3.25" diskettes

[Adrian Graham]

On 11/12/05 19:03, "Tony Duell" <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> 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).

Nope. It was Microdrives or nothing with Sinclair stuff. Someone, I'm not
sure who, did badge a 3.5" drive as a Sinclair unit for the QL but I've no
idea if it was Sinclair themselves since the associated controller was a
MicroPeripherals design and the casing was identical to at least 2 other
controllers I've got downstairs :)

> I always thought the 3" disk was mechanically superior to the 3.5" one.
> Pity more manufacturers didn't use it.

They certainly feel more solid and can take an awful lot more abuse than
3.5" drives; I've never had a disk stick in a 3" drive for example, and when
they become unreliable just change the drive belt and you're away again. The
Betamax of the floppy drive world.

-- 
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?