Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!adobe!heaven!heaven.woodside.ca.us From: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Merits of DOS vs NeXT SCSI HD Formats ? Message-ID: <454@heaven.woodside.ca.us> Date: 10 Mar 91 21:50:35 GMT References: Sender: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us Lines: 28 In article scott@texnext.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: > The sizes of the disks I got seemed to indicate that they were 1.44M > formatted. Well, unless the 2.88M format takes up 55% overhead, or > something! The CH insignia on there also looks suspiciously like > some disks I saw someone bandying around up here the other day. Since > I know that they weren't 2.88M (they only formatted to 1.44M), this > indicates that the disks are formatted to 1.44M. > > The problem is whether they are DOS formatted or Unix formatted. Since > they mounted as something like "Improv Disk #1", I think they're Unix > formatted. [Don't DOS-format disks mount as "DOS"?] DOS-formatted disks appear in the workspace with a DOS demarkation. The disks I got with Improv are formatted as 1.44 UNIX disks. Also--I meant to respond to this in the previous posting--that is not "CH" on the disks, it is "HD". You're looking at it upside down. It stands for "High-Density", which is what they are to the PC and Mac world. Notice that the NeXT 2.88 disks have "ED" on them, I presume for "Extended Density" or something (they're running out of superlatives as they keep doubling the disk capacity :-) -- Glenn Reid RightBrain Software glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us NeXT/PostScript developers ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn 415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)