Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!apple!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: DOS 3.3 Question
Message-ID: <1990Apr9.233636.12939@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 90 23:36:36 GMT
References: <9004091826.AA14659@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 26

alfter@MRCNEXT.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Scott Alfter) writes:

[ in response to my comment that it is safe to write data 3/4 of a track
  apart even though it is a royal pain ]

>So what you're saying is that disk space isn't currently being as efficiently
>used as it could?  I'm forever seeking ways to jam more than 140K on a disk.

No! No! Don't even think about it! Quarter tracks are only used by copy
protection schemes and by nibble copiers. You do NOT want to use them for
everyday data storage.

1. Accessing quarter tracks requires that you hold the drive head between two
	half tracks. This requires you to hold two adjacent stepper magnets
	on _while_ reading and writing the actual data. I don't think this is
	a reliable way to store data -- somebody who knows more than I do can
	explain why it is not a good operating position for the drive.

2. Modifiying the O/S would be an unholy bitch.

I suggest you stick to 40 tracks -- or invest in a universal drive controller
and a 3.5 drive. It may be throwing money at the problem but you avoid a LOT
of headaches.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu