From: "Eric Smith" <eric at
brouhaha.com>
Sellam wrote:
It would have if it wasn't decided that 80 or
so synchronization bytes
were absolutely necessary between each sector. I still don't quite
understand what reasoning went into that particular aspect of the
design.
Suppose you format a disk on a Disk II that is 10% fast. Now you stick
the disk in a drive that is 10% slow, and write a sector. The 342
nibbles of the data field will take up the space on the disk that was
formerly used by 417 nibbles on the disk, or the 342 nibbles of the
data field plus 75 nibbles of the gap.
And I've ignored the header and trailer bytes, and the new self-sync
written in the gap and after the end, so it's actually worse than
that.
As it is, 80 nibbles of gap isn't quite enough to allow for +/-10% speed
variation and leave still leave enough self-sync bytes, but if they
reduced it, writing a sector might overwrite the address field of the
next sector, rendering that sector unreadable (even though the data
field of that sector would still be intact).
Of course, when did you see a drive that is anywhere
near 10% off in speed? Even the older belt drives could
hold better than +-5%. 5% is over one strobe maker per
second ( for the older disk with stobe marks ).
The newer drives with electronic commutating can hold
much better than that.
Dwight
They couldn't fit 17 sectors without seriously compromising the
allowable speed tolerance.
Some copy-protected games crammed in more by writing one giant sector
per track.
Eric