There were several "fixes" provided by third-party vendors that got around the
very weak clock extraction logic used by the Model 1. Several of them addressed
other weaknesses in the TRS-80 architecture, but the FD interface seems to have
been the most commonly addressed problem.
These hardware patches came along enough later that they're not germane to the
current discussion of the Apple][ disk system, however. In fact the TRS-80 only
came up as a contemporaneous "system" that was available over about the same
period that the Apple][ was being sold. I doubt that anyone will argue that the
TRS-80 was better-integrated, or even that it was more reliable. It's well to
consider that Tandy came out with three different models over the market life of
the Apple][/][+. It's also worth remembering that microcomputers were a new
concept back then, and their makers hadn't yet learned how to make them reliable
enough to make them useful (yet). In that respect, Apple was probably out in
front of its competitors. The only sorts of systems that were inexpensive and
accessible enough to meet the needs of home users were the buy-it-by-the-board
systems that required you do your own integration, which was technologically
"beyond" the typical home user.
The Apple][+ offered a system that was pretty complete as delivered, if not as
reliable as the "standard" disk subsystem, that was only a part of the whole,
and it was capable of twice the data capcity, it was, as a system, smaller,
quieter, and more convenient, than the TRS-80, which was it's only "real"
competitor in 1980. In the same stores where you could buy Apple systems in '82
or so (remember Computerland?) you often could choose between NorthStar, Vector
Graphics, and Cromemco systems, all offered as ready-to-run integrated setups,
but they were quite a bit (often >2x) more costly. The only player in Apple's
arena, still, was the Tandy offering.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dittman" <dittman_at_dittman.net>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Apple Floppy Drives (was: More Apple Pimpers)
> > Ugh! ... you'd be hard pressed to pick a worse example of a "standard"
inteface
> > to a floppy disk than the one used in the TRS-80, though lots of allegations
> > were made about it. The TRS-80 is a poor example, apparenly right up to the
> > model IV, and I know very little about its reputation. Tony Duell recently
> > pointed out that his early experience with that indicated that it worked
fairly
> > well when the drives were well maintained. I only became familiar with the
> > TRS-80 as a problem to be solved.
>
> Actually, the Model I with a daughterboard data separator or double-density
upgrade
> worked pretty well. I never had problems with the Model III or 4 disk
systems.
>
> My Ampro LittleBoard never had any problems, either, along with my home-brew
8085
> CP/M system.
> --
> Eric Dittman
> dittman_at_dittman.net
> Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
>
>
Received on Wed Nov 07 2001 - 10:29:23 GMT