View Single Post
Old 22 December 2013, 22:33   #38
IFW's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ...
Age: 46
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by mark_k View Post
Ah yes you're right. Could more precompensation for the innermost tracks (say 70+) have improved the data retention over time?

I wonder how many disk copier programs (which don't use trackdisk routines) also vary pre-compensation depending on the track number. It could be that some don't, meaning disks written using those programs would become bad quicker than ones written via trackdisk.device.
A slightly more find grained pre-compensation could have, but that would have required a higher clock speed to derive the timing from.
Not sure how many did, but people generally copied each other's routines, so if one had it, it was almost certain another would have used it as well
So yes, anything written by trackdisk is much more reliable than something written with pre-compensation unused.
Especially tracks around 70+ are susceptible to defects without it. More precisely, 77+ - which is possibly the reason why some systems opted for using only tracks 0 to 76...
IFW is offline  
Page generated in 0.08769 seconds with 9 queries