14 Oct
2012
14 Oct
'12
4:44 p.m.
On Oct 14, 2012, at 18:08, ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
Perhaps we should just accept that '1.2M' and '1.44M' are names for such
drives without tryign to decode them any further. Yes, there may be
idiotic reasons for such names, but can we ignoe thaose?
All you really need is a unique identifier, after all.
- Dave
But I wil lagree that '1.2M' is common usage,
and pretty unambiguous.
Similarly 1.44M for the 500kbps MFM data rate 3.5" drive (I do object to
a 'megabyte' being 10^3*2^10 bytes, but it's common usage...)
"common MIS-usage"
I over-react to that particular idiocy. For me, that is worse than DB9 or
56K-baud.