Re: 3.5" interleave

[steve@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius)]

mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) wrote in message news:<20020924150559.03000.00007764@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> 
> Interleave should not be applied to disk images--sectors should be placed
> in logical order without reference to physical order.
> 
> I think the question is, what is the mapping of physical order to logical
> order for a 1.44MB ProDOS disk?  Of course, this will be handled
> transparently if the image-creating program runs on ProDOS, but
> becomes an issue if the image-creating program runs on another
> OS/hardware base.
> 
> The mapping you suggest sounds reasonable.  A simple examination
> of a ProDOS 1.44MB disk with a low-level block utility on a PC or Mac
> should verify this assumption.
> 
> -michael
> 
> Check out 8-bit Apple sound that will amaze you on my
> Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

I don't have any ProDOS 1.44MB disks to test with other than what I
generate with Dapple 0.8a (0.80 had a bug in this), which is: 1:1
sector interleave, alternate tracks.  But you can't be sure; it's
possible that I might need to design around 2:1 interleave, side by
side (0:0 0:1 0:2 0:3...0:78 0:79 1:0 1:1...1:79) or something more
bizarre, like CP/M-86 uses.