Wait, what?
The term 3.5 inch floppy disc is in fact a misnomer. Whilst the specification for 5.25 inch floppy discs employs Imperial units, the later specification for the smaller floppy discs employs metric units.
The standards for these discs are […] all of which specify the measurements in metric, and only metric. These standards explicitly give the dimensions as 90.0mm by 94.0mm. It’s in clause 6 of all three.
↫ Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Even the applicable standard in the US, ANSI X3.171-1989, specifies the size in metric. We could’ve been referring to these things using proper measurements instead of archaic ones based on the size of a monk’s left testicle at dawn at room temperature in 1375 or whatever nonsense imperial or customary used to be based on. I feel dirty for thinking I had to use “inches” for this.
If we ever need to talk about these disks on OSNews from here on out, I’ll be using proper units of measurement.
Yet screens (monitors, TV), tablets, smartphones, …
It’s a colloquial term.
The “correct” terms, as used by the original designer,, Sony, is “Microfloppy”.
It’s a common-use term, so I never had a problem with it (despite knowing it wasn’t accurate and being a very metric-based person). It also doesn’t hold 1.44MB of data for that matter 😉
This sort of thing happens a lot though. One that bothers me slightly more is referring to 3.5mm jacks as 1/8th-inch, presumably because the older 1/4-inch jacks were actually 1/4-inch (6.35mm), so some people feel the small ones should be in inches too.
“ If we ever need to talk about these disks on OSNews from here on out, I’ll be using proper units of measurement.”
Yes, because everyone knows what a 90 mm floppy is. It is sad how clever you think you are being when you are being puerile and obtuse.
It’s beyond cringeworthy, quite honestly.
It always bothered me that they called the 90.0mm by 94.0mm disk a “floppy” disk since they were so much less floppy than the 5.25 variety. Obviously, “hard disk” was already taken, but we could have thought of something.
Well the disk itself is pretty floppy. It’s just the hard plastic shell that protects the disk that isn’t floppy
I guess it was more to signify it belonged to the family of low quantity, removable, disk. As opposed to a full featured device with motor, head, power, etc.
stiff disk?
floppy caddy?
oooo data caddy!
Or, how about just datty? Haha.
i don’t want to be running around going “where’s my datty?!” lol
The Hitachi 3″ format was also popular at some point, at least in Europe, because Amstrad chose it.
More “hard” than “floppy”, even by 3.5″ standard. I really liked this “extra durable” format that even offered transparent cases per disk, like for cassette. Problem is there was only one factory.
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/CF2_Compact_Floppy_Disc
https://bytecellar.com/2019/02/25/a-look-at-the-short-lived-3-inch-compact-floppy-disk/
https://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/3inch_floppy.html