13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
5:57 p.m.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Chris Tofu wrote:
Despite my illiteracy I was SIMPLY STATING that
I've readily worked
with quads w/o having to fiddle with anything.
What are we supposed to call them if not quads??? Clearly it's not
about density when even I stated DD disks seem to always work. It's
about a format that is unusual yet common enough to warrant a separate
designation.
The reason why DD disks work is because it IS DD!
"quad" is exactly the same on each track as DD,
just putting another identical track in between
each of the existing tracks.
Although rare, some people HAVE had difficulties using some
DD disks with "quad"! Although they usually work, and OUGHT
TO work, they aren't tested for putting those extra tracks on them.
Nevertheless, you have a Good point!
There IS NO correct name!
There IS NO correct name!
There IS NO correct name!
1) "Industry standard 5.25" 96 track per inch using MFM, at
300RPM with a 250K data transfer rate, or at 360RPM with a
300K data transfer rate" is correct, but more than a little
too unwieldy.
"Type 2" is ridiculous IBM/Microsoft specific and arbitrary.
likewise, type 0, type 1, type 7
How many people (besides Chuck) know the type number
(used in DRIVER.SYS and DRIVPARM) for 2.8M, 8"SD, 8"DD disks?
(#9, #3, and #4. Now you know them, too)
"quad" is using words misdefined by marketing, and is
comparable to referring to CP/M, or other 16 bit memory bus,
as supporting 65.5K of RAM. Which the exact same marketing
people who created the name "quad" DID! It just screams
cluelessness to fall for and embrace that level of BS hype.
In term of ambiguity, "quad" also has to suffer the misdefinitions
perpetrated by Superbrain (Intertec) marketing, who called 40 track
DSDD "quad" simply because it was twice the capacity of their
40 track SSDD!
"5.25 720K" works as an unambiguous name, although people
with too many nits (google what THOSE are!) will point out
that it could easily be anywhere between 640K and 800K,
and in some weird cases, even higher or lower.
similarly, "360K", "1.2M", "1.4M" ARE recognized, even if
their
IBM/Microsoft origins are offensive.
Although some, such as NEC, did strange things!
They run their HD ("1.4M") 3.5" drives at 360RPM (instead of 300RPM),
so that they can get the same ~1.2M format structure on 8", 5.25",
and 3.5"!
Try reading a Victor 9000 (aka Sirius) with ANY other machine!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com