can't really argue with anything here. All of the points you have made are correct. Floppies can be technologically inferior to new inventions and ignoring cost/compatability issues can be preferable. You are right about networks replacing floppies, my network has meant I now use floppies significantly less. Floppies are obviously not preferable for the backup of most files. Floppies are used less now than ever, however I do forsee a significant need for them for many years to come.Originally posted by mitochondria
Your points are very true and I do agree to all of them. However, (just to rescue my reputation
Btw, I like your signature
mitochondria
*Rawr*!
I think this thred should come to a conclusion then That it doesn't matter as long as we take technology to where we like but not letting it take us to where IT likes. (excuse the pun ) Does that make sense??
That it doesn't matter as long as we take technology to where we like but not letting it take us to where IT likes. (excuse the pun ) Does that make sense??
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Bah, to find a typo in my posts is a rare enough privilege that you should know to ignore it. Then again, you're a n00b. That aside, I have both the time and the affluence to be able to meet and know many people despite being able to post muchly. Suffice it to say I type faster and am more useful than you. :uhhuh:As for the "many" people you know who prefer older technologies, which technologies are you talking about? To say they prefer "older technologies" is too sweeping a statement, because it could mean equally a tape drive and a car from the thirties, not to mention a stove-heated iron. I myself enjoy listening to vinyl records, but this does not necessarily mean I prefer older technology. Lastly, do these people still have all their teeth? In my experience the people who most often prefer older technology are "older" themselves. It is attachment rather than actual superiority that causes this stubborn rejection of innovation.
- Status