29 Nov
2015
29 Nov
'15
1:22 p.m.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
it physically laid out the 10 sectors as 0 2 3 4 6 8 1
3 5 7 9 so that
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Tapley, Mark wrote:
8" on one side, 5.25" on the other.
-- Charles
when
reading sequentially, you had half a disk rotation to get your act
together to read the next sector. This turned out to be only a small
performance win, and was a pita for interoperability,
?.but, at least you had a functionally redundant
sector 3!
:-)
That way, a system that could handle 1:1 interleave would get one version
of sector 3, while one that could not handle 1:1 interleave would get the
other one, and you could have different code for the two kinds of
machines. :-)
But, that has 11 sectors on the track
Were they 512 bytes each?
Was it 8"? 5.25"? SD?, DD?, "HD"?