Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Re: Who Misses Older Drives? (Re: write protect tab)
Message-ID: <565@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 15:04:39 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.565
Posted: Wed Feb 26 15:04:39 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 22:23:29 EST
References: <635@well.UUCP> <2497@reed.UUCP> <724@ism780c.UUCP> <2585@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Distribution: net
Organization: none
Lines: 28

In article <2585@reed.UUCP> bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) writes:
>
>But enough on this subject.  From the postings I've seen, and the mail
>I've received, apparently Apple was right in believing that the 3.5" drive
>would be a big mac selling point.  And I was wrong in thinking there was
>a significant minority out there who, like myself, wished Apple had stuck
>with tried, true, and boring floppy technology.  My apologies :-) .
>
>					Bart Massey
>					..tektronix!reed!bart

	If I'm not mistaken, the 5.25 floppies originally intended for the
Mac (ever seen old pictures of the Mac development team taken at their desks?
I think there were some in the premier issue of MacWorld - the Macs on the
desks behind the team members have 5.25" slots) were the same as the Lisa
"Twiggy" drives. If you think those were "tried, true ... floppy technology",
then I'd be willing to bet that you never owned a Lisa 1. They were AWFUL -
unreliable and non-standard media - Yuck. I never understood why they went
through all those gyrations to get 800K per floppy (two sets of heads that
required two access ovals in the diskette jacket) when the Fortune 32:16 I
had been working on had about the same capacity and could use normal
double density media. Those twiggy drives had no advantages and some very 
severe flaws. The ONLY thing they had over the 3.5 Sonys was capacity.

-- 
					--MKR

There is none so blind as he who cannot see.