Post title at limit, but meant to be peak tactile feedback in computer storage.

The space saved from being thin made it bad for looking up and finding a specific disk within a stack, tho, as it couldn't fit an end label

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago* (5 children)

I fail to see how this is better than CDs or DVDs. They had the same advantages you mention here. You can label them. They're super thin and easily stacked, especially with a spindle. They also easily inserted and removed from the drive at the press of a button. All that, and with a way higher storage capacity.

The only advantave a 3.5 floppy had over them was being able to lock the disk from being written to with the little switch on the diskette but also still write to it if you ever needed. With CD/DVD, you needed special disks that could be written to once, or even more special disks to be able to re-write to them. And I do believe they had a limited number of re-writes you could even make.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago

    3.5's hard plastic immediately makes it "feel" better to handle, as it also protects the actual disk inside. Putting in and removing a 3.5 from a computer was also faster than the later disks. If you think about it, CD/DVD's jewel cases were the equivalent of the floppy's casing

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    The fact that 3.5" floppies were self-sealing to make handling irrelevant (put your greasy fingers on any surface you fucking want) is another obvious advantage.

    There are more. Before putting something on blast, really run it through forwards and backwards. You might be surprised at how many pros/cons fall out of a genuine consideration.

    Sorry for the wording of my original post... it WAS needlessly adversarial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe consider for more than 0.2 seconds before making such sweeping assertions.

    What an unnecessarily adversarial, and rude, reply. Maybe consider for more than 0.2 seconds if being an asshole is necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment