13 Oct
1999
13 Oct
'99
4:07 p.m.
On Oct 13, 11:21, Don Maslin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> Yes, some people did call this QD, but
> it isn't a different density at all -- the misnomer comes from people
who
> don't understand what the words mean. Your
numbers for 180K, 360K,
etc,
Pete, since the term QD or Quad Density dates back to at least the North
Star Horizon, I would submit that it was not people who didn't
understand but rather who chose to ignore the real meaning and to use
the term as it was descriptive of the expanded disk capacity.
I remember the use, but it's still a misnomer, and I'm not altogether
convinced. Most non-N* people didn't call those disks QD, as far as I
remember.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
13 Oct
13 Oct
7:51 p.m.
Pete Turnbull wrote:
I remember the use, but it's still a misnomer, and
I'm not altogether
convinced. Most non-N* people didn't call those disks QD, as far as I
remember.
I think I saw the same usage in some Kaypro documentation. Unfortunately I
don't have any of my Kaypro stuff any more.
It's a pretty insidious usage.
-- Derek
14 Oct
14 Oct
8:09 a.m.
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Derek Peschel wrote:
Pete Turnbull wrote:
Derek, I cannot imagine that it would be so. To my best recollection,
Kaypro never used a 96tpi drive in any of their equipment - unless it
were an AT clone.
- don
I remember the use, but it's still a
misnomer, and I'm not altogether
convinced. Most non-N* people didn't call those disks QD, as far as I
remember.
I think I saw the same usage in some Kaypro documentation. Unfortunately I
don't have any of my Kaypro stuff any more. It's a pretty insidious usage.
-- Derek
9202
days inactive
9203
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
donm＠cts.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com