From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:14 PM
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Randy McLaughlin wrote:
If you are trying to recover files you are
probably wasting your time,
the
XT controllers used unique formatting and you will never read the data
off
of the drives without using controllers indentical with ones used
originally. It is not good enough to use the same brand or even chipset.
This doesn't make much sense. Can you please explain further?
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
mputers ]
[ and academia at
www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
With Vintage as a domain name you should be familiar with the fact that
standards develop slowly.
Hard drive interfaces for the PC "standardized" with the AT, before that
people did what ever they wanted. Sometimes one controller would read a
disk from a different type of controller but it was just luck.
Most hard disk controllers formatted to 17 sectors of 512 bytes per track
but that doesn't say much about how it is formatted at the hardware level
(bit for bit). Another point is that before the AT the drive geometry was
normally kept on the drive and different controllers stored the information
differently.
With the PC many people hooked up drives before the XT came out but once IBM
came out with the AT they had chosen a "standard" hard drive controller
everyone worked to emulate until RLL controllers came out. Even controllers
like the Everex controllers that did track buffering to allow 1:1 interleave
were still "compatible" with the AT formatting.
If you have an MFM drive used on an AT or better you have a good chance of
reading it on any AT or better system with most any controller.
RLL or 8 bit based systems have no such "standard".
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com