Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!xanth!flounder!scott From: scott@flounder.cs.odu.edu (Scott Yelich) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: I love it! Message-ID: <7436@xanth.cs.odu.edu> Date: 29 Jan 89 17:44:27 GMT References: <7367@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <11830032@hpldola.HP.COM> Sender: news@xanth.cs.odu.edu Reply-To: scott@cs.odu.edu (Scott Yelich) Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va. Lines: 32 In article <11830032@hpldola.HP.COM> ritchie@hpldola.HP.COM (Dave Ritchie) writes: >/ hpldola:comp.sys.atari.st / scott@cs.odu.edu / 8:11 pm Jan 24, 1989 / > [... my original letter deleted ...] >> Scott D. Yelich scott@cs.odu.edu [128.82.8.1] > > These are 2 seperate problems. The use of tracks > 80 is dependent upon >the particular drive mechanism used - some will tolerate stepping past >track 80, some won't. The use of sectors > 9 per track is dependent upon >the rotational speed of the particular drive - 9 works best between different >computers, 10 will work with most, 11 will work with drives that are slower >than the standard 300 RPM (slower -> more time under head -> more time >for FDC chip to convert). I usually stick with the standard 9/80, being in >a post-college phase that allows me to buy disks, etc. :-> 10/80 should >be fairly safe I would think. How much TOS support non-standard formatting, >I do not know. > dave My drive formatted and used 11/82. Once and a while when doing a lot of reads-- the drive would make a clanking noise... That's when I decided that 82 was too much.. I still used 11/81. I have since found the name of that track offset-- TWISTED. I think what it is supposed to do is scramble the formated sectors on the tracks to allow the required access-time to decrease. But, I don't see how this can be considered dangerous! All you are doing is changing the sequential order of the formated sectors! (The old 8bit atari did this just fine) Scott D. Yelich scott@cs.odu.edu [128.82.8.1]