bad floppies under '9x and XP

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs
of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy
drive, the XP a USB one.

What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the
way of system resources. Yes, obviously it isn't cost-effective to use
one, so I use a good one, but just on principle, I'd like to know what's
going on:

On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an
error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc
checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as
I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the
system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of
checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much?

On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to lock up the
system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it sits there, not even
accessing the floppy continuously - the light comes on for a few
seconds, then goes off for a few seconds, and eventually - sometimes
after a minute or more - comes up with an error message; again, the
system is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing like as
much so as the '95 system. But what is really weird is that it seems to
sulk where the floppy is concerned: once it has decided there is a
problem, it refuses - by going into the
I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message mode - to
do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or rename a file, _or use a
(different, good) floppy. Sometimes, if I think it has locked up
completely, I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is
more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having
a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and
eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and
so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a
floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the
system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor
floppy.)

I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I have one: it's
just the principle that bugs me, of why doing such a nominally simple
thing should cripple both systems so much.

(I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might be
interested/have views/answers.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by
ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. -Mark Twain, author and humorist
(1835-1910)

 

[Tim Meddick]

XP is a more complex piece of software than Win 9x, and goes about trying
to read data from a damaged disk differently, and tries more methods in the
attempt. This can result in Explorer locking-up CPU resources for some
time if it does not have any initial success.

If there's any chance a floppy may be compromised, you should not use
Windows Explorer to read the disk - but try instead using a "Window's
Command Prompt" first.

The difference being, if there's not going to be any success in reading the
disk, and you have waited a long time with no success, then all you need do
is press the [Ctrl-C] key combination to discontinue trying to read the
drive.

Also, if you do use Explorer (as I sometimes do, not realising there may be
a problem with a disk) - and find that CPU usage has reached maximum and
no-data is being read from the floppy - then you can always simply close
that instance of Windows Explorer, and the drive-read operation will also
be terminated - then simply just re-open another Explorer - avoiding the
damaged disk again.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

 

[Twayne]

In

At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and
transfer the logs of the test to an XP system via floppy.
The '95 has a built-in floppy drive, the XP a USB one.

What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so
much in the way of system resources. Yes, obviously it
isn't cost-effective to use one, so I use a good one, but
just on principle, I'd like to know what's going on:

On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just
fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if
I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s
Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect
- but also slows down the response time of anything else
the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does
the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog
the processor so much?
On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to
lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it
sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously -
the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a
few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or
more - comes up with an error message; again, the system
is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing
like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really
weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is
concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it
refuses - by going into the
I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message
mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or
rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy.
Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill
the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more
robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is
clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_
explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the
taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on.
Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as
accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such
a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system
is less tolerant of the poor floppy.)
I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I
have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why
doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both
systems so much.
(I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might
be interested/have views/answers.)

Everyone who has responded so far has given good information. Taken
together, IMO they give a good picture of what's going on. A bit higher
level explanation might go thusly:

Being magnetic, floppy disks do lost their data over time as short as 6
months and as long as a year or so, depending on the care they receive in
storage and the condition of the floppy drive.
Back in the days of floppies & pre affordable hard drives, most
companies had a program of "refreshing" their floppies every 6 months or
thereabouts. Refreshing consisted of nothing but copying the data off the
drive, doing a Quick Format on it, and then copying the data back to the
floppy. Floppies would last several years that way as long as they were
stored somewhat reasonably away from heat, brght light (susnlight) and
anything magnetic like speakers. My collection of around 700 CP/M & DOS
floppies actually lasted long enough to finally be copied to hard disks and
external drives for backup archives. They're historcal records.

When a floppy starts to be formatted and begins taking forever (over a
couple minutes) without advancing it's a pretty good guess that the floppy
is bad. The OS makes several attempts to read the sectors (at least twice,
up to a hundred times or so) And then compares each of the reads, picking
the largest quantity of reads that are the same, and "assumes" that was a
good read and thus uses it. With 512k sectors that can get to be very time
consuming and a waste of time.
As someone mentioned, it's often best to use the command line for
formatting floppies for the extra control it provides.
There are DOS programs around that are meant to "recover" decaying
floppies. Mine seems to be lost in the archives somewhere; all I see left is
the WordStar to Word converter, meaning several others are hiding away from
me too.
The "recover floppy" program did a lot better and more efficient job than
anything you could do manually and was often surpsingly effectively. I guess
Google would be the best way to find it now.

As for locking up the sy

 

[Twayne]

In

In

Everyone who has responded so far has given good
information. Taken together, IMO they give a good picture
of what's going on. A bit higher level explanation might
go thusly:
Being magnetic, floppy disks do lost their data over time
as short as 6 months and as long as a year or so,
depending on the care they receive in storage and the
condition of the floppy drive. Back in the days of
floppies & pre affordable hard drives, most companies had a program of
"refreshing" their floppies
every 6 months or thereabouts. Refreshing consisted of
nothing but copying the data off the drive, doing a Quick
Format on it, and then copying the data back to the
floppy. Floppies would last several years that way as
long as they were stored somewhat reasonably away from
heat, brght light (susnlight) and anything magnetic like
speakers. My collection of around 700 CP/M & DOS floppies
actually lasted long enough to finally be copied to hard
disks and external drives for backup archives. They're
historcal records.
When a floppy starts to be formatted and begins taking
forever (over a couple minutes) without advancing it's a
pretty good guess that the floppy is bad. The OS makes
several attempts to read the sectors (at least twice, up
to a hundred times or so) And then compares each of the
reads, picking the largest quantity of reads that are the
same, and "assumes" that was a good read and thus uses
it. With 512k sectors that can get to be very time
consuming and a waste of time. As someone mentioned, it's
often best to use the command line for formatting
floppies for the extra control it provides. There are DOS
programs around that are meant to "recover" decaying
floppies. Mine seems to be lost in the archives
somewhere; all I see left is the WordStar to Word
converter, meaning several others are hiding away from me
too. The "recover floppy" program did a lot better and
more efficient job than anything you could do manually
and was often surpsingly effectively. I guess Google
would be the best way to find it now.
As for locking up the system, that shouldn't be happening of course. That
I'd attribute to either malware or more likely simply a corrupted system
file somewhere or a conflict with another program sitting in RAM. You
might try using the Command Line and Safe Mode if the floppy works n Safe
Mode; pretty sure it does.

IMO it's never useful to try to check a floppy for bad sectors: Let a Full
Format do that for you; it'll mark out any bad sectors for you unless there
are too many of them or the ID area of the floppy is damaged, which is often
the case. Fgure out what the system lines should have for data and try
rewriting them. It might work, might now.

Probably the most effective way to gt data off a floppy that was really
important to me/us was to use a hex editor and completely bypass the OS.
Copy the data, less the system data sectors, to another location and try to
open that; often it'll open. If it's a text file that often works, but if
it's an executable, and doesn't work, you're out of luck with this method.

That's my 'IIRC' anyway from some years ago<g>. It all depends on how
important the data on the floppy is to you. If it's really important, time
is of the essence; floppies begin to degrade on the closer together inner
tracks and works its way outwards most of the time.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[jw]

At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs
of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy
drive, the XP a USB one.

What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the

Back in the old dos days, there was some utility that would fix bad
floppies. Maybe someone can recommend what it's called.
Of course some are beyond repair, but it's worth a try. You might
lose some data in the process, but it will often overlay a useful
format on them without wiping the data. Of course if you have a copy
of the data, just reformat the floppy and see what happens.

Comment: It figures that XP will freak out and lock up over a bad
floppy. XP is more unstable than Win98 in my opinion.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Back in the old dos days, there was some utility that would fix bad
floppies. Maybe someone can recommend what it's called.
Of course some are beyond repair, but it's worth a try. You might
lose some data in the process, but it will often overlay a useful
format on them without wiping the data. Of course if you have a copy
of the data, just reformat the floppy and see what happens.

Comment: It figures that XP will freak out and lock up over a bad
floppy. XP is more unstable than Win98 in my opinion.

The Norton Utilities 8.0( and some older versions.)
SubprogramISKTOOL.EXE
1:Make a disk bootable
2:recover from DOS recover(!!!!!)
3:revive badly readable floppy.
4:mark a cluster.(??????)

 

[Twayne]

In

The Norton Utilities 8.0( and some older versions.)
SubprogramISKTOOL.EXE
1:Make a disk bootable
2:recover from DOS recover(!!!!!)
3:revive badly readable floppy.
4:mark a cluster.(??????)

That's it! Works well if you can get your hands on a copy of it.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

XP is a more complex piece of software than Win 9x, and goes about
trying to read data from a damaged disk differently, and tries more
methods in the attempt. This can result in Explorer locking-up CPU
resources for some time if it does not have any initial success. []
Also, if you do use Explorer (as I sometimes do, not realising there
may be a problem with a disk) - and find that CPU usage has reached
maximum and no-data is being read from the floppy - then you can always
simply close that instance of Windows Explorer, and the drive-read
operation will also be terminated - then simply just re-open another
Explorer - avoiding the damaged disk again.

[]
Not with that XP system: if explorer seems to be getting nowhere, then
attempting to close that Explorer instance (by clicking the X) usually
is ignored too. (Or may generate an error message, after a _long_ time.)
If I attempt to close it from task manager, that succeeds, but usually
closes _all_ Explorer windows.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Is it really the CPU time it's hogging? (Check in a good task manager..) It
might be the low level driver waiting and timing out and retrying that takes
all the time. Other parts of the system often have to wait for low level
driver accesses to complete, the same sort of thing shows up with browsers
trying to get remote data, etc.

No, everything slows to an unusable state on the '95 system when testing
the bad floppy. On the XP system, if I'm using the browser to access a
site that is being sluggish to respond, I can still use most other
functions without difficulty (email, explorer etc.). I can't say how
browser waiting would affect the '95 system, as it isn't networked, but
I don't _think_ it would slow it down as much as scanning the floppy
does.

(As to whether it's the CPU or a low level driver, I have no idea - I
just know the computer goes treacly. My main question is _why_; even '95
is a nominally multitasking system [yes I know multitasking is an
illusion on a Turing machine], so I don't see why.)

One thing I read about bad floppies, is that it's worth just letting it retry
up to 100 times overnight if need be, that it usually gets a read in the end
if there's no scarring of the disk surface. Another thing I used to do that

[]
Sorry, I clearly didn't stress enough that this is purely an
intellectual puzzle: lots of people are being very kind and helping me
to recover data from a dud floppy. I'm not: I have a good floppy for the
data transfers I need to do. I'm just curious as to why, on the '95
system, _scanning_ the failing floppy seems to hog so much of the system
resources, and on the XP system, why once having had a "bad read" or
similar experience, it seems to screw up use of the (USB) floppy drive
for getting on for the remains of that session, even if I use the good
floppy.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Back in the old dos days, there was some utility that would fix bad
floppies. Maybe someone can recommend what it's called.
Of course some are beyond repair, but it's worth a try. You might
lose some data in the process, but it will often overlay a useful
format on them without wiping the data. Of course if you have a copy
of the data, just reformat the floppy and see what happens.

No, fortunately I'm not in the position of having lost any important
data; I'm just playing with the floppy for curiosity!

Comment: It figures that XP will freak out and lock up over a bad
floppy. XP is more unstable than Win98 in my opinion.

No, it's the opposite - I can still do anything _else_ - read email,
browse the web, etc. - fine; it's just the particular explorer window
that's accessing a: that more or less locks up. (And seems to have a
memory.) It behaves _very_ oddly: it accesses the floppy for a few
seconds, then _doesn't_ - even the light goes off - for a few seconds,
and this repeats many times. Very odd.

 

[Tim Meddick]

Despite what I myself mentioned - that it causes CPU resources to become
overloaded - I think what "Lostgallifreyan" wrote was right when he said :
"Whether a task manager always interprets that as actual CPU hogging when
it's not, I don't know" and in my experience, always, when a "bad" floppy
(or corrupt cd/dvd for that matter) is clicked-on in Windows Explorer, I
*can* simply press on the right-hand "close" [x] and that instance of
[explorer] *will* close...

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

XP is a more complex piece of software than Win 9x, and goes about trying
to read data from a damaged disk differently, and tries more methods in
the attempt. This can result in Explorer locking-up CPU resources for
some time if it does not have any initial success. []
Also, if you do use Explorer (as I sometimes do, not realising there may
be a problem with a disk) - and find that CPU usage has reached maximum
and no-data is being read from the floppy - then you can always simply
close that instance of Windows Explorer, and the drive-read operation
will also be terminated - then simply just re-open another Explorer -
avoiding the damaged disk again.

[]
Not with that XP system: if explorer seems to be getting nowhere, then
attempting to close that Explorer instance (by clicking the X) usually is
ignored too. (Or may generate an error message, after a _long_ time.) If
I attempt to close it from task manager, that succeeds, but usually
closes _all_ Explorer windows.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Dailysex, or is it spelled dyslexia, rules KO! (Dr[.] J.[ ]B.[ ]Davis)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

news:[email protected]: []
Ok, I think the browser comparison I made is flawed, as browsers expect to
wait. A few timers holding on till timing out isn't enough to halt much in a
system with timers to spare, but if enough hang waiting, maybe so, or if the
stuff that does come in demands immediate resource-hungry actions, then
things can go very agly, like those pages with about 15 flash movies all
trying to run at once, those are ALWAYS browser-crashers here. (I got help on
ways to sort that; just haven't made time to look into those much yet).

I think the thing with the floppy is twofold, one is it's not expecting to
have to wait much, if it works, it doesn't wait. The other thing is that it's
a very old subsystem, from times when there was no notion of multitasking. It
wasn't designed in any way to either expect to wait, or to give way if it had
to, so it simply doesn't give way. This doesn't explain the 'how' much, but I
think it explains the 'why'. I predict that if you can examine it enough
you'll see that the CPU isn't busy, it just waits in line like all the rest,
but where the delay is, I don't know. As the same drivers seem to be used
(according to driver details in the device manager), the same thing could
happen if there was a dodgy hard disk. I think I've seen it happen with a bad
CF card in an ATA adapter.

[]
The floppy is used to move log files from the HD of the '95 system to a
network drive on the XP system. (If I'm in a hurry, I have a reliable
floppy to do it with.) If it shows problems (usually when the XP system
is reading the 58x k files; the 41 k files usually move no problem), I
scan the floppy, on the '95 system, to find the new dud sectors and mark
them. It is during this scan that the '95 system goes treacly - but it
doesn't stop altogether. One of the other tasks I do on it has a
progress bar, which does move - just incredibly slowly.

Also - new question - when a floppy (or other disc) is being scanned
(from Properties, Tools), does it re-scan sectors that had already been
marked bad? I had assumed it didn't, but since it's taking longer and
longer (I'd say it's up to ten or twenty minutes now), I think it must
be doing so.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I don't know. Too long since I did it.. If you have a disk with enough bad
sectors that it takes that much longer, you have a problem, rescan or no. One
possibility is that it's not the disk at all, but the drive, if you see it on
several disks. Some drives are belt driven, the belts stiffen, eventually
falling apart. Check for any sign that the disk mechanics aren't responding

No, definitely just the one floppy - the other one works fine. I'm
really, just out of curiosity, seeing how long the floppy will keep
working! I presume until there is some corruption in the place it keeps
the bad sector table and/or root directory.
[]

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Got a microscope? Could do worse that look at the disk surface to see if

I do, as it happens: one of these USB jobbies. Bought on a whim, but has
actually proved invaluable at work (which involves servicing and
repairing electronics, including some fine surface mount stuff, and also
connectors that exhibit interesting faults; for both of these, the mic.
has proved most useful). But that doesn't answer my original question.

it's grinding its surface to very tiny bits. Not least because it it is, it's
also doing unspeakable things to your drive heads. Just wiping the exposed
bit of disk with a (very) slightly dampened bit of toilet paper after pulling
the shutter aside, then looking for rust-coloured stains will tell you
plenty.

Doesn't actually seem to be shedding: I've looked at the surface (with
the naked eye only) quite frequently, and it looks shiny. I'm surprised
- by my reckoning it's up to about 15% dud, so I thought I'd be able to
see something by now!

I remember there is a small procedure you can use in DEBUG.EXE to wipe the
start sectors of a disk. That was a hard sisk thing though, not sure how to
make it do floppies.. Equally a disk editor (Norton's DiskEdit.exe) can zero-
fill the start sectors quickly in raw access mode. If you can reformat and
use it as normal after that you'll know what was wrong. Enough to know it
wasn't physical, if nothing else. Another thing to try is a raw imager, copy
every bit to a new known good disk, then try that to see if acts the same.

I'm pretty sure it is physical - I can't think of any "mechanism" in the
world of bit patterns that would make the floppy seem to gain apparently
dud sectors on a more or less daily basis, as it is doing.

What I started the thread about was, purely, puzzlement as to why
scanning a faulty floppy should slow the system to a crawl. (The '95
system; and why attempting to _read_ that same floppy on the XP system
should give it a strange case of the wobblies.) **I normally have no
wanted data on the floppy when I do the scanning - it's empty.**

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

A recent news-handling problem has brought this one back, so I thought
I'd bring it up again.

I MUST EMPHASISE I'VE NOT LOST ANY IMPORTANT DATA: THIS IS PURELY A
CURIOSITY MATTER.

I have a - non-networked - Windows 95 system, used for testing some
equipment. These tests create log files ON ITS HARD DISC (usually the
desktop, for convenience; they're only 41k files, in threes). As part of
our procedure, these log files have to be stored on our company network;
the procedure we use to do this is to copy them onto a floppy disc on
the '95 machine, carry it the few yards to the networked XP machine
which has a USB floppy drive, and copy the files to the network drive.
IF I HAVE PROBLEMS, I HAVE OTHER FLOPPIES I CAN USE, so nothing is being
lost, so no recovery is necessary. The files are still there on the
desktop (hard drive) of the '95 system.

(Sorry for shouting, but throughout this thread, people have very kindly
spent a lot of time trying to help with recovery, which isn't needed.)

Purely out of perversity, I continue to use the floppy with the bad
sectors; I have other work I can do while waiting (or, if not, I use a
good floppy).

1. 95 machine. After experiencing problems, I rescan the floppy, on the
'95 machine, so that any newly-bad sectors get marked. (I'm curious as
to whether a scan rescans already-marked-as-bad sectors; I think it must
do, as it seems to take longer each time, whereas I wouldn't expect it
to if it was skipping already-marked-as-bad sectors.) While _doing_ this
scan, the '95 machine still lets me do other things, just incredibly
slowly, which puzzles me, though I accept what some people here have
said about low-level drivers and the like. (I don't have - nor the means
to install - any utilities, such as resource meters, that aren't part of
the basic '95 system.)

2. XP machine.
(a) When it is having problems reading the floppy, it goes through this
cycle many times: floppy drive light on and floppy turning; light off
and not turning _for several seconds_. (_What_ is it doing during that
time?) After many such cycles, it reports a problem. Until it does, it
becomes unresponsive in explorer windows, though I can do other things.
(b) If I try to close the explorer window with the X before it has given
up, it usually ignores me. If I close it with task manager, it does
close it, but is obviously upset: it blanks where the taskbar was
(eventually redrawing it), and does various other things which show it
isn't happy, including closing any other explorer windows (such as the
one showing the network drive I was copying the files to), _and these
are really closed and don't come back_, so it's not just an
incredibly-slow-redraw matter.
(c) After such, whether I wait (ages) for the error message or terminate
the process, it seems to have some "memory" that there was something
wrong: attempts to read even an OK floppy often don't work. I find
either closing the explorer window that was looking at drive A:, or
unplugging the USB floppy drive and putting it back (I usually use
another socket), make it read OK again.

(I report these as just curiosities that will probably now never be
solved - that project is coming to an end, so I won't have much
opportunity to investigate further - I think.)

(Read on ...)

In J. P. Gilliver (John) <[email protected]> typed: []

On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to
lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it
sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously -
the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a
few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or
more - comes up with an error message; again, the system
is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing
like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really
weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is
concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it
refuses - by going into the
I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message
mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or
rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy.
Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill
the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more
robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is
clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_
explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the
taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on.
Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as
accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such
a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system
is less tolerant of the poor floppy.)
I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I
have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why
doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both
systems so much.
(I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might
be interested/have views/answers.)

Everyone who has responded so far has given good information. Taken
together, IMO they give a good picture of what's going on. A bit higher
level explanation might go thusly:

Being magnetic, floppy disks do lost their data over time as short as 6

[All good stuff but not an explanation of why the OSs are behaving as
they are.]
[]

There are DOS programs around that are meant to "recover" decaying
floppies. Mine seems to be lost in the archives somewhere; all I see left is

And dud HDs - I forget the name, but we have one that will sit trying to
read a sector for ages; we left it for several days trying to salvage
something from a (I think it was all of 20M!) drive that had come with a
piece of equipment (from a division that was being closed down and
nobody knew where the backups were for this ancient equipment; I am sure
there would originally have been such).

the WordStar to Word converter, meaning several others are hiding away from
me too.
The "recover floppy" program did a lot better and more efficient job than
anything you could do manually and was often surpsingly effectively. I guess
Google would be the best way to find it now.

As I've explained, the data isn't lost (it's still on the machine it's
being copied from); I'm just curious as to why the OSs (if anything,
particularly the XP one; I accept a slowdown for the '95 one, at least
that's sort of understandable) are behaving as they do.

As for locking up the sy

(Not sure what happened there.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat