26 Jun
2000
26 Jun
'00
4:30 a.m.
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Tony Duell wrote:
If IBM had only chosen to use a real double density format. (Note that your
DS/DD disks say 96 tpi on them.) Most serious buisness CP/M systems of the
era had an 80 track double density format, not this 40 track IBM cr*p. What
really annoys me is that IBM and MS never rectified the problem, and even
after we all had 96 tpi drives, we still couldn't put 720k on a DS/DD disk
without special software. (Unless we happened to have one of the few MS-DOS
machines that supported the format like Tandy, Victor, and Epson if you wanted
to pay the exhorbitant price they charged for a compatible 96 tpi drive.)
Having a 5.25 double density format that held nearly the same as a 3.5 double
density drive would have greatly sped the acceptance of 3.5 inch drives on
IBM compatble machines.
Eric
DD drives or that DD disks can be used in HD
drives _as HD disks_ (most
HD drives can also handle DD disks, but only to store the amount of data
that you'd get from a DD drive anyway).
One word of caution regarding the use of DD disks in HD drives: it's
been my experience that which this may appear to work, problems
sometimes arise when one attempts to read the data written in a DD disk
by an HD drive.