Re: "Fat tracks" are not really fat tracks

Re: "Fat tracks" are not really fat tracks

From: Wolfgang Moser <womo_at_news.trikaliotis.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:04:48 +0100
Message-ID: <gq5uju$geu$1@vs5413.trikaliotis.net>
Hi Pete,

> That tool doesn't seem to work because track 35 has CBM errors (it is a 
> copy of track 34 so it has the wrong sector ID's for track 35).

good to know, so some improvement to ignore concrete track numbers from 
sector headers wouldn't hurt.


Womo

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2009-03-23 02:59:39

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.