Marko Mäkelä wrote: > Another optimization I had in mind was to assume that the number of > sectors per track is the greatest on track 1 and decreases monotonically. > This assumption fails on the 1571 (where tracks 36..70 are on the top side > of the disk), but does it hold on older double-sided drives? (On the 1581 I once analyzed the 8250 disk format, and it looks like it is the same case as with the 1571: CBM8050/8250 Format 29sectors/track for track 1-39/78-116 27sectors/track for track 40-53/117-130 25sectors/track for track 54-64/131-141 23sectors/track for track 65-77/142-154 The BAM is stored completely on the first disk side, unlike the 1571 which stores the second side BAM on the second side. Nicolas Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.