Re: Question about modifying DOS 3.3 or ProDOS

["Jayson Smith" <ihatespamratguynospamplease@insightbb.spamsucks.com>]

That's what my thought is. Although actually, if DOS reads the track 
markings and finds out it's not on track 0, wouldn't it just seek back to 
track 0 anyway? I'd love to know how to do this.
Jayson

"Jerry" <awanderin@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
m3y6k76d8b.fsf@yahoo.ca">news:m3y6k76d8b.fsf@yahoo.ca...
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Jayson Smith wrote:
>>> Ah. I was just curious. I assume that means there's not a simple
>>> poke I can enter to change the time DOS moves the head in an I/O
>>> error condition? It's not really that I hate the noise, I just think
>>> DOS wastes a lot of time, since in most cases, moving back a few
>>> tracks would result in a valid track, unless the drive door is open,
>>> no disk is inserted, or the disk is damaged or not formatted.
>>> Jayson
>>
>> You can change the number of tracks that recalibrate seeks back, but
>> after it's done, DOS expects the drive head to be positioned at track 0,
>> so there isn't much room to decrease the count.
>
> Perhaps this is an off-the-wall idea: greatly decrease the number of
> tracks the recalibrate seek routine uses (say only 8 tracks).  When an
> I/O error occurs, and the head is out way past track 8 (e.g. track
> 29), multiple I/O errors would occur until the disk head was actually
> on track zero, but the buzz would only happen after the fourth recal.
> Would it be much slower this way?
>
> --
> Jerry    awanderin at yahoo dot ca