Hi, > On Jun 19, 2026, at 6:34 AM, André Fachat <afachat_at_gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 19. Juni 2026 15:10:17 schrieb gsteemso <48bitsorbust_at_gmail.com>: > >> Hi, >> >>> On Jun 19, 2026, at 5:59 AM, groepaz <groepaz_at_gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> After having developed stuff for the catweasel (which involved hundreds of >>> different physical formats) i dare to say i know a little bit about the >>> physics involved :) >>> >>> (There have been commercial copy protections doing this, even on tracks > 35) >> >> OK, I'll happily believe you if I can see it in action... That said, I will have to remain skeptical until I see it survive (a) drives that vary slightly amongst themselves in spindle speed and (b) mediocre media quality. >> > > Commodore drives are very good at compensating spindle speed. They synchronize the bit counter on every 1-bit. Not like other systems All good news! If it is as straightforward as that, I'm trying to understand how all this was not taken advantage of by computer makers like Commodore "back in the day". Did they just assume that some fraction of the user base was still using the very earliest drive mechanisms that _couldn't_ keep up with this, even though they themselves controlled what mechanisms were in use? We know that was the case to some degree, it is why the double-density disk formats all ignore tracks 36 and higher, but why they would overlook the rest of it is confusing to me. G.Received on 2026-06-19 16:00:01
Archive generated by hypermail 2.4.0.