On Dec 17, 15:58, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 pete_at_dunnington.u-net.com wrote:
>
> > I think the Commodore PET uses modified CUTS. It records each block
> > twice, which is why it's relatively slow, but also pretty robust.
>
> If it records each block twice, and one block is bad, which of the two do
> you trust?
>
> (Or is there a checksum involved too?)
The one with the good checksum, I expect. There is a check of some sort,
but I don't know the details.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Received on Wed Dec 18 2002 - 02:05:01 GMT