Received: from smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net (smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net [165.87.194.252]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA08155 for <executor@nacm.com>; Thu, 18 May 1995 21:40:16 -0700
Received: from slip7-151.fl.us.ibm.net(129.37.7.151) by smtp-gw01.ny.us.ibm.net via smap (V1.3mjr)
id smaaUAC92; Fri May 19 04:40:04 1995
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 00:33:35 EDT
From: rrs0030@ibm.net (Steve Sinnott)
Reply-To: rrs0030@ibm.net (Steve Sinnott)
To: executor@nacm.com
X-Mailer: PMMail v1.1 UNREGISTERED SHAREWARE
Subject: Re: Reading MAC 800k disks
Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 19 May 95 00:25:00 UTC you wrote:
>Yeah, but the amount of profit such a device would make probably wouldn't be
>worth the time and effort necessary to make it work (assuming that it is
>possible on a PC). That and the mere fact that it _TOTALLY_ precludes the
>use of multitasking may be difficult to deal with (many people would keep
>hollering "why doesn't it run in Windows?" <G>).
>
>||||| Jesse D. Sightler |||||
Why? I have a ton of Mac disks, and two of them are 800k disks (and those are printer drivers). I mean, the last mac with a 800k-only disk drive was the Mac Plus, wasn't it? I haven't seen any mac software that was only on 800k disks in quite a long time.
