For all the time I used OS9/6809, I never ran accros a sector
size other than 256 bytes.
The big issue was different disk formats.
96 TPI vs 48 TPI. 16 sectors / track vs 18 (coco) sectors/track
Dbld sided vs single sided. Dbl vs single density.
And most severe problem What format was Sector 0, Track0
Std: always single density, 16 sectors/track.
Coco: DSDD 18 sectors/track.
Os9/6809 had many assumptions about 256 byte structures
built in to it, including almost all of the memory management
routines.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: NO
For all the time I used OS9/6809, I never ran accros a sector
size other than 256 bytes.
The big issue was different disk formats.
96 TPI vs 48 TPI. 16 sectors / track vs 18 (coco) sectors/track
Dbld sided vs single sided. Dbl vs single density.
And most severe problem What format was Sector 0, Track0
Std: always single density, 16 sectors/track.
Coco: DSDD 18 sectors/track.
Os9/6809 had many assumptions about 256 byte structures
built in to it, including almost all of the memory management
routines.