Re: Apple II-Or Come on people, It's a 20 year old computer

["Arkain" <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>]

I made a mistake about the controllers... It was the physcal drives
themselves that had the limitation, but the medium itself was indeed 80
track. It is possible to take one of those 5.25" disks and format it in a PC
to 160K but no higher since the density of the magnetic elements on the
disk's surface isn't high enough.

Arkain

Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote in message
news:n7Gj5.15565$I76.850783@monger.newsread.com...
> In article <398f2417$1@hal.grnco.net>, Arkain <rwking@no.usa.spam.net>
wrote:
> }Note: The medium was 80 track, not 35.
>
> 80 discrete positions of the read-write head doesn't mean 80 tracks.
>
> }There were several problems with the original controllers though. Due to
the
> }use of common grade components, the read-write head was too large to
write
> }to individual consecutive tracks.
>
> Not the fault of the controllers, but the drives themselves.
>
> }That brought the # down to 40. Some of the old A2+
> }hardware couldn't handle going the full 40 and would overwrite track #35
> }when trying to write to the last 5 tracks. So the original format was
made
> }35 track.
>
> Right, the original Disk IIs from Shugart couldn't reach Tracks 36-39.
> (they could reach Track 35, but it wasn't used anyway, possibly just
> to give a margin of error.  Copy protected disks used it often enough)
>
> }Later versions of the disk controller didn't have the same track motion
> }limitations. That lead to a slew of formatting software to format disks
at
> }40 tracks instead of the standard 35. I enjoyed using 160K floppies.
>
> Again, it wasn't the controller, it was the drive itself.  There was
> a hardware hack (basically, bending the piece which stopped the
> arm) to get 40 tracks out of even the original Disk II.
>
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."