Re: More than 256 sectors per track?

From: Nicolas Welte (
Date: 2001-08-13 12:41:31

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.


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.