Forgot to update everyone on the thin client DOS project. It's an HP t5740e thin client PC with 2GB of RAM and a 4GB drive. I formatted almost 2GB for th system boot drive and 2GB for the extended DOS partition.Originally, I installed DOS 6.22 on it, but I decided to put FreeDOS on instead. FreeDOS already has most of the drivers needed, so I can install stuff using the USB port. I still have programs on floppies that I bought way back in the early '90s; I was able to just install them from a cheap USB floppy drive.I literal paid like $14 for it, the floppy disks cost more than the drivethese days, $2 for 10 Disks locally! The DOS machine is up and running like a charm. I actually played the original DOOM from way back. Now I am getting back to writing a few batch files. I haven't done that in over 30 years."
That is good news. Glad it is working out. I had not heard of floppy drives with USB connectors so that is good to know. Is it a 5.25 or 3.5 drive?
I've only seen 3.5" USB floppy drives; I don't think they make 5.25" USB floppy drives, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Mortar wrote to Nightfox <=-
Re: Thin Client Pc To Run Dos
By: Nightfox to MIKE POWELL on Sun Jan 11 2026 17:02:06
I've only seen 3.5" USB floppy drives; I don't think they make 5.25" USB floppy drives, but I suppose I could be wrong.
I've been looking for one as well, but so far, no luck. I got some commercial disks from the '80s I'd like to get converted.
I don't think the 5.25" drive is available in USB/external version. I
see none on Amazon or Ebay.
3.5 floppy, I have not seen any USB 5 1/4 floppies.Forgot to update everyone on the thin client DOS project. It's an HP
That is good news. Glad it is working out. I had not heard of floppy drives with USB connectors so that is good to know. Is it a 5.25 or 3.5 drive?
Mortar wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Thin Client Pc To Run Dos
By: Gamgee to Mortar on Mon Jan 12 2026 08:27:44
I don't think the 5.25" drive is available in USB/external version. I
see none on Amazon or Ebay.
Those were my first stops as well; zip, zero, nadda. However, I did
see several external 5 1/4" drives using the Shugart interface.
Digging further, I came accross the Device Side Data FC5025 USB 5.25" Floppy Controller. It'll allow you to connect std. PC 5 1/4" floppy drives (as well as many 8-bit computer floppy drives) to your PC. It's not a perfect solution. It's a read-only setup and You still have to provide power to the drive from somewhere.
Here's a link so you can read all the gory details: https://shop.deviceside.com/prod/fc5025
That is good news. Glad it is working out. I had not heard of floppy drives with USB connectors so that is good to know. Is it a 5.25 or 3.5 drive?>floppy drives, but I suppose I could be wrong.
I've only seen 3.5" USB floppy drives; I don't think they make 5.25" USB
3.5 floppy, I have not seen any USB 5 1/4 floppies.
a 3.5 USB floppy can be purchased on Amazon for under $15.
MIKE POWELL wrote to DENN <=-
3.5 floppy, I have not seen any USB 5 1/4 floppies.
a 3.5 USB floppy can be purchased on Amazon for under $15.
Thanks to everyone who responded. I still have a lot of things on 5.25 from back when that was all I had. Luckily, I do still have a DOS PC
with both sizes so, if I ever want to start converting/storing
elsewhere, I can start there. ;)
MIKE POWELL wrote to DENN <=-
Thanks to everyone who responded. I still have a lot of things on 5.25 from back when that was all I had. Luckily, I do still have a DOS PC
with both sizes so, if I ever want to start converting/storing
elsewhere, I can start there. ;)
It was an IBM PS/2 model 80, 13" CRT and a Model M keyboard running OS/2. Connected to it was an IBM 4019 laser printer. IBM "pointing device", a heavy 2-button mechanical mouse.
That was the exact system I'd used at my first job - in 1991!
You should probably get those 5.25's copied off and archived somewhere
more safe/stable. Those floppies WILL eventually fail and be
unreadable.
a 3.5 USB floppy can be purchased on Amazon for under $15.
Thanks to everyone who responded. I still have a lot of things on 5.25 from back when that was all I had. Luckily, I do still have a DOS PC with both sizes so, if I ever want to start converting/storing elsewhere, I can start there. ;)
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It was an IBM PS/2 model 80, 13" CRT and a Model M keyboard running OS/2. Connected to it was an IBM 4019 laser printer. IBM "pointing device", a heavy 2-button mechanical mouse.
That was the exact system I'd used at my first job - in 1991!
That sounds like a fairly iconic early-mid 90s computer setup. If I collected retro computers, I wouldn't mind having a setup like that.
I've also thought it would be cool to have an old Amiga (maybe a 2000
or a 3000). I'd need to have room for a computer collection first..
MIKE POWELL wrote to GAMGEE <=-
You should probably get those 5.25's copied off and archived somewhere
more safe/stable. Those floppies WILL eventually fail and be
unreadable.
I actually think they already are, but it would not hurt to do it again
to be sure.
re-reads, but I was able to get most everything copied. Thankfully, the only sectors that failed contained one of the text files and I was able
to recover most of it.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit, Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit,
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they
were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive. It took a lot of sector re-reads, but I was able to get most everything copied. Thankfully, the
only sectors that failed contained one of the text files and I was able
to recover most of it.
a lot of sector re-reads, but I was able to get most everything
copied. Thankfully, the only sectors that failed contained one of
the text files and I was able to recover most of it.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5"
ones.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have used them though.
It was an IBM PS/2 model 80, 13" CRT and a Model M keyboard running OS/2. Connected to it was an IBM 4019 laser printer.
That sounds like a fairly iconic early-mid 90s computer setup.
They were great systems - Micro channel architecture, with a fast bus
ahead of its time.
Re: Re: Thin Client Pc To Run
By: poindexter FORTRAN to MIKE POWELL on Thu Jan 15 2026 08:15 am
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when th were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most
people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have
used them though.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5" ones.
fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
i occasionally get stuff from eBay.. things i wished i had back in the day.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies". But it seems there is some confusion about their name, especially today as most
people haven't used them in a while - I've seen some posts online where people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they were hard/rigid.. I think those people might be people too young to have
used them though.
Mortar wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
It's also what killed the PS/2. IBM was hoping it would replace their current line of PCs, but because of the PS/2s higher price and incompatibility issues with various hard/software, it was hard to find enough developers willing to work with it, so that never happened.
Also, 5.25" floppies were still very much the norm, and since the PS/2 used only 3.5" disks, that was just another nail in the coffin.
fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
i occasionally get stuff from eBay.. things i wished i had back in the day.
What's the point of growing older if you can't buy the things you
couldn't afford as a child?
The companies manufacturing them were in their absolute peak and nearly every disk was perfect in every way.
Seconded - I found an old floppy with my registered versions of Qedit, Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they were called "microfloppies"?) to my hard drive.
I don't recall hearing anyone call them "microfloppies".
But it seems there is>some confusion about their name, especially today as most people haven't used
Maybe in your corner of the world, but over here disks failed. Kodak
was the worst brand I dealt with. Virtually every box had at least
a couple bad disks. Ironically, the no-name, sleeve-less disks I'd
get at Micro Center had better success rates.
Funny thing... my 5.25" disks are MUCH more reliable than the 3.5" ones.>eak and nearly every disk was perfect in every way. early production 3.5" dis
this isn't quite fair. the companies manufacturing them were in their absolut
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail. The 5.25 disks were a lot bigger yet held less data so writing to them was slower and each bit was also more spread out making them more stable...
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes
them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail.
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks. Stepper moters had more finer control, enabling them to create more tracks, along with data compression techniques.
Not in my experience. Sure you had bad disks from time to time,
but that's to be expected. In fact, the bulk of my 3.5" disks were
no-name bundles I bought at computer stores; their failure rate
wasn't any worse than name-brand versions.
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks.
Stepper moters had more finer control, enabling them to create
more tracks, along with data compression techniques.
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes
them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail. The 5.25
disks were a lot bigger yet held less data so writing to them was
slower and each bit was also more spread out making them more
stable...
Interesting.. I'd think it would be possible to make higher-density floppy disks reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are hard drives these days that are terabytes in capacity that are reliable.
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when they
people try to say the 3.5" discs weren't floppy disks because they wer
didn't want to add even more lingo. (or confuse hard disks with "regular disks" or something)
disks reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are har drives these days that are terabytes in capacity that are reliable.
Timed and Global War, and copied them from the 3.5" (remember when
they
I think the 3.5s are likely to "go bad" sooner due to density. Physically larger disks with lower capacity should theoretically last longer than the smaller floppies with higher capacity.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically 1.44MB) and were incredibly slow for both reading and writing compared to hard drives or newer media.
Data Corruption:
Dust & Debris: Openings allowed dust, dirt, and even mold/fungi to enter, damaging the delicate magnetic surface and contaminating drive heads.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically
1.44MB) and were incredibly slow for both reading and writing compared
to hard drives or newer media.
Data Corruption:
Dust & Debris: Openings allowed dust, dirt, and even mold/fungi to
enter, damaging the delicate magnetic surface and contaminating drive
heads.
I think the two complement each other - low capacity means less data lost when the floppy drive inevitably fails. You didn't depend on them; I used to use the diskcopy command a lot to create backups of my traveling disk.
The data density was much higher on 3.5" disks which probably makes them more likely to be a weaker copy more prone to fail. The 5.25 disks were a lot bigger yet held less data so writing to them was slower and each bit was also more spread out making them more stable...>s reliable. That seems to be the case with hard drives - There are hard driv
Interesting.. I'd think it would be possible to make higher-density floppy d
Not in my experience. Sure you had bad disks from time to time, but that's t>e expected. In fact, the bulk of my 3.5" disks were no-name bundles I bought
The technology to make 3.5" disks had improved over 5.25" disks. Stepper mot> had more finer control, enabling them to create more tracks, along with data
The biggest problem with the 3.5 was.
Limited Capacity & Speed: They held very little data (typically 1.44MB) and
You're talking about solid platters vs wobbly plastic sheets :)
We were talking about the difference in reliability between 5.25" and 3.5" disks. Or at least I was. Even at high density, the 5.25" held 1.2mb vs the 3.5"'s 1.44mb. Smaller heads, smaller tracks on the disks, etc.
Rob Mccart wrote to NIGHTFOX <=-
I have lost data on more flash drives than I care to think about
though..
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
Mortar wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Re: Re: Thin Client Pc To Run
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Rob Mccart on Thu Jan 22 2026 11:30:29
The excitement turned sour when the investor said "I said THUMB DRIVE!
That's a THUMB!"
He was just being cuticle.
| Sysop: | Zerthwind |
|---|---|
| Location: | Worcester, Ma |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 225:54:03 |
| Calls: | 2 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,769 |
| D/L today: |
26 files (9,990K bytes) |
| Messages: | 14,771 |