Re: "Fat tracks" are not really fat tracks

From: Antitrack_at_networld.at
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:08:02 +0200
Message-ID: <1364994482.515c29b2c80ae@webmail.networld.at>
Zitat von Wolfgang Moser <womo@news.trikaliotis.net>:

> Hello Pete,
> 
> Pete Rittwage schrieb:
> > Hi guys,
> > 
> > With the help of "TeaRex" on my forum, I added a simple way to 
> > read/write disk images using the index hole sensor built into the 1571. 
> >  Through this addition, a revelation occurred.
> > 
> > We had always assumed (since the 80's) that the Electronic Arts' "fat 
> > tracks" protection had 2 tracks (34 and 35) perfectly aligned.  I added 
> > the index hole code and wrote out the disk perfectly aligned to track 0 
> > and thought it was beaten.  :)
> > 
> > Well, it turns out this assumption is *not* true.  When reading against 
> > the index hole, track 35 is actually skewed back 1/4 track or so on all 
> > the original disks.  If I write it back out skewed in this way, it 
> > boots.  These were never "FAT" tracks at all, just a specific track skew 
> > between two identical copies of a track.

That makes perfectly sense, since the time to move the stepper from Track34 to 
Track35 is about the same time as you need to read 1/4 of a track.


----------------------------------
Ein Service von http://www.news.at

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2013-04-03 14:00:04

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.