Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!gnh-starport.cts.com!whitewolf
From: whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: AE 1.6 MB 3.5" drive
Message-ID: <m0ihxtH-00002JC@jartel.info.com>
Date: 8 Dec 90 07:02:17 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25
X-Unparsable-Date: Fri Dec  7 90 at 17:57:26 (EST)

|I cannot agree with this.
|Use of the 1.44 Meg format would mean that AE would have to provide a
|GS/OS device driver that would provide access to IBM/Mac disks with this
|format.
|You then have the potential to add FSTs for these formats, and to write
|simple conversion programs if Apple never produces the goods.
|These advantages far outweigh an extra 156K per disk.
|It may be nice to have a 1.6meg driver, but this needs to be a secondary
|consideration.
|John MacLean.

Well, this may ease your mind... 3.5" disk all have 80 tracks per side.  160
tracks per disk.  Er, 3.5" disk it a bit general, OK.  MOST 3.5" floppy disk
drives... etc.

Anyways, the way they put more data on the disk is putting more block per
track.  On the current Apple 3.5" drive there's 10 blocks per track, on AE's
1.6MB drive, there will need to be _20_ or double the number on Apple 3.5"
, blocks per track.

Besides, Apple compatible drives need to be variable speed, IBM drives have
constant speed... a drive and FST would be needed to get the 1.6 or 1.44 MB
drive ANYWAYS... so your point is moot.

whitewolf@gnh-starport