Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!rutgers!ucla-cs!wales
From: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PC-DOS 3.3 FORMAT bug?
Message-ID: <11244@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 10 Feb 88 00:52:55 GMT
References: <36300010@iuvax> <336@dsacg1.UUCP>
Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles
Lines: 36

In article <336@dsacg1.UUCP> nts0699@dsacg1.UUCP (Gene McManus) writes:

>in article <36300010@iuvax>, bose@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu says:

>> I have noticed the same problem except it occurs only when you
>> try and format a 720K disk in a 1.44Meg drive.

>This was also written up in a very recent PC Tech Journal
>(I think). The word on 3.5" disks is "don't use 720K disks
>in an attempt to get 1.44M". Doesn't seem to be a good way
>to 'cheap' our way around the 3.5", high density diskettes.

Wait a minute.  When bose@iuvax said "format a 720K disk in a 1.44Meg
drive", did he mean:

(1) Stick a 720K disk in a 1.44 Meg drive and format it for 1.44 Meg?
    (That is, skimp on quality and try to make a 720K disk do a job
    you should really have bought a 1.44Meg disk for?)

or did he mean:

(2) Stick a 720K disk in a 1.44 Meg drive and format it for 720K?
    (That is, tell the 1.44 Meg drive to act as a 720K drive while
    doing the format -- presumably so the resulting disk could be
    read on a 720K drive somewhere?)

If he meant #1, then your comment from the PC Tech Journal is relevant.
If, on the other hand, he meant #2, then you missed the point.

When I first read bose@iuvax's comment, I assumed he meant possibility
#2 above.  Was I mistaken?

-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 (213) 825-5683
	3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA
	wales@CS.UCLA.EDU           ...!(ucbvax,rutgers)!ucla-cs!wales
"Sir, there is a multilegged creature crawling on your shoulder."