I have just installed a 5.25 floppy drive on my Windows XP machine. (It came from an old Zenith 386, circa 1987). BIOS and WinXP recognize it, it functions properly (I have some 5.25 disks, 160K FTW!), it reads disks and formats them ok.
The drive light just stays on, however. It doesn't turn off when there is no drive access. Any ideas on how to fix that?
Name:
The freemancers2007-01-17 22:32
Put some blu-tack or something over the drive light, now it no longer annoys your eyes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 0:02
Why? There is nothing of use on those dusty relics. 160K, an icon stash?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 0:20
recompile your kernel
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 0:42
OP here. I need it to secure my data. Since no one has these drives, anything I store on it is very secure. Like passwords and stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 0:55
You're wrong OP, I'm someone who installed them critters too simply from curiosity. If I saw your rig I'd go after the antiques first thinking the same way you do. Encryption will defeat dust anyday and there are way too many of those drives still out there.
Hell, it might install with Vista fer crissakes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 1:29
your kernel, recompile it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 1:49
I think 7's kernel is made of corn.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 6:52
>>1
I have two 5.25" floppy disk drives somewhere in my junk room, I can read them. BTW, widely used 5.25" disks are 360 KB if low density, and 1.2 MB if high density, and they are faster and more reliable than Sony's 3.5" bullshit they introduced.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 12:34
>>9
More reliable and less convenient. If you treated a 5.25" floppy like a 3.5", throwing it around, sticking it in your pocket, throwing it in your backpack unprotected, etc., it would be far less reliable.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-18 13:27
welcome to 1982
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-19 0:39
OP here.
Actually, there's a date on the back of the drive, says manufactured 1990.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-19 5:25
>>10
And if you treat both discs nicely, the 5.25" floppy will be more reliable. Sony failed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-19 10:57
>>13
If it is failure to relegate your competitors to the vague memories of a dying generation while reaping all the benefits of conquest, then ITT you do not fail and I fail like a muhfugga.
Now misquote me like a good 4channer, add "Fixed," LOL, then continue "winning" off-line.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-19 11:55
3.5" = HAET. The DD capacity ones weren't so bad (though they still had the horrible "oh, my metal shutter is just going to fall off for no reason and jam inside your drive and ruin it" syndrome), and I used them on my Amiga all the time without losing data, but the HD ones were a bridge too far and sucked and failed all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-19 21:15
>>14
It is failure to replace an existing technology with inferior technology (slower, less reliable, two factors far more important than a small increment in size). That's what Sony tends to do.