13 Jan
2011
13 Jan
'11
2:44 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Indeed - I seem to remember the one in my Apple /// would occasionally fail
when the head positioner would fall out of the grooved disk.
On 12 Jan 2011
at 19:00, dwight elvey wrote:
I don;t think they're any worse than other disk drives. And a lot better
than that darn Shugart thing with the spirally-gooved plastic disk to
move the hean. ARGH! I believe all 3.5 inch drives without DiskReady
will block
both the read data and the index until the drive is considered
to be ready.
I don't know about the 3" drives; they're pretty
primitive. And Not all 3" drives are belt driven, altough I
think the Amstrad ones we're
discussing are.
Any particualr reason why the belt i na 3" drive would be more likely to
fail than that in a 5.25" or 8" drive (both of which were commonly
belt-driven)?
I think the belts aren't quite as tall in the 3" drives as they are in 5.25"
and 8" ones, though - I wonder if they're more prone to stretching or
breaking? (whether they're typically under more stress at start-up or not too,
I'm not sure)
cheers
Jules