22 Jan
2013
22 Jan
'13
1:41 p.m.
(Think I may have goofed on my earlier post (excess formatting))
Hiya,
Just wondering if anyone has a Xerox 820-II with CP/M 2.2C that already
has Kermit installed, that could make a Image Disk of it and upload it
someplace? I have Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program, and I've
successfully transferred several programs to the machine this way, but
I'd like to have a comm program to transfer stuff, as I'm using a
modified cable from the existing 8" floppy drive to an old win98/DOS PC
for transfers, and I don't like to disconnect and connect those 50 pin
edge connectors on and off the boards too many times.
I actually have the .HEX files for the machine, but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44). I also tried the host terminal transfer, but hex
files seem to wreak havoc and don't transfer properly. So I'm kind of
stuck between a rock and a hard place. If anyone can help out, it would
be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
22 Jan
22 Jan
3:15 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Dave Land <xmechanic at landcomp.net> wrote:
(Think I may have goofed on my earlier post (excess
formatting))
Hiya,
Just wondering if anyone has a Xerox 820-II with CP/M 2.2C that already has
Kermit installed, that could make a Image Disk of it and upload it
someplace? I have Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program, and I've successfully
transferred several programs to the machine this way, but I'd like to have a
comm program to transfer stuff, as I'm using a modified cable from the
existing 8" floppy drive to an old win98/DOS PC for transfers, and I don't
like to disconnect and connect those 50 pin edge connectors on and off the
boards too many times.
I actually have the .HEX files for the machine, but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44). I also tried the host terminal transfer, but hex files
seem to wreak havoc and don't transfer properly. So I'm kind of stuck
between a rock and a hard place. If anyone can help out, it would be greatly
appreciated! Thanks.
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
Have you looked at Cpmtools? http://www.cpm8680.com/cpmtools/index.htm
If you already have an image of a bootable disk for the target system,
and you already have the files you want to copy onto a bootable disk
for the target system, you should be able to use Cpmtools to copy the
files onto the image of the bootable disk. Then write that updated
image out to a physical disk. Then if all goes well that should be
the last time you need to use the Image Disk setup.
The only tricky part about using Cpmtools is that you usually have to
create a new disk format specification entry in the diskdefs file,
which can take some work to figure out, but shouldn't be too bad.
-Glen
4:54 p.m.
Have you looked at Cpmtools? http://www.cpm8680.com/cpmtools/index.htm
If you already have an image of a bootable disk for the target system,
and you already have the files you want to copy onto a bootable disk
for the target system, you should be able to use Cpmtools to copy the
files onto the image of the bootable disk. Then write that updated
image out to a physical disk. Then if all goes well that should be
the last time you need to use the Image Disk setup.
The only tricky part about using Cpmtools is that you usually have to
create a new disk format specification entry in the diskdefs file,
which can take some work to figure out, but shouldn't be too bad.
-Glen
Ahaa!! I forgot about CPMTools. Haven't been feeling too well lately, so
I was starting to grab at straws here. I think the diskdefs file may
already have the 8" 77 track format. I'll dig into it and let you know
what I come up with. :) Thanks!
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
23 Jan
23 Jan
7:07 a.m.
On 1/22/13 4:15 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Dave Land
<xmechanic at landcomp.net> wrote:
Well, I researched the settings for the diskdefs and couldn't find anything
pertinent to the Xerox 820... BUT, I got curious about the Dave Maslin archive
and downloaded that last night, and lo & behold, there's a copy of 22disk
in there with ALL the oddball 8" disk formats and everything else, essentially,
a copy of the C: drive from his DOS PC he used to copy disks, I'm assuming.
I'll give that a try this evening if I have time. Many thanks to Dave Maslin,
(R.I.P.) and to whoever compiled all this stuff and got it uploaded!
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
(Think I may have goofed on my earlier post
(excess formatting))
Hiya,
Just wondering if anyone has a Xerox 820-II with CP/M 2.2C that already has
Kermit installed, that could make a Image Disk of it and upload it
someplace? I have Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program, and I've successfully
transferred several programs to the machine this way, but I'd like to have a
comm program to transfer stuff, as I'm using a modified cable from the
existing 8" floppy drive to an old win98/DOS PC for transfers, and I don't
like to disconnect and connect those 50 pin edge connectors on and off the
boards too many times.
I actually have the .HEX files for the machine, but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44). I also tried the host terminal transfer, but hex files
seem to wreak havoc and don't transfer properly. So I'm kind of stuck
between a rock and a hard place. If anyone can help out, it would be greatly
appreciated! Thanks.
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
Have you looked at Cpmtools?
http://www.cpm8680.com/cpmtools/index.htm
If you already have an image of a bootable disk for the target system,
and you already have the files you want to copy onto a bootable disk
for the target system, you should be able to use Cpmtools to copy the
files onto the image of the bootable disk. Then write that updated
image out to a physical disk. Then if all goes well that should be
the last time you need to use the Image Disk setup.
The only tricky part about using Cpmtools is that you usually have to
create a new disk format specification entry in the diskdefs file,
which can take some work to figure out, but shouldn't be too bad.
-Glen 
10 a.m.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
I actually have the .HEX files for the machine, but I
tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44).
What kind of problems?
If 22disk has difficulties with your 8" drives, then whatever THAT
problem is may need to be dealt with for any other software attempts.
11:24 a.m.
On 1/23/13 11:00 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
The version I had didn't have the necessary info in the diskdefs file for
the 8" drive on the 820-II, but like I mentioned earlier, I got a diskdefs
file that has that, and a lot more, from the Dave Maslin archive. Going to
try tonight if I have time to work with it. I've gotten successful copies
already via Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program so I know it works somewhat.
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
...too many Dave's... :-)
I actually have the .HEX files for the machine,
but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44).
What kind of problems?
If 22disk has difficulties with your 8" drives, then whatever THAT
problem is may need to be dealt with for any other software attempts. 
12:11 p.m.
On 01/23/2013 11:24 AM, Dave Land wrote:
On 1/23/13 11:00 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
That's odd--I don't remember ever adding an 8" 820-II format to
22Disk--lots of 820-II 5.25" formats, though. As far as I can tell, the
only 8" Xerox format is for the 16/8 system. And Don got his 22Disk
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
The version I had didn't have the necessary info in the diskdefs file for
the 8" drive on the 820-II, but like I mentioned earlier, I got a diskdefs
file that has that, and a lot more, from the Dave Maslin archive. Going to
try tonight if I have time to work with it. I've gotten successful copies
already via Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program so I know it works somewhat. I actually have the .HEX files for the machine,
but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44).
What kind of problems?
If 22disk has difficulties with your 8" drives, then whatever THAT
problem is may need to be dealt with for any other software attempts. from me--and he was a registered user. We still sell
22Disk, though
not in great numbers (sold 4 licenses in December).
So now we know where the rumors about 22Disk not working with 8" drives
comes from...
Will your 820-II read type A1 disks? If your PC can write
single-density (FM) you might start with that.
But then, what do I know?
--Chuck
2:05 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
So now we know where the rumors about 22Disk not
working with 8" drives
comes from...
"Doesn't work with CP/M disks! Tried an Apple CP/M and it kept giving me
an error code 2!"
But then, what do I know?
"But, they both turn at the same speed!"
I don't know from 820. But, if "cpmtools" (which doesn't even seem to
have SIDES as a parameter) can do it, . . .
2:21 p.m.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/23/2013 11:24 AM, Dave Land wrote:
I'm a registered owner of 22Disk and have used it for years with 8"
drives. I don't recall writing a diskdef, but it's possible.
Steve
--
On 1/23/13 11:00 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
That's odd--I don't remember ever adding an 8" 820-II format to 22Disk--lots
of 820-II 5.25" formats, though. As far as I can tell, the only 8" Xerox
format is for the 16/8 system. And Don got his 22Disk from me--and he was a
registered user. We still sell 22Disk, though not in great numbers (sold 4
licenses in December).
So now we know where the rumors about 22Disk not working with 8" drives comes
from... On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
The version I had didn't have the necessary info in the diskdefs file for
the 8" drive on the 820-II, but like I mentioned earlier, I got a diskdefs
file that has that, and a lot more, from the Dave Maslin archive. Going to
try tonight if I have time to work with it. I've gotten successful copies
already via Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program so I know it works somewhat. I actually have the .HEX files for the machine,
but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44).
What kind of problems?
If 22disk has difficulties with your 8" drives, then whatever THAT
problem is may need to be dealt with for any other software attempts.
2:46 p.m.
On 01/23/2013 02:21 PM, Steven Hirsch wrote:
I'm a registered owner of 22Disk and have used it
for years with 8"
drives. I don't recall writing a diskdef, but it's possible.
Certainly it is--we even provide hints. We do have a policy that we
will not add a definition to the database without a smaple--either
physical or with an image (that's what Teledisk was all about).
We added about 6 definitions in the last two months, so it's still a
work in progress after 25 years. If you'd like an update, just drop us
a note and we'll email one back to you.
-Chuck
6:45 p.m.
On 1/23/13 1:11 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/23/2013 11:24 AM, Dave Land wrote:
I'm slowly but surely picking up bits and pieces of information here and, yes,
Dave Maslin's copy has a boatload of formats compared to the stock one I
downloaded the other day, although he may not have registered them with you.
But alas, his version wouldn't write to or read from my drive either.
My PC does write FM but not MFM according to Dunfield's Image Disk,
but that may just be due to me not having something set right (i.e. interleave
or something else.) My floppy controller chip WAS in his list of 'tested
controllers'... All I get when it tries to read or write, is 'sector not
found'
and when I tried to format a disc, it got to about track 50 and started gen-
erating errors all over the place. With Image Disk, I can format a disc, write
a disk image to it, and the system will actually read it when I hook everything
back up. Maybe I need to find a PC with a little bit older FDD controller and
try again?My 820-II was one of the models that had the 8" DSDD floppy and a
10 mb. hard disk in the same enclosure. It's got the extra slot in the monitor/
cpu for what I would assume is for a 16/8 card, but nothing there. Just the stock
64K of RAM.
Here's what I've been using for settings for formatting and writing
disk images.
Tracks 77
Sides 2
Interleave 1:1
Sectors per track 26
Bytes per sector 256
FM @ 500kbps
If I could get 22disk to actually play nice with this thing, I'd definitely
buy a license for it. :))
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
On 1/23/13 11:00 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
That's odd--I don't remember ever adding an 8" 820-II format to
22Disk--lots of 820-II 5.25" formats, though. As far as I can tell, the
only 8" Xerox format is for the 16/8 system. And Don got his 22Disk
from me--and he was a registered user. We still sell 22Disk, though
not in great numbers (sold 4 licenses in December).
So now we know where the rumors about 22Disk not working with 8" drives
comes from...
Will your 820-II read type A1 disks? If your PC can write
single-density (FM) you might start with that.
But then, what do I know?
--Chuck On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
The version I had didn't have the necessary info in the diskdefs file for
the 8" drive on the 820-II, but like I mentioned earlier, I got a diskdefs
file that has that, and a lot more, from the Dave Maslin archive. Going to
try tonight if I have time to work with it. I've gotten successful copies
already via Dave Dunfield's Image Disk program so I know it works somewhat. I actually have the .HEX files for the machine,
but I tried to get them
transferred with 22disk, and it doesn't seem to like 8" drives too much
(ver. 1.42 or 1.44).
What kind of problems?
If 22disk has difficulties with your 8" drives, then whatever THAT
problem is may need to be dealt with for any other software attempts.
7:12 p.m.
On 01/23/2013 06:45 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Here's what I've been using for settings for
formatting and writing
disk images.
Tracks 77
Sides 2
Interleave 1:1
Sectors per track 26
Bytes per sector 256
FM @ 500kbps
If I could get 22disk to actually play nice with this thing, I'd definitely
buy a license for it. :))
Well, I think you're making some basic errors. Every PC/Compatible in
the world can write MFM; the FM-capable ones are in the minority (all
standard DOS disks are MFM).
Second, you can't write 26 256-byte FM-encoded sectors on an 8" track.
26 128-byte, yes, but 26x256 is definitely in the MFM arena.
Try formatting up a SSSD 8" floppy using definition A1--DRI's standard
CP/M distro format for years. See if your 820-II like it.
--Chuck
7:50 p.m.
On 1/23/13 8:12 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:45 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any SSSD disks, just DSDD.
Back to the drawing board I guess. I'm getting a little tired of messing
with this thing anyway. I'm stretched to the limit financially right
now, so this is just a side project to keep my mind busy. I don't know
enough about programming in CP/M to get it to do what I want, so I'm
pretty much just using what's already compiled via image disks or building
a few simple .com files with MLOAD. The stupid host terminal turns any-
thing other than simple ascii to shit when you try to save them to disk
after uploading, even at 300 baud. Guess I'll just take a break from it
for a couple weeks, and then maybe try something different. Thanks for
your input folks.
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
Here's what I've been using for settings
for formatting and writing
disk images.
Tracks 77
Sides 2
Interleave 1:1
Sectors per track 26
Bytes per sector 256
FM @ 500kbps
If I could get 22disk to actually play nice with this thing, I'd definitely
buy a license for it. :))
Well, I think you're making some basic errors. Every PC/Compatible in
the world can write MFM; the FM-capable ones are in the minority (all
standard DOS disks are MFM).
Second, you can't write 26 256-byte FM-encoded sectors on an 8" track.
26 128-byte, yes, but 26x256 is definitely in the MFM arena.
Try formatting up a SSSD 8" floppy using definition A1--DRI's standard
CP/M distro format for years. See if your 820-II like it.
--Chuck
8:18 p.m.
On 01/23/2013 07:50 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any SSSD
disks, just DSDD.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Most 8" disks (assuming that the aperture in the jacket is in a position
that matches the index sensor on your drive) will work just fine in
either density or side-edness. There is no difference in the media coating.
The one thing that you do have to watch out for is getting a batch of
hard-sectored (33 holes punched round the cookie) when what you want is
soft-sectored (1 hole).
--Chuck
P.S. Doesn't the 820-II also work with 5.25" 48 tpi (360K) drives?
8:45 p.m.
On 1/23/13 9:18 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/23/2013 07:50 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Well now, that's an interesting twist. They're definitely soft-sectored.
I was under the assumption that the physical media was different between
the types of disks. So the DSDD are the same stuff, just a little higher
quality oxide to support more and closer tracks?
I'll have to try to re-format one (tomorrow maybe), and see what happens.
...and yes, some did ship with dual 5.25" drives also. Thanks for the
info Chuck. :-)
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any
SSSD disks, just DSDD.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Most 8" disks (assuming that the aperture in the jacket is in a position
that matches the index sensor on your drive) will work just fine in
either density or side-edness. There is no difference in the media coating.
The one thing that you do have to watch out for is getting a batch of
hard-sectored (33 holes punched round the cookie) when what you want is
soft-sectored (1 hole).
--Chuck
P.S. Doesn't the 820-II also work with 5.25" 48 tpi (360K) drives?
10 p.m.
New subject: Density (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
Well now, that's an interesting twist. They're
definitely soft-sectored.
I was under the assumption that the physical media was different between
the types of disks. So the DSDD are the same stuff, just a little higher
quality oxide to support more and closer tracks?
close.
8" SD V DD are NOT more NOR closer tracks. They are both 77 tracks at 48
tracks per inch. The difference is how much data is crammed onto each
track. The oxide is nominally the same, but you are right that DD relies
on high quality.
SSSD holds a total of about 250K
SSDD holds a total of about .6M, or about 1.2M for DSDD.
DSSD existed, but was not very commonly used.
However, on 5.25", there are both 48tpi and 96 tpi, (more and closer
tracks),
AND on both 5.25" and 3.5" there are two different oxide formulations
available for each for different "densities" of recording on each track.
5.25 is available with 300 Oersted 5.25" for FM (typically about 100K)
or MFM (typically 160K or 180K per side ("360K"))
and
600 Oersted for MFM "high density" ("1.2M")
(same recording format as "DD MFM", but twice the data transfer rate)
3.5" is available in 600 oersted ("720K") and
700- 750 oersted ("1.4M")
Same number of tracks (80), track spacing (135 tpi), but two different
densities on the tracks.
(same recording format, but twice the data transfer rate)
Besides the common forms, there also exist numerous variants, such
as 100 tpi 5.25", 67.5 tpi 3.5", GCR, etc.
24 Jan
24 Jan
7:39 p.m.
New subject: Density (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
SD and DD use the same transition rate. It is how the datais encoded that makes the
difference. It wasn't denser transistionsor closer tracks, it was FM to MFM.Quad
density was hight transition rate per track but stll MFM.Dwight
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:00:11 -0800
From: cisin at xenosoft.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Density (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Dave Land wrote:
Well now, that's an interesting twist.
They're definitely soft-sectored.
I was under the assumption that the physical media was different between
the types of disks. So the DSDD are the same stuff, just a little higher
quality oxide to support more and closer tracks?
close.
8" SD V DD are NOT more NOR closer tracks. They are both 77 tracks at 48
tracks per inch. The difference is how much data is crammed onto each
track. The oxide is nominally the same, but you are right that DD relies
on high quality.
SSSD holds a total of about 250K
SSDD holds a total of about .6M, or about 1.2M for DSDD.
DSSD existed, but was not very commonly used.
However, on 5.25", there are both 48tpi and 96 tpi, (more and closer
tracks),
AND on both 5.25" and 3.5" there are two different oxide formulations
available for each for different "densities" of recording on each track.
5.25 is available with 300 Oersted 5.25" for FM (typically about 100K)
or MFM (typically 160K or 180K per side ("360K"))
and
600 Oersted for MFM "high density" ("1.2M")
(same recording format as "DD MFM", but twice the data transfer rate)
3.5" is available in 600 oersted ("720K") and
700- 750 oersted ("1.4M")
Same number of tracks (80), track spacing (135 tpi), but two different
densities on the tracks.
(same recording format, but twice the data transfer rate)
Besides the common forms, there also exist numerous variants, such
as 100 tpi 5.25", 67.5 tpi 3.5", GCR, etc.
8:34 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 01/23/2013
07:50 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any
SSSD disks, just DSDD.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Most 8" disks (assuming that the aperture in the jacket is in a
position that matches the index sensor on your drive) will work just
fine in either density or side-edness. There is no difference in the
media coating.
9:46 a.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
How DEC managed to obtain media which were degraded on
the
second side so frequently when none of the other 8" floppy media
I encountered had that problem (i.e. the other media were able to
either LLF both sides or none and VERY few failed the DS LLF)
I can't explain, but that was my experience.
Perhaps that was the origin of the silly rumor
(although not necessarily false) that MOST media
being manufactured had enormous failure rate
(higher than 50%?) and that therefore ALL media
was tested - those that passed on both sides were
sold as DS, those that only failed one side were
flipped over to present the "good" side and then sold
as SS. And that those that failed BOTH sides were
wholesaled to Elephant/BASF/Memorex.
Some versions of the stories go so far as to say
that finished diskettes were OPENED to flip the media.
(based on an assumption that media could not be tested
until it was installed in a jacket with sleeve and label)
Q: If you had that high a failure rate, what would YOU do about it?
Cherry pick out of what should have been trash, marginal media that
would test, or test PART, as "good" to market?
Q: What impact would the labor cost to do such have on total
production cost?
Or would you shut it down until you could get adequate quality
that no significant portion tested "bad"?
Was Verbatim Datalife the result of such a shutdown?
NOTE: in the civilized world (as opposed to our industry),
manufacturing does SAMPLING of output, and statistically
determines whether to take the risk of any bad product,
based on the percentage of failures.
If one were to actually search through product searching
for ANY that could be marketed, then it could be assumed
that one would be inundated by product failures.
which happened.
Similar stories/practices:
"RS "32K" RAM were 64K where only one half tested bad" (YES, they
were 64K, but who had sufficient quantity to MARKET half-defects?)
"486SX were 486DX where FPU tested "bad""
"Windoze was written by one billion monkeys, but they picked the wrong
billion"
"SS drives (which have cicuitry for second head) have defective second
head circuitry"
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:13 a.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
I remember manufacturers selling SS and DS 5.25" disks for commodorethat were
actually all DS, just a disk notcher away from double the storage.
as for the 486SX (or was it 386SX) debacle, there was software thatcould completely
restore functionality.I think it was called above-board, which had hardware as well as
software,but on many SX type systems it was just software
Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs made by AMDthat could be
"converted" into a 486DX by a simple piece of software.there were a bunch of
tricks with software around those days likethe AMD 486DX-80 and so forth
this practice is continued to present with cpu cores being disabled,even though there may
be nothing wrong with them.
for commodore 64 again there was a utility called "soft sector format"which
would format disks that had bad sectors, marking the bad sectorsso you could use whatever
good portions remained, for those of us whowere too cheap to buy new/good disks.
Similar stories/practices:
"RS "32K" RAM were 64K where only one half tested bad" (YES, they
were 64K, but who had sufficient quantity to MARKET half-defects?)
"486SX were 486DX where FPU tested "bad""
"Windoze was written by one billion monkeys, but they picked the wrong
billion"
"SS drives (which have cicuitry for second head) have defective second
head circuitry"
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:42 a.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
I remember manufacturers selling SS and DS 5.25"
disks for commodorethat
were actually all DS, just a disk notcher away from double the storage.
Yeah?
So, has anybody here EVER seen a 5.25" disk that was NOT coated
on both sides?
as for the 486SX (or was it 386SX)
NO, it was
NOT.
386DX was 32 bit; 386SX was 16 bit
486DX had an FPU; 4986SX did not have FPU
debacle, there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on many SX
type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
that could be "converted" into a 486DX by a
simple piece of
software.there were a bunch of tricks with software around those days
likethe AMD 486DX-80 and so forth this practice is continued to present
with cpu cores being disabled,even though there may be nothing wrong
with them.
"Nothing wrong with them"
The MANUFACTURER says something is DEFECTIVE.
A user runs a TRIVIAL test, and declares that the manufacturer is WRONG.
Same thing wherein SPINRITE would "test" sectors DECLARED BAD by the
drive manufacturer, and SPINRITE would over-ride the manufacturer's
analog tests! After all, "3 successful read writes is a more reliable
test than 100 read/writes and measuring the signal amplitude!"
Users used to replace the crystal in 5170s for greater speed.
THEN, they would bad-mouth reliability of 5170.
DUH.
THAT is why IBM added boot code to refuse to boot with a changed clock
speed.
for commodore 64 again there was a utility called
"soft sector
format"which would format disks that had bad sectors, marking the bad
sectorsso you could use whatever good portions remained, for those of us
whowere too cheap to buy new/good disks.
It was sometimes possible, in the case of physical defects, to move the
sectors around to try to get the sectors to not overlap the defects.
Every competent FORMAT program, even MS-DOS "FORMAT" will mark sectors,
blocks, or tracks bad and use the rest of the disk, unless blocked areas
were in unmovable locations (such as the Boot sector and DIRectory area).
Dan, you should be familiar with the software to re-arrange and move
sectors to place the defect in the right place for Vault Pro-lock
copy protection. (paperclip scratch, and code looks for it).
NOTE: we are not talking about Pro-Lock-PLUS, which NEVER reached market,
although, to this day, gets blamed for misunderstood problems.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:13 a.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 1/24/2013 10:42 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
You are talking
apples and oranges here. He is citing the example of a
chip that is "defeatured" which means that the manufacturer makes one
unit and either enables the feature or removes it. Most tests would be
cheaper to test a common unit such as this overall and then defeature
the hardware on the unit to be priced lower later, and kick out all bad
media regardless of where the errors are.
The comparison he is making should be about that, not trying to extend
the yield on a process by cherry picking.
You are totally right a defect list is not just to cover excess
capacity, it should and must be a report of the defective spots on a
media type device.
I remember manufacturers selling SS and DS
5.25" disks for commodorethat
were actually all DS, just a disk notcher away from double the storage.
Yeah?
So, has anybody here EVER seen a 5.25" disk that was NOT coated
on both sides?
as for the 486SX (or was it 386SX)
NO, it
was NOT.
386DX was 32 bit; 386SX was 16 bit
486DX had an FPU; 4986SX did not have FPU
debacle, there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
that could be "converted" into a 486DX
by a simple piece of
software.there were a bunch of tricks with software around those days
likethe AMD 486DX-80 and so forth this practice is continued to present
with cpu cores being disabled,even though there may be nothing wrong
with them.
"Nothing wrong with them"
The MANUFACTURER says something is DEFECTIVE.
A user runs a TRIVIAL test, and declares that the manufacturer is WRONG.
Same thing wherein SPINRITE would "test" sectors DECLARED BAD by the
drive manufacturer, and SPINRITE would over-ride the manufacturer's
analog tests! After all, "3 successful read writes is a more reliable
test than 100 read/writes and measuring the signal amplitude!" Users used to replace the crystal in 5170s for greater
speed.
THEN, they would bad-mouth reliability of 5170.
DUH.
THAT is why IBM added boot code to refuse to boot with a changed clock
speed.
Our disk controller for the SMD used soft sectoring and could place the
sectors to the clock / bit for each sector on the track. We had an
extensive analysis program that would place the defects when discovered
in the gap between the start and end of our sectors, the largest gap on
the drive.
On SMD, however the manufacturers had a requirement that defects be 2
bits or more, or false address marks. any half or one bit errors, the
media had to be discarded or repaired. Also only a single defect /
track. I don't think our algorithm which is similar to the above would
work on floppies because I suspect they have more of the smaller errors,
and certainly could not assume a single error / track and work. This
still assumes with two errors a scheme could fit the required number of
sectors on the track, or the OS could cope with missing sectors with its
file system.
Most OS's seem to expect defect free media now days, and make no use of
file system level defect mapping anymore. I think that thread was
discussed some few months ago, won't rehash it here.
for commodore 64 again there was a utility
called "soft sector
format"which would format disks that had bad sectors, marking the bad
sectorsso you could use whatever good portions remained, for those of us
whowere too cheap to buy new/good disks.
It was sometimes possible, in the case of
physical defects, to move the
sectors around to try to get the sectors to not overlap the defects.
Every competent FORMAT program, even MS-DOS "FORMAT" will mark sectors,
blocks, or tracks bad and use the rest of the disk, unless blocked areas
were in unmovable locations (such as the Boot sector and DIRectory area).
Dan, you should be familiar with the software to
re-arrange and move
sectors to place the defect in the right place for Vault Pro-lock
copy protection. (paperclip scratch, and code looks for it).
NOTE: we are not talking about Pro-Lock-PLUS, which NEVER reached market,
although, to this day, gets blamed for misunderstood problems.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:36 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
He may be talking about the AMD second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU. That could have been based on
faulty rumor, but it's certainly in line with modern manufacturing
practice of GPUs and multicore CPUs, where the lower core-count
devices are the same dice with faulty units disabled (or, if the
market for the cheaper chips is strong enough, potentially non-faulty
units, but that's less frequent than the overclocking crowd seems to
think).
- Dave
debacle, there
was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
12:45 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
Nope,I remember running this software, it was from the above-board peopleI think it was
called above486 and it would re-enable the math coprocessor.
in previous versions of the above board (386) you needed the hardware version.
this is history, it wasnt a blown fuse or anything, the cpu's were shipped with
thecopro but disabled, and they found a way to enable it.
I do remember something about how it only worked for certain cpusso thats why I thought it
might have only applied to AMD and not intel.
He may be talking about the AMD second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU. That could have been based on
faulty rumor, but it's certainly in line with modern manufacturing
practice of GPUs and multicore CPUs, where the lower core-count
devices are the same dice with faulty units disabled (or, if the
market for the cheaper chips is strong enough, potentially non-faulty
units, but that's less frequent than the overclocking crowd seems to
think).
- Dave
debacle,
there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
1:11 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 1/24/2013 12:45 PM, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Nope,I remember running this software, it was from the
above-board peopleI think it was called above486 and it would re-enable the math
coprocessor.
Above board from Intel was a memory addin product with some mapping
junk
on it to make it difficult for people who were selling addin memory
boards alone to duplicate. Are you speaking of someone with the same
name?
There was huge numbers of people selling boards soon after the 286 came
out and that didn't die down until motherboards and simm memory density
made it more efficient to put all your memory on the motherboard. The
other thing that killed the memory was crappy bus performance of the
addin memory.
However I don't recall an "above board" of any other kind than Intel.
someone could have had Above486 and not conflicted with that product
service mark though.
in previous versions of the above board (386) you
needed the hardware version.
this is history, it wasnt a blown fuse or anything, the cpu's were shipped with
thecopro but disabled, and they found a way to enable it.
I do remember something about how it only worked for certain cpusso thats why I thought
it might have only applied to AMD and not intel.
He may be talking about the AMD
second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU. That could have been based on
faulty rumor, but it's certainly in line with modern manufacturing
practice of GPUs and multicore CPUs, where the lower core-count
devices are the same dice with faulty units disabled (or, if the
market for the cheaper chips is strong enough, potentially non-faulty
units, but that's less frequent than the overclocking crowd seems to
think).
- Dave
debacle, there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
1:37 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Nope,I remember running this software, it was from the
above-board
peopleI think it was called above486
How do you suppose that they got around Intel's
Registered Trademark of "Above Board"?
If we didn't know you better, then we would assume
that you misremembered the name.
and it would re-enable the math
coprocessor. in previous versions of the
above board (386) you needed the hardware version.
What did THAT do?
If you think that it converted a 386SX into a 386DX,
then I'd like to talk to you about some real estate investments.
anything, the cpu's were shipped with thecopro but
disabled, and they
found a way to enable it. I do remember something about how it only
worked for certain cpus so thats why I thought it might have only
applied
to AMD and not intel.
1:50 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Jan 24, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Dan Gahlinger <dgahling at hotmail.com> wrote:
Nope,I remember running this software, it was from the above-board peopleI think it was
called above486 and it would re-enable the math coprocessor.
in previous versions of the above board (386) you needed the hardware version.
Bear in mind that Intel had some seriously schizophrenic taxonomy
regarding "SX" vs. "DX". In the 386, the SX part was simply a
386 with a 16-bit bus, while the DX had a 32-bit bus (I'm told
they stood for "Singleword eXternal" and "Doubleword eXternal",
respectively, though I wouldn't be surprised if that's made up).
The 386 never had a built-in FPU; any 386 machine with an FPU was
a machine with a physical 387 (SX or DX, as appropriate).
The 486SX was every bit as much a 32-bit bus chip as the 486DX,
but the on-die FPU was disabled (whether via laser or a blown
fuse, ultimately it's probably just an enable line that was left
floating by hook or by crook). I agree with Ethan that they may
have diverged into two separate masks towards the end of the life
of the CPU, but you would need an awful lot of market demand for
that to happen (enough for the cost of another mask to be
eclipsed by the savings in die space).
- Dave
12:49 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:36 PM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at
xenosoft.com> wrote:
He may be talking about the AMD second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU.
Back in the day, I heard the FPU was "disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
I can't promise what I heard then was true, but it was commonly
reported as such. It's possible that they did that at first, then
after a die shrink split the lines into straight 486DX and 486SX
wafers and discarded any that failed any test. At first, though, I
find it believable that yields were low enough to want to sell any
parts they could (since retail prices were many hundreds of dollars
per CPU back then).
-ethan
debacle,
there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL. 
1:29 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:36 PM, David Riley
<fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe?
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin
at xenosoft.com> wrote:
He may be talking about the AMD second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU.
Back in the day, I heard the FPU was "disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
debacle,
there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
1:38 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:29 PM, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
"Dice" is the plural of "die" in the semiconductor industry as much
as
it is elsewhere. Or, at least, I've seen it repeatedly used as such
in industry publication. The word "dies" is incorrect for small
objects cut in a regular pattern from a larger one (as opposed to dies
used for casting) as far as I know, but it's a fairly widespread error
in semiconductor discussions.
- Dave
Back in the
day, I heard the FPU was "disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe?
1:51 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, David Riley wrote:
On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:29 PM, geneb <geneb at
deltasoft.com> wrote:
"Dice" is the plural of "die" in the semiconductor industry as much
as
it is elsewhere. Or, at least, I've seen it repeatedly used as such
in industry publication. The word "dies" is incorrect for small
objects cut in a regular pattern from a larger one (as opposed to dies
used for casting) as far as I know, but it's a fairly widespread error
in semiconductor discussions.
I'll have to remember that, thanks!
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Back in
the day, I heard the FPU was "disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe?
2:53 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 01/24/2013 01:51 PM, geneb wrote:
When I first saw the post, I thought that "dies" was a Latin term of
art. You know, that thing with:
Tuba mirum, spargens sonum...
--Chuck
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, David Riley wrote:
"Dice" is the plural of "die" in the semiconductor industry as much
as
it is elsewhere. Or, at least, I've seen it repeatedly used as such
in industry publication. The word "dies" is incorrect for small
objects cut in a regular pattern from a larger one (as opposed to dies
used for casting) as far as I know, but it's a fairly widespread error
in semiconductor discussions.
I'll have to remember that, thanks! 
1:51 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of David Riley
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:38 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
"Dice" is the plural of "die" in the semiconductor industry as much
as
it is elsewhere. Or, at least, I've seen it repeatedly used as such
in industry publication. The word "dies" is incorrect for small
objects cut in a regular pattern from a larger one (as opposed to dies
used for casting) as far as I know, but it's a fairly widespread error
in semiconductor discussions.
I'm not sure what the norm is in industry, but Merriam-Webster believes that
the plural of "die" is always "dies", with the exception of the
random
number generator type of "die".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die?show=0&t=1359064230
Jim
25 Jan
25 Jan
2 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
I'm not sure what the norm is in industry, but
Merriam-Webster believes that
the plural of "die" is always "dies", with the exception of the
random
number generator type of "die".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/die?show=0&t=1359064230
Non-techncila dictionaries are not always the most relaible source of
information on techncial terms. Does said dictionary mention that the
word 'die' is used for the actual silicon chip?
Certianly I've always seen 'dice' as the plural of 'die' in this
sesne.
And thuis it's what I use myself. For eample I might say soemthing like :
'The CPU in an HP65 is a multichip module containing 6 dice, which are :
clock buffer and reset; arithmetic and registers; control and timing; 2
RAMs; and the card reader interface'
-tony
24 Jan
24 Jan
2:02 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
> Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, David Riley wrote:
"Dice" is the plural of "die" in
the semiconductor industry as much as
it is elsewhere. Or, at least, I've seen it repeatedly used as such
in industry publication. The word "dies" is incorrect for small
objects cut in a regular pattern from a larger one (as opposed to dies
used for casting) as far as I know, but it's a fairly widespread error
in semiconductor discussions.
Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
(does YOUR car have disc or disk brakes?)
(Is GREY a FAVOURITE COLOUR?)
3:05 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
On 24 January 2013 22:02, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
"Disk" is American; "disc" is British. (And therefore Correct.)
Philips invented it. They're Dutch, i.e. European, and favoured
British English over the new-fangled colonial version.
That's AFAIK, anyway.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
10:11 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
On 25/01/2013, at 9:02 AM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
(does YOUR car have disc or disk brakes?)
Drums, which predate discs for both cars and computers :-)
OK, so my daily driver has discs but the other car has cable operated drums although
it's often times difficult to know if the drums are doing anything :-(
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies at kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
25 Jan
25 Jan
5:21 a.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Fred Cisin wrote:
Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
Well don't
hold out! Tell us! :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
8:57 a.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
> Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM
"disc"?
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, geneb wrote:
Well don't hold out! Tell us! :)
I agree completely with Liam.
Shugart and IBM were American companies who developed floppy "disk"s
But, CD-ROM "disc" came from audio Compact Disc, which was a European
development. (Dutch, not German)
I've had cars with DISC brakes, and cars with DISK brakes. (and yes,
plenty with DRUMs, which don't work anywhere near as well. Stopping my
Jeep FC170 with a full load required some planning. When I wrote the
Honda book, I had some minor battles with my publisher when I spelled
"DISK".
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
9:27 a.m.
New subject: disk vs. disc, was Re: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
On 01/25/2013 11:57 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
So is it definitely the case that the common European spelling for
what us Yanks would call a "disk" is "disc"? So a CD-ROM is more
properly called a "disc"? I just want to be clear on that. That's
something to be delightfully pedantic about. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
> Why is a
floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, geneb wrote:
Well don't hold out! Tell us! :)
I agree completely with Liam.
Shugart and IBM were American companies who developed floppy "disk"s
But, CD-ROM "disc" came from audio Compact Disc, which was a European
development. (Dutch, not German)
11:55 a.m.
New subject: disk vs. disc, was Re: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
> But, CD-ROM "disc" came from audio
Compact Disc,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Dave McGuire wrote:
So is it definitely the case that the common
European spelling for
what us Yanks would call a "disk" is "disc"?
So I have been told. No personal knowledge.
Perhaps one of the linguists can elaborate
So a CD-ROM is more properly called a
"disc"?
YES.
"CD" in "CD-ROM" stands for "Compact DisC"
I just want to be clear on that. That's something
to be delightfully
pedantic about. :)
Perhaps one of the linguists can elaborate
12:50 p.m.
New subject: disk vs. disc, was Re: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
Dave McGuire wrote:
So is it definitely the case that the common
European spelling for
what us Yanks would call a "disk" is "disc"? So a CD-ROM is more
properly called a "disc"? I just want to be clear on that. That's
something to be delightfully pedantic about. :)
Everyone just needs to have a toke and relax. I don't really have a
problem with using both spellings, even in the same sentence.
Peace... Sridhar
26 Jan
26 Jan
10:38 a.m.
New subject: disk vs. disc
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McGuire [mailto:mcguire at neurotica.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:27 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: disk vs. disc, was Re: More division by a
common language? (Was:
Bad media (Was:
On 01/25/2013 11:57 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>>> Why is a floppy "disk", but a
CD-ROM "disc"?
<snip>
Except for us storage geeks, I suspect disc is the common US spelling.
IBM started us with Disk as in "The 650 RAMAC and 305 RAMAC both utilize the
magnetic disk memory device ..." [650 RAMAC announcement, 1956] I have a
1963 Datamation article describing "Random Access Storage Devices" using the
term disc throughout, including its characterization of the then several IBM
"Disc [sic] Storage" devices. To its end, I think Datamation transformed
disk into disc in its copy (not its ads)
Early on there was some concern that the terms "Disk Pack" and "Disk
File"
were trademarks of IBM. Memorex used Disc as does Seagate. CDC used Disk.
IBM brought us "Diskette" for the 8-inch FD media, Pioneers like Memorex and
Potter called it a "Disc Cartridge", but it was probably Century Data that
brought us to the "Floppy Disk" and Shugart that established it as the
defacto standard in the language. ANSI and other standards groups called
them Flexible Disk Cartridges.
"Compact Disc" et al are trademarks and to use or make compatible media you
have to be licensed and had to follow the logo standard. Someone from
Sony/Philips will have to say why they chose Disc instead of Disk. It may
be just that they had to make a choice of one or the other.
Tom
19 Feb
19 Feb
3:15 p.m.
New subject: Early Shugart FDD connector
Feedback from one who knows:
The early signal cable on the Shugart SA900 was a twisted pair cable
terminated on a connector with 0.156-inch centers to make the use of ribbon
cable impossible. This was done to avoid cross talk noise problems using
ribbon cable that the engineers had experienced at Memorex. Shugart
switched to 0.100-inch centers for ribbon cable for customer (cost) reasons
and had zero problems. There was only one cable for both control and data on
the Shugart 8" FDDs.
Tom
25 Jan
25 Jan
9:01 a.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
Why is a
floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM "disc"?
Well don't hold out!
Tell us! :) 
10:56 a.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
From: Alexandre Souza - Listas
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:01 AM
>> Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM
"disc"?
DisC is for audio, DisK is for computers.
Since the Compact Disc is an AUDIO media, it is called
DisC. When used
on Data, the name wasn't changed.
Apple has a different view on that, more reasonable:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2300
It says that DisC is for optical media and DisK is for magnetic (and
enclosured) media. Very reasonable.
Wikipedia says the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc
Quoting: "Generally in computer terminology, disk refers to magnetic
storage while disc refers to optical storage."
So, I stick with apple's (and wikipedia) idea,
although wikipedia has
a better explanation about the subject.
In the days of the 7 Dwarfs and the BUNCH, IBM, Univac, Burroughs,
Honeywell, and CDC used "disk" for rotating platters covered with a
magnetic medium, while GE, RCA and NCR used "disc". (Verified by a
look at Bitsavers, rather than the nits at Wikipedia.) Memorex and
CDC as the important OEM drive manufacturers both used "disk".
Given the relative importance of the "disk" users in the history of
the industry, it's likely that the later manufacturers used what the
customer base was already used to.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
11:49 a.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
> http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2300
> It says that DisC is for optical media and DisK is for magnetic (and
> enclosured) media. Very reasonable.
> Wikipedia says the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc
> Quoting: "Generally in computer terminology, disk refers to magnetic
> storage while disc refers to optical storage."
Therefore, MO (Magneto-Optical) would be a "disCK" :-)
Given the relative importance of the "disk"
users in the history of
the industry, it's likely that the later manufacturers used what the
customer base was already used to.
Unlike the rest of the industry, HP (while it existed) stuck with "disC".
No idea, nor cre, how Meg Whitman spells it, nor anything else.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:12 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
Could the distinction be rooted in what language the word itself is
rooted in?
Latin: discus
Greek: diskos
Just a suggestion; be as skeptical/sceptical as you please.
--Chuck
3:19 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
When I joined HP in 1979 to work on the 1000 I was chastised for using "disk"
rather than the HP approved term "disc" to refer to rotating magnetic media. I
had come from an IBM mainframe (and DEC 20) background. So different vendors used
different terms, at least as Rich says in the BUNCH days.
?
Lee Courtney
________________________________
From: Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com>
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
From: Alexandre Souza - Listas
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:01 AM
>> Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM
"disc"?
DisC is for audio, DisK is for computers.
Since the Compact Disc is an AUDIO media, it is called
DisC. When used
on Data, the name wasn't changed.
Apple has a different view on that, more reasonable:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2300
It says that DisC is for optical media and DisK is for magnetic (and
enclosured) media. Very reasonable.
Wikipedia says the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc
Quoting: "Generally in computer terminology, disk refers to magnetic
storage while disc refers to optical storage."
So, I stick with apple's (and wikipedia) idea,
although wikipedia has
a better explanation about the subject.
In the days of the 7 Dwarfs and the BUNCH, IBM, Univac, Burroughs,
Honeywell, and CDC used "disk" for rotating platters covered with a
magnetic medium, while GE, RCA and NCR used "disc".? (Verified by a
look at Bitsavers, rather than the nits at Wikipedia.)? Memorex and
CDC as the important OEM drive manufacturers both used "disk".
Given the relative importance of the "disk" users in the history of
the industry, it's likely that the later manufacturers used what the
customer base was already used to.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
2:02 p.m.
New subject: More division by a common language? (Was: Bad media (Was:
Why is a floppy "disk", but a CD-ROM
"disc"?
I beleive that it's becuase the floppy disk was invented i nthe States
while the compact disk was (partially?) inveted by Philips in Europe and
they took the UK spelling.
-tony
3:23 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
I very intentionally did not quote Wikipedia precisely to avoid
subsequent source bashing.
I always thought it was "dies" too, but in trade rags, advertisements,
etc., going back decades, "dice" appears to be the preferred plural
within the industry, common street English be damned.
-ethan
> Dice? Do
you mean "dies" maybe?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Ethan Dicks wrote:
In industry pubs I've read, I've seen
them called "dice".
Are they as authoritative as Wikipedia? :-)
5:15 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
>> > Dice? Do you mean "dies"
maybe?
The OED (Volume IV: Creel - Duzepere) lists BOTH as plural for "die".
Is THAT authoritative enough?
(y'all made me walk across the room)
But, the closest to THIS meaning of "die" that it offers is a mold, or a
cubic random number generator.
Unlikely that a plinth is what we mean.
5:51 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin
at xenosoft.com> wrote:
I very intentionally did not quote Wikipedia precisely to avoid
subsequent source bashing.
I always thought it was "dies" too, but in trade rags, advertisements,
etc., going back decades, "dice" appears to be the preferred plural
within the industry, common street English be damned.
You would call the pieces of a diced tomato "tomato dice" (though
one seldom has a reason to refer to them as such, I've seen it
done in plenty of cooking publications). Basically, the pieces
of something that is "diced up" are called "dice", or "die"
for
plural. I've never seen anyone refer to a "tomato die", but it
would probably be syntactically correct.
I'm also unsure of the underlying etymology of it, but common
wisdom would have it that it's because large food dice are more
or less the size of playing dice. Seems a bit too convenient to
me; we have plenty of linguists on this list who may know better.
- Dave
> Dice?
Do you mean "dies" maybe?
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Ethan Dicks wrote:
In industry pubs I've read, I've seen
them called "dice".
Are they as authoritative as Wikipedia? :-) 
1:44 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 1/24/13 3:29 PM, geneb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I work for "the other" x86/amd64 processor design house.
"Dice" is the correct term.
Doc
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:36 PM, David Riley
<fraveydank at gmail.com>
wrote:
Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe? On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin
at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Back in the day, I heard the FPU was "disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
> debacle, there was software thatcould
> completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
> which had hardware as well as software,but on many SX type systems it
> was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX
> CPUs
> made by AMD
We are talking INTEL.
He may be talking about the AMD second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU.
1:59 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
> Back in the day, I heard the FPU was
"disconnected" with laser-drilled
> holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
> to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
> to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
> with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced.
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, geneb wrote:
Dice? Do you mean "dies" maybe?
perhaps, but the cubic throwable random number generator (see: CRAPS) is
called a die, with a plural of dice.
SOME people use "dice" for the singular as well.
What did Ceasar say when he crossed the Rubicon?
("alea iacta est")
Is the "die", of semiconductor fabrication, from a different word root?
Is a die, as in a mold, from a different root?
Its plural is usually "dies"
2:12 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 1/24/2013 12:49 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:36 PM, David Riley
<fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
I've seen several
references to laser cutting of locations on dies. I
scrapped 10 systems which were built up by a company to do on die
programming, which consisted of a 2 ton slab of optical grade surfaced
granite, a ND laser to zap the dies, and HP micro position sensors, and
other piezo positioners as well as macro positioners to move the dies.
I think the comment was there was 300k in each unit, and they were
"free" if we just would move them by the end of the month.
This was 300k in 2000 era gear, (PC and some embedded running it) so in
80's era scale it would have been more. I wonder how many chips they'd
have to have that were bad to make the economics work, investing say
500k to sell scrap silicon? at minimum. who knows what the NRE was on
either the systems I had or the cost of doing it in the 80's w/o cheap
PCs, probably PDP11 or other workstation grade controlling systems to
develop software for.
On Jan 24, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin
at xenosoft.com> wrote:
He may be talking about the AMD
second-sourced 486SX, which may have
had a different method of disabling the FPU. My recollection is that
the 486SX was, in fact, the same die as the 486DX (FPU and all) with
a fuse blown that disabled the FPU.
Back in the day, I heard the FPU was
"disconnected" with laser-drilled
holes on dice that failed FPU testing, then the package was labelled
to match. To be clear, a wafer was made up of dice that were intended
to be sold as 486DX chips but failed FPUs (and most likely enough ones
with good FPUs to cover customer demand) were pierced. debacle,
there was software thatcould
completely restore functionality.I think it was called above-board,
NOPE.
which had hardware as well as software,but on
many SX type systems it
was just software Actually if I remember correctly it was the 486SX CPUs
made by AMD
We are talking INTEL. I can't promise what I heard then was true, but it
was commonly
reported as such. It's possible that they did that at first, then
after a die shrink split the lines into straight 486DX and 486SX
wafers and discarded any that failed any test. At first, though, I
find it believable that yields were low enough to want to sell any
parts they could (since retail prices were many hundreds of dollars
per CPU back then).
-ethan
12:59 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
[Possibly apocyphal stories]
"RS "32K" RAM were 64K where only one
half tested bad" (YES, they
were 64K, but who had sufficient quantity to MARKET half-defects?)
That one may be correct. I seem to remember that the 32K DRAMs were
aviaalble in 2 versions correspodnig nto low-half (or a 64K chip) good
and high-half good. You had to hold the A7 input in the correct state
when loading the column address.
I think some Sinclair Spectrum boards (although not, IIRC, the CoCo) had
a jumper which tied the aprorpriate input of th address multiplexer high
or low. You had to fit 8 32K RAM chips of the same type and set the link
acordingly.
-tony
1:46 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
[Possibly apocyphal stories]
On Thu, 24 Jan
2013, Tony Duell wrote:
That one may be correct.
The most absurd, ridiculous, and improbable stories are
those closest to the truth.
Consider that 42 is the answer to
whatdoyougetwhenyoumultiplysixbynine
Why even bother with a universe that makes sense?
2:35 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On 01/24/2013 12:59 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
That one may be correct. I seem to remember that the
32K DRAMs were
aviaalble in 2 versions correspodnig nto low-half (or a 64K chip) good
and high-half good. You had to hold the A7 input in the correct state
when loading the column address.
That got started long before 64Kx1 DRAMs. I still have a drawer full of
ceramic Intel 2109-xomehting, or half of a 2117--the "something told you
which half was good". ISTR this came from the "we're embargoing
Japanese DRAMs because of dumping" time. I did manage to get a uPD416
sample at the same time from NEC and it was amazing--it'd hold its data
for several seconds without refresh. Not only were the Japanese DRAMs
cheaper, but they were better at that time...
--Chuck
3:45 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
That got started long before 64Kx1 DRAMs. I still
have a drawer full of
ceramic Intel 2109-xomehting, or half of a 2117--the "something told you
which half was good". ISTR this came from the "we're embargoing
Japanese DRAMs because of dumping" time. I did manage to get a uPD416
sample at the same time from NEC and it was amazing--it'd hold its data
for several seconds without refresh. Not only were the Japanese DRAMs
cheaper, but they were better at that time...
. . . and that's why we added a high tarriff on cordless drills and LCD
screens
8:56 p.m.
New subject: Bad media (Was: Need Kermit for Xerox 820-II in .IMD format
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan
2013, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
How DEC managed to obtain media which were
degraded on the
second side so frequently when none of the other 8" floppy media
I encountered had that problem (i.e. the other media were able to
either LLF both sides or none and VERY few failed the DS LLF)
I can't explain, but that was my experience.
Perhaps that was the origin of the silly rumor
(although not necessarily false) that MOST media
being manufactured had enormous failure rate
(higher than 50%?) and that therefore ALL media
was tested - those that passed on both sides were
sold as DS, those that only failed one side were
flipped over to present the "good" side and then sold
as SS.
Some versions of the stories go so far as to say
that finished diskettes were OPENED to flip the media.
(based on an assumption that media could not be tested
until it was installed in a jacket with sleeve and label)
Even if testing could not have been done without the jacket (which
seems sort of obviously to be false), .....
Q: If you had that high a failure rate, what would YOU
do about it?
Cherry pick out of what should have been trash, marginal media that
would test, or test PART, as "good" to market?
Q: What impact would the labor cost to do such have on total
production cost?
... it seems doubtful that the labour cost associated with testing each
individual floppy media would even be cost effective.
Or would you shut it down until you could get adequate
quality
that no significant portion tested "bad"?
Was Verbatim Datalife the result of such a shutdown?
Were Verbatim Datalife floppy media guaranteed for LIFE (of the
company - obviously)?
NOTE: in the civilized world (as opposed to our
industry),
manufacturing does SAMPLING of output, and statistically
determines whether to take the risk of any bad product,
based on the percentage of failures.
If one were to actually search through product searching
for ANY that could be marketed, then it could be assumed
that one would be inundated by product failures.
which happened.
As I specified before, my experience with floppy media was more
than satisfactory as far as the reliability of the media and retention
of the data was concerned. However, when more than 1 MB of
storage was needed, 8" floppy media were just too slow, bulky
and inconvenient to be worthwhile when tapes and then optical
media became available.
Jerome Fine
10:34 a.m.
On 01/24/2013 08:34 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Why every 8" floppy media were coated identically
on both sides
I don't know, but that was the standard with every SS 8" floppy
soft sectored media I have ever seen. EXCEPT that when I
encountered a few 8" floppy media with a DEC label, the failure
rate as SS media was normal. HOWEVER, when the DSD 880/30
drive attempted to do an LLF, about 10% (if I remember correctly -
this was 25 years ago after all) failed the DS attempt at an LLF.
How DEC managed to obtain media which were degraded on the
second side so frequently when none of the other 8" floppy media
I encountered had that problem (i.e. the other media were able to
either LLF both sides or none and VERY few failed the DS LLF)
I can't explain, but that was my experience.
Well, they were--"flippy" disks didn't originate with the Apple crowd,
regardless of what some think. In fact, you could purchase commercial
media with the double index hole and a label on each side. That could
make things really confusing if you encountered a system like some of
the Altox boxes, where the Shugart drives were run "upside down".
But the SS media coating was done in the interest of yield. The
manufacturers could take the DS media that failed verification and stuff
it "good side down" in a SS jacket, rather than toss it into the trash.
When floppies ran $7.50-pre 1980s dollars the each, that was real money.
One of the more bewildering aspects of 8" branding was the labeling
based on pre-formatted media. So, for example, I've got a couple of new
boxes of RX02 pre-formatted next to a couple of boxes of Imation disks
labeled DS,DD 1024/F (I suspect that they were used for some NEC
APC-type systems, but I don't know for certain). The odd thing about
the Imations are that they come with transparent red write-enable tabs,
which, I can tell you are absolutely no good on my Qume DT/8s.
Apparently they never caused a problem with whatever system were their
intended target.
Sometimes, it's hard to determine if an unopened box is hard- or
soft-sectored because media was second-sourced by machine manufacturers
with only the applicable system name on the box.
Finally, *never* buy floppies with the "Wabash" brand--the binder has
most likely failed by now, leaving you with useless media and a cleanup
job on your drives. At one point, Tandy was apparently a bit careless
with their Fort Worth warehouse conditions that was used to stock their
SSSD 8" media. I've got a box of said disks that shed worse than my
golden retriever...
--Chuck
6:54 p.m.
On 1/24/13 9:34 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
First, I confirm that every 8" media I every encountered
was able to be both SD and DD as well as SS and DS
as far as the media coating was concerned (except for media
purchased from one company which had a high failure rate
when used a DS), The index hole is another matter.
My experience with the DEC RX02 floppy drive and the
DSD 880/30 drive may be helpful. The DSD 880/30 drive
emulates 3 * RL02 (NON-removable for this hardware)
and a single RX03 floppy drive which can accept any
8" standard floppy media which the DEC RX02 accepts.
About a dozen companies sold these media, with both
unformatted and formatted being available. The DEC RX02
drive is NOT able to perform a Low Level Format from
scratch, but if the 8" floppy media has already been LLF
and is relatively undamaged, then the DEC RX02 is able
to toggle between SSSD and SSDD usage. On the other
hand, the DSD 880/30 is able to do an LLF from scratch
either as SS or DS, depending on the index hole.
At one point I specifically purchased DSDD media to be
used with this drive, but was not able to find them consistently
when additional media were needed. The DSD 880/30 has
two detection circuits which allow it to use two different index
holes. When SS media are used, the index hole is expected to
be about 3 mm above the centre hub hole and about 1 mm offset
to the right. (The bottom of the floppy media is the edge which
enters the floppy drive first and the top surface is the surface
the suppliers label.) When DS media are used, the index hole
is expected to be about 3 mm above the centre hub hole, but
this time offset to the right about 10 mm.
My first solution was to punch an extra pair of holes in the jackets
and cover up the SS index hole when I wanted to use SS media
as DS media. Later, I managed to add a DPDT switch into the
detection circuits and "encourage" the DSD 880/30 drive to
believe that a SS index hole was actually the DS index hole
by reversing the circuits using the switch. In the other position,
the switch changed the circuits back to the original function and
the SS media reverted back to being SS again with the DS media
also being detected correctly.
Why every 8" floppy media were coated identically on both sides
I don't know, but that was the standard with every SS 8" floppy
soft sectored media I have ever seen. EXCEPT that when I
encountered a few 8" floppy media with a DEC label, the failure
rate as SS media was normal. HOWEVER, when the DSD 880/30
drive attempted to do an LLF, about 10% (if I remember correctly -
this was 25 years ago after all) failed the DS attempt at an LLF.
How DEC managed to obtain media which were degraded on the
second side so frequently when none of the other 8" floppy media
I encountered had that problem (i.e. the other media were able to
either LLF both sides or none and VERY few failed the DS LLF)
I can't explain, but that was my experience.
Jerome Fine
I tried the A1 SSSD & XER5 SSDD formats in 22disk tonight, and still no
love for the Xerox. I can format them accordingly, and then actually
write files to them successfully with 22disk, but the damned Xerox
won't read them. :P I'm wondering if the index hole may be an issue
also, as I looked into the drive and there appears to be 2 index
sensors, one right above the other (looking in from the front). The
upper sensor matches the index hole on my Fujifilm DSDD discs. It's
a Shugart drive, but I have no idea what model they used. If the
other sensor is for SSSD and SSDD, maybe I need to figure a way to
punch the hole to coincide with the other sensor? (and block off
the hole on the upper one). It may be tricky to punch the hole,
since I don't have a hole punch with a deep enough throat to go in
that far on the disk...
Dave Land
Land Computer Service
Chuck Guzis
wrote:
On
01/23/2013 07:50 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any
SSSD disks, just DSDD.
Back to the drawing board I guess.
Most 8" disks (assuming that the aperture in the jacket is in a
position that matches the index sensor on your drive) will work just
fine in either density or side-edness. There is no difference in the
media coating. 
23 Jan
23 Jan
8:24 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:50:32PM -0700, Dave Land wrote:
Why not format them as SD? (Maybe I missed something.)
The max transition rate is the same -- media shouldn't know the diff.
John Wilson
D Bit
Try formatting
up a SSSD 8" floppy using definition A1--DRI's standard
CP/M distro format for years. See if your 820-II like it.
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any SSSD disks, just DSDD.
10:50 p.m.
On 01/23/2013 08:24 PM, John Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:50:32PM -0700, Dave Land
wrote:
Why not format them as SD? (Maybe I missed something.)
The max transition rate is the same -- media shouldn't know the diff.
With a double-sided drive, that's true. If you had a single-sided drive
and tried to use double-sided media in it, you might be disappointed
(the index hole is in a different position--DS drives usually have two
index sensors).
It's another of those oddball things--you can write 8" single-sided
media in a double sided drive, but not double-sided media in a
single-sided drive. Some DS 8" drives have an active signal that
reports back to the host that double-sided media is present.
If you've gotten stuck with a pile of hard-sectored media when you were
looking for some soft-sector blanks, many 8" drives can be jumpered to
separate the SECTOR pulses onto a different pin from the INDEX pulse.
So you can use them with a drive jumpered in such a fashion as soft
sector floppies.
--Chuck
Try
formatting up a SSSD 8" floppy using definition A1--DRI's standard
CP/M distro format for years. See if your 820-II like it.
Well, that blows that idea. I don't HAVE any SSSD disks, just DSDD. 
4091
days inactive
4119
days old
68 comments
25 participants
participants (25)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
charlesleecourtney＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
doc＠vaxen.net -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
glen.slick＠gmail.com -
huw.davies＠mail.vsm.com.au -
jhfinedp3k＠compsys.to -
jim＠photojim.ca -
jwsmail＠jwsss.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
pu1bzz.listas＠gmail.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
snhirsch＠gmail.com -
tingox＠gmail.com -
tom94022＠comcast.net -
wilson＠dbit.com -
xmechanic＠landcomp.net