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 KwanOrganization: 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).