Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!vrdxhq!bms-at!stuart
From: stuart@bms-at.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Writing 360K diskettes on 1.2 Mb dri
Message-ID: <313@bms-at.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Dec-86 21:18:15 EST
Article-I.D.: bms-at.313
Posted: Wed Dec 10 21:18:15 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 09:27:45 EST
References: <184138@<1986Oct26^> <2690002@hplsla.HP.COM> <2441@ecsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 24
Summary: Theory or experience?

In article <2441@ecsvax.UUCP>, mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) writes:

> In article <2690002@hplsla.HP.COM>, davidr@hplsla.HP.COM (      David Reed) writes:

> > numbers of computers I use around here that:
> >     a 360K disc formatted in a 1.2M drive (with the /4 option to format as
> >        a 360K disc, of course) canNOT be read in about 1/3 of the 360K 
> >        drives when a 1.2M drive also writes the data to the disc, but
> >     a 360K disc formatted in a 360K drive and written to by a 1.2M drive
> >        can NEARLY always be read in a 360K drive.

> 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

	[theoretical explanation deleted]

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?
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<..!seismo!dgis!bms-at!stuart>