On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Fred Cisin <ci...@xenosoft.com> wrote:
> 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"? > 8" on one side, 5.25" on the other. -- Charles