26 Mar
2023
26 Mar
'23
11:10 p.m.
In the golden age of the floppy before its downfall caused by CD-R, CD-RW
and flash USB a number of new technologies were introduced to allow for
cheap removable storage (Yes MO drives existed but they were expensive).
Many of the tech were a great step forward. For example the LS-240 drives
from Panasonic/3M (Imation) allowed reading and writing to 120MB, 240MB,
1.44MB, and 720KB disks. They were also compatible with weird formats like
IBM's XDF and even allowed the storage of 32MB on a standard 1.44MB floppy
disk. To be backwards compatible they used a separate read/write head for
regular floppies. However, none of the formats with backward compatibility
read or wrote to 2.88MB ED disks.
Anybody know why? Was it a licensing issue or the perception that ED
compatibility wasn't really required or desired? Or was it technical? I am
not sure if ED drives already made use of two read/write heads (one for
720/1.44 and one for 2.88) or just one? If it is the former one could see
how it would be hard to have three separate read/write heads in one unit...
On a separate note: was a TD (Triple Density) drive ever produced?
Apparently the technology existed all the way back in 1989 and would have
give 12.5MB on a standard physical sized (3.5") floppy:
https://www-computerwoche-de.translate.goog/a/hitachi-maxell-bietet-nec-neue
-12-5-mb-floppy-an,1155888?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wap
p (original in German)
-Ali
26 Mar
26 Mar
11:18 p.m.
To answer my own question apparently sun made a triple density drive: SUN
370-1420. Based on online pictures it uses a 34pin connector although I
believe it is keyed differently than standard floppy drives. Also, I
couldn't find any info on its capacity other than the standard 720/1.44. Any
Sun enthusiasts can shed some light?
-Ali
-----Original Message-----
From: Ali via cctalk [mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 11:11 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Cc: Ali
Subject: [cctalk] LS120, LS240, Floptical Drives and DD, HD, ED, and
?TD? drives
In the golden age of the floppy before its downfall caused by CD-R, CD-
RW
and flash USB a number of new technologies were introduced to allow for
cheap removable storage (Yes MO drives existed but they were
expensive).
Many of the tech were a great step forward. For example the LS-240
drives
from Panasonic/3M (Imation) allowed reading and writing to 120MB,
240MB,
1.44MB, and 720KB disks. They were also compatible with weird formats
like
IBM's XDF and even allowed the storage of 32MB on a standard 1.44MB
floppy
disk. To be backwards compatible they used a separate read/write head
for
regular floppies. However, none of the formats with backward
compatibility
read or wrote to 2.88MB ED disks.
Anybody know why? Was it a licensing issue or the perception that ED
compatibility wasn't really required or desired? Or was it technical? I
am
not sure if ED drives already made use of two read/write heads (one for
720/1.44 and one for 2.88) or just one? If it is the former one could
see
how it would be hard to have three separate read/write heads in one
unit...
On a separate note: was a TD (Triple Density) drive ever produced?
Apparently the technology existed all the way back in 1989 and would
have
give 12.5MB on a standard physical sized (3.5") floppy:
https://www-computerwoche-de.translate.goog/a/hitachi-maxell-bietet-
nec-neue
-12-5-mb-floppy-
an,1155888?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wap
p (original in German)
-Ali
11:23 p.m.
On Mar 26, 2023, at 11:18 PM, Ali via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
To answer my own question apparently sun made a triple density drive: SUN
370-1420. Based on online pictures it uses a 34pin connector although I
believe it is keyed differently than standard floppy drives. Also, I
couldn't find any info on its capacity other than the standard 720/1.44.
It’s a 1.2 MB format (360 RPM) as used in the Japanese market.
ok
bear.
27 Mar
27 Mar
7:44 a.m.
On 3/26/23 23:18, Ali via cctalk wrote:
To answer my own question apparently sun made a triple
density drive: SUN
370-1420. Based on online pictures it uses a 34pin connector although I
believe it is keyed differently than standard floppy drives. Also, I
couldn't find any info on its capacity other than the standard 720/1.44. Any
Sun enthusiasts can shed some light?
Most likely, the 3-mode drive. 8x1024 sectors on each track, giving a
capacity of about 1.23MB. Many PCs of the era could also handle the
drives, which would change spindle speed from 300 to 360 RPM. 3 mode
drives were manufactured right up until the end, but usually were
configured as 2-mode (720/1.44) unless jumpering changes were made to
the drive.
As an example, consider the very popular Samsung SFB-321B drive. Used
in many PCs; the OEM data sheet should still be online describing the
jumper changes. But Teac FD321HG and some HF drives could be made to do
the same trick, as well as Mitsubishi and Canon drives that I've worked
with. I don't know if the Mitsumis could do it also, but it wouldn't
surprise me. Many USB floppy drives will also handle 3-mode media and I
believe that Windows NT supported it right from at least 4.0.
The 1.23MB format was very popular in Japan, originating, I believe,
with NEC, who had the idea that all floppies should mimic the 8" drives.
Simplified things quite a bit. Since Japan was also dominant in CNC
PLCs, you'll find that the 1.23M format is one used by Mitsubishi/Mazak
on much of their gear.
--Chuck
7:49 a.m.
On 3/26/23 23:10, Ali via cctalk wrote:
In the golden age of the floppy before its downfall
caused by CD-R, CD-RW
and flash USB a number of new technologies were introduced to allow for
cheap removable storage (Yes MO drives existed but they were expensive).
Many of the tech were a great step forward. For example the LS-240 drives
from Panasonic/3M (Imation) allowed reading and writing to 120MB, 240MB,
1.44MB, and 720KB disks. They were also compatible with weird formats like
IBM's XDF and even allowed the storage of 32MB on a standard 1.44MB floppy
disk. To be backwards compatible they used a separate read/write head for
regular floppies. However, none of the formats with backward compatibility
read or wrote to 2.88MB ED disks.
ED never caught on, I suspect because of very little bang-for-the-buck.
The disks never came down very far off the $5/disk level. Too little,
too late. As far as high-density floppies, there were many contenders,
all failing to capture significant market share. I still have a pile of
Caleb "IT" drives and disks offering 144 MB, for example.
However, the LS120 drives do have a practical use--I put them in later
systems with IDE connectors that would otherwise go unused (the
primary-use connections are SATA), when I'm building a system into an
older case that still has a place for a 3.5" floppy. Linux still
recognizes the the drive.
--Chuck
7:54 a.m.
On 3/27/2023 10:49 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
However, the LS120 drives do have a practical use--I put them in later
systems with IDE connectors that would otherwise go unused (the
primary-use connections are SATA), when I'm building a system into an
older case that still has a place for a 3.5" floppy. Linux still
recognizes the the drive.
LS120's were the most unreliable format I ever used. Disks were frequently
unreadable mere weeks after making them and the drives were so touchy
even a slight bump was enough to make them unusable. I still have one
or two of the drives and a handful of disks around here somewhere but I
would
never consider trying to use them again.
bill
8:24 a.m.
On 3/27/23 07:54, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
LS120's were the most unreliable format I ever used. Disks were frequently
unreadable mere weeks after making them and the drives were so touchy
even a slight bump was enough to make them unusable. I still have one
or two of the drives and a handful of disks around here somewhere but I
would
I confess to never owning an authentic LS120 disk. The drives work
fine for reading 1.44M 3.5" HD floppies, however--and do so at twice the
speed of a legacy floppy.
--Chuck
6:23 p.m.
On Mar 27, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
LS120's were the most unreliable format I ever used. Disks were frequently
unreadable mere weeks after making them and the drives were so touchy
even a slight bump was enough to make them unusable. I still have one
or two of the drives and a handful of disks around here somewhere but I would
never consider trying to use them again.
Worse than a Zip disk?!?!
Zane
7:37 p.m.
I never had problems with zip disks myself, but never dove into the floppy
things since the price seemed prohibitive.
The only problem I experienced with a zip disk was a too many folders deep
error but that was from some program or operating system that didn't follow
a FAT16 rule or something.
What I liked was with a SCSI external I could use it between my PC and
Amigas.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, 8:24 PM Zane Healy via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
LS120's were the most unreliable format I ever used. Disks were
frequently
Worse than a Zip disk?!?!
Zane
10:34 p.m.
I never had problems with zip disks myself, but never
dove into the
floppy
things since the price seemed prohibitive.
I can't say either technology has been bad to me. I have found IDE and SCSI zip drives
excellent for exchanging large amount of data between vintage and modern system. The LS240
drives are very reliable as well and I have not had any media issues. Plus, like Chuck
said, they are so much faster than standard FDDs for regular floppy disks.
-Ali
28 Mar
28 Mar
7:44 a.m.
On 3/27/2023 9:23 PM, Zane Healy wrote:
On Mar 27, 2023, at 7:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Can't say. Never had a Zip Drive.
bill
LS120's were the most unreliable format I ever used. Disks were
frequently
unreadable mere weeks after making them and the drives were so touchy
even a slight bump was enough to make them unusable. I still have one
or two of the drives and a handful of disks around here somewhere but
I would
never consider trying to use them again.
Worse than a Zip disk?!?!
27 Mar
27 Mar
3:42 p.m.
My floptical drive (20MB SCSI) could also handle 1.4M
My 2.8M drive (Micro-Solutions "Backpack" parallel port) could also
handle 1.4M
My LS120 (IDE) could also handle 1.4M
My Amlyn drives (disk-changer with 5 disks) was 1.2M per disk. The
disks in the changer cartridges were 1.2M, with an extra hole in the
jacket for the changer to grab.
My Weltec drive (180RPM) did 1.2M in a 5160.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
10:34 p.m.
My floptical drive (20MB SCSI) could also handle 1.4M
Yes, those could only write 20MB max though. Still pretty cool for the time.
My 2.8M drive (Micro-Solutions "Backpack" parallel port) could also
handle 1.4M
The BackPack drives are nice for quick testing or adding a temporary drive.
I have only seen the 2.88MB version once on eBay and it was too rich for my
blood.
My LS120 (IDE) could also handle 1.4M
So could the LS240. The LS240 could also write 32MB on a bog standard 1.44MB
floppy although with limitations. It was like old school CD-RW. You had to
erase the whole disk to make changes...
My Amlyn drives (disk-changer with 5 disks) was 1.2M
per disk. The
disks in the changer cartridges were 1.2M, with an extra hole in the
jacket for the changer to grab.
I have a similar system for 3.5" disks but for use with the Macintosh:
https://www.macintoshrepository.org/26135-jukebox-five
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJsFxLQJaTY
The plus side is that it does not need special disks. You can use standard
3.5" floppies.
I think the floppy drive did not get its due. I mean for a technology that
was so integral to the home computer segment it was very evolutionary and
not revolutionary and evolved at a snail's pace. There were obviously some
very cool floppy alternatives, which not only improved it but maintained
backwards compatibility, but poor market introduction (Sony HiFD), cost
(flopticals), or expensive media (ED disks) prevented large scale
acceptance.
Call me old fashioned but even to this day my new builds (ok my last new
build was 10 years ago but still) have a FDD in them. I just feel better
knowing I have one in there.
639
days inactive
640
days old
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Ali -
Bill Gunshannon -
Chuck Guzis -
Fred Cisin -
John Herron -
r.stricklin -
Zane Healy