360K in a 1.2M drive (was: Parallel port hard drives?

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed Mar 29 07:53:18 2000

Gawd! Did I really say that? It's not what I meant!

plz see comments below.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson <wilson_at_dbit.dbit.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: 360K in a 1.2M drive (was: Parallel port hard drives?


> On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > > I'm in agreement, pretty much with what's been said here. Please see
> > > embedded comments below.

> > > Yes, but, given that the goal is to write a 48TPI 360K diskette, the
> > > coercivity will be the same, since the media are the same. It's worth
> >
> > Are you saying that a 300 Oerstedt diskette is the SAME as a 600
Oerstedt
> > diskette?? Is TRI-X camera film the same as Pan-X, also?
>
NO! What I mean is that the problem as stated was to write a 48TPI diskette
intended for consumption by a C-64 in a drive intended for use with a 96TPI
HD diskette. There's a lot of folklore about what works, and what's
supposed to work, and how. Much of this is not only confusing, but also
incorrect.
>
> I really think you guys are just miscommunicating. I too was surprised at
> Dick's comment that you can use 360 KB and 1.2 MB disks interchangeably,
> since I know it's not true. But I really don't think he meant it,
especially
> since his posts since then have concentrated on track width problems
rather
> than the bit rate within the track.
>
> John Wilson
> D Bit
Received on Wed Mar 29 2000 - 07:53:18 BST