Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!brown
From: brown@nicmad.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: IBM, this is 4 u
Message-ID: <1613@nicmad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Apr-87 22:31:45 EST
Article-I.D.: nicmad.1613
Posted: Fri Apr 10 22:31:45 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 20:37:07 EST
References: <1741@isis.UUCP> <58200030@gorgo.UUCP> <1593@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Reply-To: brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video)
Distribution: na
Organization: Mr. Video's Hangout
Lines: 19
Keywords: disk capacity

In article <1593@bnrmtv.UUCP> perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes:
<> I could take issue with this statement too. The smaller disks are faster
<> and offer 2 to 10 times as much storage.
<Please don't exaggerate.  The new 3.5" disks offer 0.6 to 4.0 times
<as much storage, not 2 to 10.  (Comparison between existing 5.25"
<disks in 360K and 1.2M capacities, and new 3.5" disks in 720K and
<1.44M capacities: 720/1200 = 0.6; 1440/360 = 4.0.)

I do not count the 1.2MB floppies that IBM added to the AT as a standard.
It was a real bastard, making exchanging of data a real bummer.

So the 2 times, I believe, should stand.  Besides, it was real easy adding
3.5" drives to my XT then it would have been trying to add the 1.2MB drive.
A little more standard, wouldn't you say?
-- 
	 harvard-\     ihnp4--\
Mr. Video   seismo!uwvax.......!nicmad!brown	(How I hate 4 line .sigs!)
	 rutgers-/    decvax--/
		    terminus-/