Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!vax135!cjp
From: cjp@vax135.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reading MacDisks on Amiga
Message-ID: <1758@vax135.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-May-87 20:03:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax135.1758
Posted: Mon May 11 20:03:37 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 15-May-87 05:29:55 EDT
References: <8705080543.AA18112@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <112@l5comp.UUCP> <2112@hoptoad.uucp> <16641@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 17
Summary: Confusion

In article <16641@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.UUCP (Tim Olson) writes:
>In article <2112@hoptoad.uucp|  farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>| disk than the 400/800K that they did.  Twice the rotation speed ==
>| twice the data rate, after all.  (Is this how IBM is getting 1.4M
>If you doubled rotation speed and kept the data transfer rate constant,
>you would get *half* the data storage capacity.  Doubling the rotation

Depends on your point of view (reading an existing disk twice as fast,
or writing half as much to a disk); but this misses the point.
I believe the bottleneck is not so much data rate or rotation speed,
as it is the magnetic behavior of the media and read/write head.

	Charles Poirier  (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp
-- 
	Charles Poirier   (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp

	"The road to Hell is paved with good opinions."