Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg From: mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Writing 360K diskettes on 1.2 Mb dri Message-ID: <2471@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 10:02:04 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2471 Posted: Mon Dec 15 10:02:04 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 04:44:46 EST Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 19 > > I would disagree with the above entirely. The above rules are either > > accidentally reversed or a recipe for disaster. Disks made on 360k > > drives should NEVER be written to with a 1.2 Meg drive if you want > > to subsequently be able to read them on a 360K drive again (unless you > > This is all very fine in theory. In *practice*, however, our experience > matches that of the original poster! > > Could there be something wrong with the theory? There is nothing wrong with the theory. 80 track drives have a narrower erase/record track than 40 track disks in general. However, many newer 40 track hald height drives probably use improved heads which are somewherwhere in between the performance of older 40 track and old/new 80 track. Just because it works probably means you are having a run of luck. Sooner or later it will run out. You have been warned. Mike Gingell ....decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg