30 Jul
1999
30 Jul
'99
3:04 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
It would be well to remember that, back when hard-sectoring was common, it
was considered more efficient than soft-sectoring. Shugart 801 drives were
certainly available with hard-sector support as an option. Hard-sectoring
did cost more, hence died off quickly enough.
Why was hard-sectoring considered more efficient? IIRC, the soft sectored
disks had more capacity than a comparable hard-sectored disk.