Re: Did Commodore cheat with the quad density floppies?

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:31 AM <silverdr@wfmh.org.pl> wrote:
>
>
> > On 2019-01-08, at 21:59, smf <smf@null.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I recall the discussions still from the early to mid-eighties and people wondering "why on Earth" would anyone want a machine like that.
> >
> > The original IBM PC compared reasonably well to the apple 2. My c64 and tape deck may have had better games, but also 40 columns and slow disk drives.
>
> Lack of crisp 80 columns was painful, indeed. And - I never used so can't tell first hand - I heard that the original tape drive on the IBM wasn't a speed demon either.
>
> > [...]
> > You think it's worse than c64 IEC?
>
> At least IEC still allows more than two devices ;-)
>
> But no, the IEC on the C64 is another example of CR(ippled) hardware, plus VIA-bug workaround ridden implementation. Its big brother GPIB, while predating both, wasn't bad though.

it's worth getting back to reality sometimes: IEC was cheap in both
connectors and cables, it allowed a whole lot (for the time) of
devices (not only disks, but printers!) to share the same bus easily
(not even terminators to deal with... go figure). Compare that to
Apple II or even the full-parallel IEEE-488 that got the speed but
needed expensive cables. Even the Atari world had daisy-chained every
device but with wider bus and connectors.  I could make a IEC
replacement cable in no time even with my relatively poor soldering
skills of that time, or troubleshoot an IEC bus failure by checking
only three signals in the worst case.
Yes it was slow, but I couldn't think about a better compromise,
really. 1541 was still much more useful than compact cassette, and
it's one of the most widespread FDD of the '80s, judging from Ebay
sales.

Frank