Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!hjuxa!catnip!ben
From: ben@catnip.UUCP (Bennett Broder)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Leading Edge & Other Clones
Message-ID: <351@catnip.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Oct-86 02:15:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: catnip.351
Posted: Sun Oct  5 02:15:17 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Oct-86 19:34:58 EDT
References: <243@sdics.UUCP> <504@tikal.UUCP> <1992@homxb.UUCP> <1412@ulysses.UUCP>
Reply-To: ben@catnip.UUCP (Bennett Broder)
Organization: The Broder Residence, Holmdel, N.J.  07733
Lines: 19

In article <1412@ulysses.UUCP> jld@ulysses.UUCP (Jeff David) writes:
>                                                              As for single-
>sided drives, I still get over 500K on my AppleII single sided drive and only
>360K on my double sided IBM clone.  Just because a technology is old doesn't
>mean it is bad.


Huh?!?!?  Last time I checked, the Apple II drives stored 143k on a disk.
Operating systems older than DOS 3.3 stored even less.  Over 500k on a
single sided disk would require the kind of media density used on the new
1.2 meg IBM disks.  I don't mean to knock the Apple II, which was a great
machine in its day, but 143k drives that support neither DMA nor interrupts
are ancient compared to the 360k units in the PC.

-- 

Ben Broder
{ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben
{houxm,topaz}/