Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!io.ics.uci.edu!kwan
From: kwan@io.ics.uci.edu (Andrew Kwan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Mac Plus ??
Message-ID: <1136@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 88 19:59:42 GMT
References: <508NETOPRRW@NCSUVM> <771@husc6.harvard.edu> <401920b8.1285f@maize.engin.umich.edu> <1282@mace.cc.purdue.edu> <401a38a0.129dc@blue.engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Andrew Kwan 
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 15

In article <401a38a0.129dc@blue.engin.umich.edu> billkatt@caen.engin.umich.edu (Steve Bollinger) writes:
>
>I can back my speed claims.  But first, I was unaware the Mac Plus supported
>blind reads (in a very poor way).  The SE has a 2:1 interleave, the Plus, a
>3:1, there is a 50% speedup already (2 turns per track as opposed to 3 turns
>per track).

Interleave refers to how many sectors (on the track) must be skipped
over by the read/write head between sector accesses.  The difference
in access time between the SE and Plus is a function of the disk's
rotation speed and the number of sectors per track.  It is not
dependent on the number of turns it has to make - sector accesses do
not require having to wait until the track makes a full turn to get to
the next sector to be accessed, only for the next one or two sectors
to pass (to get to the one you want).