I don’t know the format of these old floppie disks, ive tried
PC8-248suse:~ # file -s /dev/fd0
/dev/fd0: ERROR: cannot read `/dev/fd0' (Input/output error)
Deus anyone have any suggestions in how i can go about reading this data?
Regards,
Tim
Do you know what model of machine and OS they were written with?
uclCancer wrote:
> I don’t know the format of these old floppie disks, ive tried
>
> Code:
> --------------------
> PC8-248suse:~ # file -s /dev/fd0
> /dev/fd0: ERROR: cannot read `/dev/fd0’ (Input/output error)
Deus anyone have any suggestions in how i can go about reading this
data?
should i assume you successfully mounted the drive?
which means you know the format used on the floppy?
or, did you mount it using ‘auto’?
see man mount
can you copy/paste show us the result of an
ls -hal /dev/fd0
or, just do that and once you have discovered a file name, try your
magic again, this way:
file -s /dev/fd0/[fileName]
though i’m not sure i know why y use the -s switch…perhaps you can
teach me something on that…
–
palladium
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:06:02 +0000, uclCancer thoughfully wrote:
> I don’t know the format of these old floppie disks, ive tried
>
> Code:
> --------------------
> PC8-248suse:~ # file -s /dev/fd0
> /dev/fd0: ERROR: cannot read `/dev/fd0’ (Input/output error)
>
> --------------------
>
>
> Deus anyone have any suggestions in how i can go about reading this
> data?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
sudo mount /dev/fd0 /mountpoint
file -s /dev/fd0
sudo umount /dev/fd0
If they are not standard IBM format floppies (e.g. they’re from CP/M), they won’t be detected by Linux, let alone mount. When I say IBM format, I mean the floppy parameters that were specified by the original IBM PC. It’s been so long ago that people not familiar with the hardware chips don’t realise that the floppy controller chip can be programmed for all sorts of parameters, sector size, interleaving, etc. That’s why I asked if the OP knew where they came from.
Before that CP/M was a dog’s breakfast wrt floppy parameters, each manufacturer had their own parameters. There were even such things as hard sectored floppies which had multiple holes in the disk to let the optical sensor know when a new sector was to begin.
If they are CP/M floppies, there is a DOS program called 22disk (search for it in archives) that can read all sorts of formats. You could run it under FreeDOS.
If my memory serves me, I think the main difference between 5.25" and 3.5" was that the former had 8 × 40/80 tracks whereas the latter had 9 × 40/80 tracks. I bought a 5.25" drive in 1991 for a new computer simply to transfer data from older disks because by that time 3.5" was the norm. So I suspect you really need a version of DOS to read these disks.
But Linux handles 5.25" floppy drives perfectly too, just a different drive, same controller. In fact many machines had one of each drive, connected to the same controller. But as I said, the floppies have to be in IBM format.
8 sectors gives you 320kB, while 9 gives you 360kB. 9 was the standard formattting.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:06:02 +0000, ken yap thoughfully wrote:
> If they are not standard IBM format floppies (e.g. they’re from CP/M),
> they won’t be detected by Linux, let alone mount. When I say IBM format,
> I mean the floppy parameters that were specified by the original IBM PC.
> It’s been so long ago that people not familiar with the hardware chips
> don’t realise that the floppy controller chip can be programmed for all
> sorts of parameters, sector size, interleaving, etc. That’s why I asked
> if the OP knew where they came from.
>
> Before that CP/M was a dog’s breakfast wrt floppy parameters, each
> manufacturer had their own parameters. There were even such things as
> hard sectored floppies which had multiple holes in the disk to let the
> optical sensor know when a new sector was to begin.
>
> If they are CP/M floppies, there is a DOS program called 22disk (search
> for it in archives) that can read all sorts of formats. You could run it
> under FreeDOS.
Then you’d have to specify additional options for file type fat.
Man mount
and check options for mounting fat types.
No, you fail to understand. 1. Some of the differences involve programming different parameters in the floppy controller chip. 2. CP/M has a different filesystem, also FAT style but not the DOS FAT. And if the floppy came from another OS, it would be even less similar.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:26:01 GMT, john hudson <john_hudson@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>
>If my memory serves me, I think the main difference between 5.25" and
>3.5" was that the former had 8 × 40/80 tracks whereas the latter had 9×
>40/80 tracks. I bought a 5.25" drive in 1991 for a new computer simply
>to transfer data from older disks because by that time 3.5" was the
>norm. So I suspect you really need a version of DOS to read these disks.
ISTR that the 360 kB were single sided. Then people started turning them
over to get another 360 kB then double sided 720 kB diskettes became popular.
Then the 1200 kB with twice the track density but there was a physical limit
that prevented getting to 1440 kB in the 5.25 media.
JosephKK wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:26:01 GMT, john hudson
> <john_hudson@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>If my memory serves me, I think the main difference between 5.25" and
>>3.5" was that the former had 8 × 40/80 tracks whereas the latter had 9 ×
>>40/80 tracks. I bought a 5.25" drive in 1991 for a new computer simply
>>to transfer data from older disks because by that time 3.5" was the
>>norm. So I suspect you really need a version of DOS to read these disks.
>
> ISTR that the 360 kB were single sided. Then people started turning them
> over to get another 360 kB then double sided 720 kB diskettes became
> popular. Then the 1200 kB with twice the track density but there was a
> physical limit that prevented getting to 1440 kB in the 5.25 media.
I think you did a double there. Try 180K single sided, 360k double. Of
course there were also single and double density media then Victor came
along with their variable speed/density monstrosity…
I haven’t played with hardware at that level in a long time, but the
controller chip that became “standard” eventually (1740 or some such)
allowed playing with all sorts of parameters like inter-record gaps, sector
lengths - total anarchy if you wanted it - if you were trying to
make “copy-proof” floppies. Somewhere in the junk pile, I think I still
have the old ISA card (try finding a bus to plug THAT into!) that would
analyze and copy about any floppy format for 3.5,5.5 and 8 inch floppies -
eventually.
–
Will Honea
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:29:05 GMT, Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JosephKK wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:26:01 GMT, john hudson
>> <john_hudson@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If my memory serves me, I think the main difference between 5.25" and
>>>3.5" was that the former had 8 × 40/80 tracks whereas the latter had9 ×
>>>40/80 tracks. I bought a 5.25" drive in 1991 for a new computer simply
>>>to transfer data from older disks because by that time 3.5" was the
>>>norm. So I suspect you really need a version of DOS to read these disks.
>>
>> ISTR that the 360 kB were single sided. Then people started turning them
>> over to get another 360 kB then double sided 720 kB diskettes became
>> popular. Then the 1200 kB with twice the track density but there was a
>> physical limit that prevented getting to 1440 kB in the 5.25 media.
>
>I think you did a double there. Try 180K single sided, 360k double. Of
>course there were also single and double density media then Victor came
>along with their variable speed/density monstrosity…
>
>I haven’t played with hardware at that level in a long time, but the
>controller chip that became “standard” eventually (1740 or some such)
>allowed playing with all sorts of parameters like inter-record gaps, sector
>lengths - total anarchy if you wanted it - if you were trying to
>make “copy-proof” floppies. Somewhere in the junk pile, I think I still
>have the old ISA card (try finding a bus to plug THAT into!) that would
>analyze and copy about any floppy format for 3.5,5.5 and 8 inch floppies-
>eventually.
I did a little more googling, please see:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Floppy_disk_controller
The above documents early IC controllers more than earlier discrete designs,
For some of the earliest designs for CPM try:
http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/torode_designs.html
ISA is still readily available in industrial computers; you will pay a big
premium for it though.
JosephKK wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:29:05 GMT, Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>JosephKK wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:26:01 GMT, john hudson
>>> <john_hudson@no-mx.forums.opensuse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If my memory serves me, I think the main difference between 5.25" and
>>>>3.5" was that the former had 8 × 40/80 tracks whereas the latter had 9 ×
>>>>40/80 tracks. I bought a 5.25" drive in 1991 for a new computer simply
>>>>to transfer data from older disks because by that time 3.5" was the
>>>>norm. So I suspect you really need a version of DOS to read these disks.
>>>
>>> ISTR that the 360 kB were single sided. Then people started turning
>>> them over to get another 360 kB then double sided 720 kB diskettes
>>> became popular. Then the 1200 kB with twice the track density but there
>>> was a physical limit that prevented getting to 1440 kB in the 5.25
>>> media.
>>
>>I think you did a double there. Try 180K single sided, 360k double. Of
>>course there were also single and double density media then Victor came
>>along with their variable speed/density monstrosity…
>>
>>I haven’t played with hardware at that level in a long time, but the
>>controller chip that became “standard” eventually (1740 or some such)
>>allowed playing with all sorts of parameters like inter-record gaps,
>>sector lengths - total anarchy if you wanted it - if you were trying to
>>make “copy-proof” floppies. Somewhere in the junk pile, I think I still
>>have the old ISA card (try finding a bus to plug THAT into!) that would
>>analyze and copy about any floppy format for 3.5,5.5 and 8 inch floppies -
>>eventually.
>
> I did a little more googling, please see:
>
> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Floppy_disk_controller
>
> The above documents early IC controllers more than earlier discrete
> designs,
>
> For some of the earliest designs for CPM try:
>
> http://www.retrotechnology.com/dri/torode_designs.html
>
> ISA is still readily available in industrial computers; you will pay a big
> premium for it though.
I’ve got a few systems in the junk bin I could resurrect as well but
whatever it was would be s–l–o–w by today’s standards. The ISA bus spec
was something like 8 mhz - maybe 10, if you really pushed it - and I doubt
the geometry (or the technology) would handle much more. Between my
getting slower and computers getting faster, the gap is ever increasing 
–
Will Honea