Apple Floppy Drives (was: More Apple Pimpers)

From: Eric Chomko <vze2wsvr_at_verizon.net>
Date: Thu Nov 8 13:21:23 2001

Allison wrote:

> From: Eric Chomko <vze2wsvr_at_verizon.net>
> >> 1- Drives (SA400 was pure garbage!!!)
> >
> >Whoa! I bought my Smoke Signal Broadcasting disk system back in 1978
> >with two SA400 drives. I added a third drive in the late 80s. To this day
>
> <snippage>
>
> I also have my three for the NS*, the first was from 1977. However as
> someone
> in the industry I did get to see how often the general lot of them failed
> and why.
> They were not great drives. I ahve mine working because it treated them
> very
> well and retired them by late 1981 for lack of space.
>
> >my 2 cents...
> >> meaning it would write trash due to no write locks.
> >> 5- not enough space
> >
> >Considering the alternative to #5 was cassette or paper tape, we lived with
> it!
>
> No the alternative was 8" drives at 250k or more.
>

Not all systems used 8" drives. The one I remember was the Helios drive
by Processor Tech. The shop I worked in sold a lot of Sol-20s and they
preferred to use the 5.25" 77 track Mircopolis drive due to their better
reliability.

>
> >> space poor at 90k per drive (#5).
> >>
> >
> >My SSB system was SS/SD soft-sector and had a whopping 80KB storage
> >capacity per diskette. Didn't TRS-80, Apple II, Northstar and others ALL
> have
> >a different scheme (i.e. more capacity, hard-sectoring, double
> sided/density)?
>
> The scheme with hard sector VS soft was not an issue here. It was tiny
> and if you did software development 90k was cramped.
>
> >My point is that, maybe they were trying to do to much with the little ole
> >SA400 than the thinhs was designed to do?
>
> No, it was just weak. It was slow at 40ms step (30 if you pushed it), the
> motor bearing tended to wear and a host of other problems. I may add that
> when Shugart sold the floppy business the quality went to pot.

Were SA800s that much better?

>
>
> >> CCS used 8" disks and reliable controller. It was however prone to #4.
> >> Many S100 system that used 8" drives and the better 5.25 drives fell
> >> in this realm of reliability though most with 5.25 were pretty cramped
> >> until 360k(DD) or 720->780k(QD aka two sided DD) formats were common.
> >>
> >By then CP/M and S-100 was dying.
>
> And SS50 was long gone... the point being? Actually S100 was lingering
> after about 1982 and CP/M was still gathering steam up to 1984-5 with BBS
> systems and modems. The PC only started with 180k then 360k.. ignoring the
> OS and platform the PC only continued the progression with regard to
> floppies
> and their problems.
>

By by then the 35 track SA400 had given way to the 40 track Tandon 100.
I am not sure which systems used which in between the early 8080/6800 systems
and the PC (i.e. Apple and TRS-80, etc.)

>
> >Mini computers had their fare share of disk problems too. The Interdata
> 7/16
> >systems I worked on in the mid-70s were slated to be outfitted with
> >floppy drives. They could never make them work. It was either hard disks
> >(20 MB system, w/10MB fixed and 10MB removable), or good ole paper
> >tape and TTYs.
>
> The mid 70s was really the start for 8" floppies! There was a learning
> curve for
> the technology as a whole.
>

Yes, even the 5.25" floppies as well :)

>
> >> Of all, my opinion is that floppies were ok but the first real
> improvement
> >> was the 3.5" drives(720k and 1.44m generation) with the power fail logic
> >> on board. They offered good storage, small size, lower power, good
> >> reliability and quieter than the whole lot.
> >>
> >
> >And the fact that the 1.44MB floppy is STILL a standard device on many
> >systems to this very day.
>
> Yes, and? We know that. It is becuase it works, was cheap and proved
> usable in size and durability. I'd also describe that as summa nulla. It's
> the
> best of the floppies and software and files now barely fit on CDrom... or
> CDrw
> the new "floppy" replacement.
>
> Don't rave at me. I though apple and many other machine to be valid and
> made a statement then. I also have the luxury of seeing what worked,
> failed,
> got forgotten and deserves to be forgotten in the epoch post MITS.
>

I'm not raving. I was actually agreeing with you at the end about the 1.44 mb
floppy. I just took exception to your comments about the SA400., but you're
entitled to your opinion. It is just that I never noticed a huge difference in
reliability between 8" and 5.25" floppy drives.

8" drives became obsolete with the advent of affordable hard drives. But the
5.25"
floppies hung on. Obviously, the 5.25" technology became reliable enough that
couple with a hard disk, the need for 8" drives disappeared.

Eric

>
> Allison
Received on Thu Nov 08 2001 - 13:21:23 GMT