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>