🚀 go-pugleaf

AS I see it, the 800k format (or double-sided format, if you prefer), is set
up for optimum head switching,  ie the first x tracks are addressed by head 0
then the next x tracks are addressed by head 1 and so on throughout the disk.

This seems ok on the surface, but wy not do it a little different for the
following reasons:

A disk has about 1600 sectors, a single sided disk has about 800 sectors.

Why not just allocat sectors 0-800 (approx) to the first side, the 801-1600
to the second???   It would solve ALOT of current problems (some caused by
user cheapness, but what the heck)

1) A disk could be initted as 800k, then a copy-protected disk could be copied
to it in bit copy mode.  A utility could be then written to tweak it back to
800k and voila, a useable 800k disk with the 400k copy protection intact!!! 

This would work since sectors 0-800 would still be accessed the same as on a 
400k disk....

2) Users who use Single-sided disks in double sided mode would find that their
data is MUCH more intact from the initial copying to the 800k disk since the
directory sectors would ALWAYS be on the first side.  Even if the back of the
disk went south one day, the initially loaded and most of the files stored on
the back of the disk could be recovered.  (I just had a disk sector 18, track
0, head 1 (back of disk) go bad.  That is the 2nd block in the directory, so
the disk was rendered unuseable).

3) current 400k disks could be turned into 800k disks very easily by a
utility that could be written to format the back and tweak like in (1) above
the disk to 800k.  It would save alot of copying off of a disk, format, copying
back to the disk files to cvt a disk to 800k.


*****What does everybody think???*****
*****Would this disk format be better or could it be added to the current 
*****driver as a format option??????

I think it would be great!!!!!

Phil Hunt
sivax!calma