Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a218
From: a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: 360K drive on an AT bridge board
Message-ID: <891@mindlink.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 90 20:35:58 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 29


     Several people have asked me why I want to replace my 1.2-meg
drive with a 360K drive when a 1.2-meg drive can read and write 360K
diskettes.  Since the 1.2-meg drive has 80 tracks as opposed to the
360K drive's 40, each track must be narrower.  If you use a 1.2-meg
drive to overwrite data written by a 360K drive, there's a chance
that you might not erase the entire track, but only the center
portion.  This would not be a problem if you re-read the data with
a 1.2-megabyte drive, but the 360K drive's wider head might see the
original data on either edge of the new, and get read errors.

     Some people claim to have no problems; others claim they do.
It seems to me that many factors are involved, such as the structure
of the heads on the drives (both 360K and 1.2-meg), the alignment
of the drives, etc.  I am using the bridge board to develop and
maintain a commercial software package; I don't want to risk the
company's product by using combinations of equipment which might
be flaky.  Currently I write only to bulk-erased disks which I've
formatted with the /4 option; this has given me no problems, but
I want to be able to update any 360K disk at will.

     Some people tell me they've had trouble hooking up Teac drives
(not just 360K 5 1/4-inch drives) to assorted machines, including
AT clones.  I'm currently trying to get my hands on some different
makes of 360K drives, which I'll try in place of the Teac.  With
luck, another drive will work.  In any event, I'll post my findings.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP
"I'm cursed with hair from HELL!"  -- Night Court