Gordon JC Pearce
gordonjcp at gjcp.net
Mon Dec 12 00:56:46 CST 2005
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.
More information about the cctalk