Are some systems ever able to reach the “rated” capacity of a disc?
I keep seeing things like this (off a floppy, but similar stats are on hard drives)
MF2HD
1.44MB capacity, formatted
2.0MB capacity, unformatted
So, what good is that second statistic? Are some systems able to read and write discs at full capacity?
If so, then why can’t all systems do that?
Well, no. That missing .66 MB is being used for format and error-checking data – or was during the dark ages when the format was first created, and it became so standard, woe to those that changed it. No matter what, there’s going to need to be SOME sort of cataloging system for the disk, so it will never be possible to use 100% of it. This is why you don’t actually have 30.0 GB available in your nice empty 30.0 GB hard drive.
However, it’s possible to get a 1.8MB format for PC floppies readable without any special software. Microsoft was the primary user of it for about the last four years that they still shipped products on floppies (more space per floppies = less floppies = less production cost = mo’ money)
If you hunt around, you can find freeware programs to create this format for yourself, and even more efficient specialized formats, but generally it’s not worth the compatibility hassle, especially if you move floppies to different operating systems (or even entirely new devices, like digital cameras) – these days it’s assumed that if you want to transport something of any decent size, you use a network or, if it MUST be physical media, you use CDs, tapes, or larger floppies like Zip.
The standard HD diskette capacity for the Amiga was 1.76MB. I don’t think any common OS had a higher native capacity.
It’s a good way to convince people that a particular brand of disk might be better than others.
I thought they did this because it prevented people from copying the disks?