Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!philmtl!ray
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 1.44 meg 3 1/2" drive whoas
Message-ID: <543@philmtl.philips.ca>
Date: 26 May 89 17:39:42 GMT
References: <634@pmafire.UUCP> <935@mks.UUCP> <8141@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <3479@westfort.UUCP> <11389@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: ray@philmtl.UUCP (Raymond Dunn)
Organization: Philips Electronics Ltd. -  St. Laurent  P.Q., Canada
Lines: 33

In article <11389@netnews.upenn.edu> harnyo@grad2.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Suwandi Harnyo) writes:
>Well, I think using the high density drives whether it's 1.44 or 1.2
>on XT will definitely be slow. First, the disk controller operates
>in 8 bits slots as compared to 16 bits in the AT. So, even though
>you may have Turbo Speed, you are still restricted to slower bus.
>Secondly, the huge amount of data on the high density disk can slow
>down the access time significantly. 

Sometimes a spade should be called a spade.

This is such a time:

The above is PURE NONSENSE!  Please!  Please, don't disseminate this drivel!

16 bit/8 bit issues have *NOTHING* to do with floppy operation which is always
done at 8bits, whether on an XT or an AT.

The "huge amount of data" has *NO* effect on the "access time":

Both 720K drives and 1.44Mb disks have 80 tracks, so that the average seek time
is the *SAME*.

A 1.44Mb disk has 18 sectors/track as opposed to 9 for a 720K disk.  The data
transfer rate of a 1.44Mbyte drive is *TWICE* that of a 720K drive, and is
*ALWAYS* limited by the sectors/track and rotation speed, and *NOT* the CPU
speed (except of course when e.g. disk caching is brought into the picture).

grump... grizzle...
-- 
Ray Dunn.                    | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd.     | TEL : (514) 744-8200  Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec.  H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090