28 Mar
2000
28 Mar
'00
11:53 p.m.
Gawd! Did I really say that? It's not what I meant!
plz see comments below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson <wilson(a)dbit.dbit.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: 360K in a 1.2M drive (was: Parallel port hard drives?
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.
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?
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