it physically laid out the 10 sectors as 0 2 3 4 6 8 1 3 5 7 9 so that when reading sequentially, you had half a disk rotation to get your act together to read the next sector. This turned out to be only a small performance win, and was a pita for interoperability,
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Tapley, Mark wrote:
….but, at least you had a functionally redundant sector 3! :-)
That way, a system that could handle 1:1 interleave would get one version of sector 3, while one that could not handle 1:1 interleave would get the other one, and you could have different code for the two kinds of machines. :-)
But, that has 11 sectors on the track Were they 512 bytes each? Was it 8"? 5.25"? SD?, DD?, "HD"?
