Re: 3.5 disk formatting

["Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com>]

"Jon Co" <jon@i-manila.com> wrote in message
a2c2f792.0302052013.2c0b5179@posting.google.com">news:a2c2f792.0302052013.2c0b5179@posting.google.com...
> so, if I have a GS and my IIc and IIe dont have 3.5" drives, my best
> option is to format everything 2:1 coorect?

Yes, as long as the drives on the GS are regular Apple 3.5" drives 2:1 is the
fastest.  If they are 3.5" Unidisks drives I'm not sure which is best (I don't
have a 3.5" Unidisk to try).  There is an easily noticable difference in speed
if you format them with the "wrong" interleaving.

I have my Apple 3.5" (800K) drive connected to my GS using a PC Transporter
controller which is actually slower with the 2:1 than if I connected it
directly to the smartport but the other advantages outweigh the speed loss in
my opinion.

Charlie


> "Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote in message
news:<b1n44r02qfh@enews3.newsguy.com>...
> > "Jon Co" <jon@i-manila.com> wrote in message
> > a2c2f792.0302030703.774f7c3a@posting.google.com">news:a2c2f792.0302030703.774f7c3a@posting.google.com...
> > > I know this is in the FAQ somewhere but I couldn't for the life of me
> > > find it when I need the answer.  What is the difference between 4:1
> > > and 2:1 formatting?  Copy II plus calls one high-speed format... which
> > > is which.  which is best for the apple 3.5 drive and which one is best
> > > for the unidisk 3.5?
> >
> > The numbers refer to the interleaving of the sectors on a track.  How fast
> > either one is depends on how fast the system (drive, controller, & CPU) can
> > decode the data that it reads.  If the system can decode it fast enough to
read
> > another sector after only skipping one sector then 2:1 is fastest.  If not
then
> > 4:1 is faster.  An Apple IIgs with an Apple 3.5" drive is faster with 2:1
> > formatting.  I believe a Unidisk on an Apple IIc is faster with 4:1
formatting
> > although I've never checked this.
> >
> > Charlie