3.25" diskettes

[Gordon JC Pearce]

Tony Duell wrote:
>>Did Sinclair use them purely because Amstrad had taken them over (or were 
>>about to) and Amstrad forced them to use that drive? I remember magazine 
>>articles around the +3 launch complaining that it didn't have a 3.5" drive.
> 
> 
> Did Sinclair ever use the 3" drive (or any other floppy?) The Spectrum +3 
> was surely late enough to actually be an Amstrad (which would explain the 
> 3" drive).

Not that I'm aware of.  The +3 was definitely post-Amstrad

>>Actually, I'd followed Sinclair up to that point - it was the fact that the +3 
>>had a 'funny' drive which put me off getting one; I held out with my +2 for a 
> 
> 
> I always thought the 3" disk was mechanically superior to the 3.5" one. 
> Pity more manufacturers didn't use it.

Well, there was no crappy flimsy shutter to get ripped off.  The 
single-sided drives used a belt-drive mechanism (the only double-sided 
drive I have to hand is direct drive but I wouldn't be surprised if 
there was a belt-driven version) and the belts wore out making them 
unreliable after a while.  Easy to fix though.

Gordon.