7 Nov
2001
7 Nov
'01
7:53 a.m.
From: Eric Chomko <vze2wsvr(a)verizon.net>
<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.
have
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.
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.
Allison
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 my 2 cents...
it!
No the alternative was 8" drives at 250k or more.
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 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 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.
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. 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.
> 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.