shevek wrote:
> > I was saying that the analogy with gaps was not correct. A gap
> > contains bytes just like sectors do, altough the values of the bytes are
> > not used to store data. Making gaps bigger doesn't change the amount
> > of magnetic disk surface reserved for one byte.
>
> The gaps will be larger, but sectors will be larger as well. The whole
> track is scaled. It makes sense to me, anyway.
Yes, on outer tracks all bits (sectors, gaps, headers) span more disk
surface than on inner tracks. I'll have to be very explicit to make
sure no-one misunderstands me...
What the threat was about is that when you format a disk, the
formatting program decides the number of bytes per gap. MSX diskROMs
seem to use more bytes per gap than PCs. Then we started wondering
what difference this makes.
You suggested reliability would improve because more disk surface is
used when gaps are larger, but that's not true as larger gaps only
means more bytes per gap, this doesn't improve the readability of
bytes inside a sector.
> /************************Use_gcc_to_compile************************/
>
> /*xxoxo o*/ int main()/* */{ int i,j,s=1, k,z ,c[
> ]={ 1,4 ,7, 4,3 ,4, 6,4 ,1, 1,1 ,2,
> 3,3 ,3, 4}, v[9 ];; for (i= 0;i ++<
> 9&!k;s =-s){k=0; ;scanf( "%d" ,&z) ;v[z]=s ;for(j
> =0; j<8 ;++ j){ z=v[c[j] ];k |=z ==v
> [c[ j]- c[j +8] ]&(v[c [j] +c[ j+8
> ]]==z&& z); ;}} printf(" %d won\n",- s*k );}
>
> /*******************Tic-tac-toe.use_0-8_to_play********************/
So this is your long-awaited new signature?
Bye,
Maarten
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
