home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: 01 Apr 1996 08:46:46 GMT
- Organization: Markus Gutschke, Schlage 5a, 48268 Greven-Gimbte, Germany
- Lines: 110
- Message-ID: <GUTSCHK.96Apr1104646corpus@uni-muenster.de>
- References: <Doy90x.8wE@cix.compulink.co.uk> <DozB2p.DLx@statcan.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pppe091.uni-muenster.de
- Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.41)
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-reply-to: royfran@statcan.ca's message of Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:06:24 GMT
- To: executor@ardi.com
- X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-
- In article <DozB2p.DLx@statcan.ca> royfran@statcan.ca (Francois Roy) writes:
- > Rob Heath (rheath@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
- > : is there any program out there that will read 800k mac floppy disks?
- >
- > As far as I know, there isn't. From what I've heard, the 800k floppys
- > are written with a different speed of rotation depending on whether you
- > are writing on the outer or the inner tracks. The drives on PCs all
- > operate at a constant rotational speed.
-
- It is a common trick (used by harddrive manufacturers) to increase the
- data density on the outer tracks, but I do not know whether the Mac
- actually makes use of this for its 800k floppy disks.
-
- But the main problem with trying to use 800k floppy disks on a PC is
- different from that (I try to explain just the basic concepts; if you
- do not like the simplifications that I make, either get hold of good
- documentation on these topics or ask me and I will try to look it up):
-
- The data on each track of a the floppy disk is basically a cyclical
- stream of "one" and "zero" bits. There is no way, that the hardware
- could tell where the data starts and where it ends. Thus this
- information needs to be somehow encoded into the data stream; a very
- simplistic approach could work like this:
-
- 1) expand every byte ( = 8 bits) of data to be 9 bits long
- 2) for regular user-supplied data, that is to be stored on the disk,
- set the 9th bit to "one"
- 3) for synchronisation information, set the 9th bit to "zero"
- 4) mark the beginning of each data block, that contains just
- synchronisation data, but nine consecutive "zero" bits.
-
- This way we would waste a little more than 11% of disk capacity, but
- we could now tell where to start looking for data. Unfortunately, this
- will fail if the user data contains long blocks of 0xFF bytes (all
- bits set). Small deviations in rotational velocity would cause us to
- get out of phase and we would then read bogus data.
-
- Therefore, encoding mechanisms have been designed which guarantee,
- that there will be no more than a certain amount of consecutive bits
- with the same value. This enables us to obtain clock information and
- re-synchronize on the data stream while reading the data. Besides, it
- offers a new improved technique for marking the beginning of
- synchronisation information. Now, there are sequences of bits, that
- are definitly "illegal" with regard to our encoding scheme; these
- sequences are used to mark "out-of-band" data.
-
- As computer technology improved, different encoding schemes were used;
- some of the more important schemes where named FM, GCR, MFM, and
- RLL. In early days, the computer's CPU would actively do the
- encoding/decoding. Thus it did not really matter, if a new encoding
- scheme was developed; as long as the CPU was sufficiently fast, all
- you had to do was upgrading your software. This was the case for the
- Commodore C64 and for the Apple II. Later, some dedicated hardware was
- designed that assisted the CPU while still retaining flexibility and
- allowing for different encoding schemes. As far as I can tell this is
- the case with the Commodore Amiga and the Apple MacIntosh. At about
- the same time, MFM encoding became very popular and developed into the
- dominating encoding scheme. Thus chip designers, developed a "floppy
- disk controller" that would do *all* of the encoding/decoding. This is
- what is done in current PC's.
-
- The PC has always used MFM encoding (even though RLL encoding would
- bring a 50% improvement in data capacity), but the data density has
- increased considerably from single sided, 40 tracks, 9 sectors (this
- gives 180kB) to double sided, 80 tracks, 18 sectors (this gives 1.44
- MB). I believe there have been some other formats that stored even
- less data and there also is a format that stores 2.88 MB (while using
- 36 sectors), but I think these have never been really popular.
-
- The Apple MacIntosh used to have its own proprietary format. I do not
- know much about the encoding scheme other than one reference that I
- found; it states something about "6-out-of-2" coding. Back in the
- days, when "double density" disks (720kB) where popular, the Apple
- MacIntosh had the advantage of storing about 10% more data (800kB) on
- the same medium. But when "high density" disks (1.44MB) became
- commonly available, Apple had to decide whether they wanted to come up
- with an improved proprietary format or if they would go with the
- "industry standard". Fortunately, they decided for the latter. This
- has the disadvantage of storing less data than is physically possible
- (I believe, advanced encoding schemes can store at least up to 1.8MB
- user data on a regular "high density" disk), but finally there is just
- one standardized format, which allows for easy exchange of media.
-
- Computers such as the Commodore Amiga or the Apple MacIntosh still
- have the ability of handling arbitrary encoding schemes, if the CPU is
- programmed to recognize this format, but the PC never had this
- ability. There are tricks that can be used in order to force the
- "floppy controller" into accessing the raw data stream, but this is
- usually very unreliable and you will never read the same data
- twice. Thus, with sophisticated software it might just be possible to
- make the PC read 800kB floppy disks, but I would not trust it to
- reliably write these disks.
-
- I hope, I cleared up some of the confusion,
-
-
- Markus
-
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Version: 2.6.2
- Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface
-
- iQCVAgUBMV+X7xqJqDLErwMxAQFzPgP/YifZAIPZJl5pA7tatIW8rB/rfEx4VhMz
- 6D7u+oQPpTUswmqmbgyFe9Y6JsfKNvzryqt+WCb1Sqeh06bXi57GcB5sLAM8PfRk
- 6Cu6HtVzgAXKEraCOOGNjod/ApO8vLAal02nAWivwjMCjq8KiWdMgCjp2EtJj710
- vf9terdgnTM=
- =V7ai
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
-