"Infinite Loop"
wil...@ekx.infi.net
"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
--SteveB--
--
Lance Togar
<250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in the
right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press would
have us believe.
..
..
vapor
The true computer geniuses, at such places as tech square at MIT,
laughed at the like of Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates. There's a big
difference between making money and making history.
--
vapor
tbc
Lance Togar wrote in message <3BpB2.134$x%6....@news3.ispnews.com>...
>I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in the
>right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
>business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press would
>have us believe.
True. Paul Allen was the "Brains" behind Gates' business acumen. He jumped
ship early and as a result is worth "only" about $5-$10 bil.
Tom
Lance Togar
>"Lance Togar" <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
>><250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
>>>I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
>>>"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
>>>Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
>>>thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
>>>Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
>>>
>>>Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
>>..
the
>>right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
>>business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
would
>>have us believe.
>>..
>>
>
>The true computer geniuses, at such places as tech square at MIT,
>laughed at the like of Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates. There's a big
>difference between making money and making history.
..
Amazing... isn't it! What really frosts my buns is what happened to people
like Jack Kilby. I think TI "gave" him a used TR-4 - WOW, I think I would've
taken the watch. Then there's the Texas dude who developed TRS-DOS for Radio
Shack. Ya, ya, I know all the jokes about TRS-DOS but it was very well
designed and light years ahead of CP/M and the soon to be MSDOS. As I
remember, his payment was a computer system and a few bucks. Makes my head
spin when I think about it...
..
..
Maury Markowitz
> I lived through the whole thing.
Yes, but most of us did.
> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
> would have us believe.
Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering skills
as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
"genius".
Maury
John Jensen
: > business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
: > would have us believe.
: Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering skills
: as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
: "genius".
I'm sure Woz was a good designer... but wonder if the cult of personality
wasn't excessive.
In particular I wonder if the Integrated Woz Chip (IWC) was used longer by
Apple engineers than Woz would've himself. I mean, they were using a
custom chip (in avoidance of commodity parts) to do it the Woz way.
John
Maury Markowitz
> I'm sure Woz was a good designer... but wonder if the cult of personality
> wasn't excessive.
As they say, you can tell the tiger from his footprints. Any engineer
looking at the Apple II logic board will see a number of innovations. The
ADB mouse and ADB in general is another example. Sorry, you're wrong on
this.
Maury
David Kurtz
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
> wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
> <250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
> >I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
> >"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
> >Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
> >thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
> >Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
> >
> >Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
> ..
> I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in the
> right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press would
> have us believe.
> ..
> ..
Woz certainly was no slouch when it came to Things Technical. Gates did
*some* programming in the beginning, but yeah, Jobs was *mostly* a pitch
man. But one with a sense of style and good ideas.
--
David Kurtz -- remove the underscore from my email address to reply
PGP key and more... http://www.lightside.net/~david/
Rob Barris
Markowitz) wrote:
The Apple II was interesting because it had a no wait state "UMA"
memory/video design.
The processor and video refresh would alternate access to the video
memory which was also the main system DRAM. The clock rate of the 6502
was set such that it would naturally mate with the video refresh rates
involved. Further, the video refresh (indirectly) performed the DRAM
refresh function.
The latter was able to occur because of the way that video memory was
laid out - no matter which display mode you were in, text or graphics, all
the proper refresh cycles occurred regularly.
Now, all this only happened at 1.023MHz, but it was in 1976(7?).
Then of course there's the floppy controller design of his.
Rob
John Jensen
: In <7b6fd3$jdj$3...@nnrp02.primenet.com> John Jensen wrote:
: > I'm sure Woz was a good designer... but wonder if the cult of personality
: > wasn't excessive.
: As they say, you can tell the tiger from his footprints. Any engineer
: looking at the Apple II logic board will see a number of innovations. The
: ADB mouse and ADB in general is another example. Sorry, you're wrong on
: this.
The ADB is post-Woz, right?
I'll see you an ADB and raise you a Twiggy Drive.
John
Dave
rba...@quicksilver.com (Rob Barris) wrote:
< big snip >
>
> Then of course there's the floppy controller design of his.
I seem to recall Woz saying much later that the Apple //'s floppy drive
was essentially a "random access cassette drive", that it recorded an
analog signal rather than digital. Anyone else remember this?
It seemed to make sense at the time, because I had an Apple 3, and the
diagnostic disk would speak thru the machine's built-in speaker "I'm OK,
machine status normal" at the end of the tests. It was clearly a recorded
human voice, not some computer-generated thing.
Anyways, all this was a long time ago (12 years?) and it's possible my
memory is wrong. Not about the Apple 3 speaking however. I'll *never*
forget that!
Dave
--
Brought to you by a Mac and a Windows proxy server.
Macs and PCs working together for a better world!
It *can* be done! :-)
Can't we all just get along?
Steve Hix
Markowitz) wrote:
> In <7b75p5$n2g$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com> John Jensen wrote:
> > The ADB is post-Woz, right?
>
> No. They asked him to design a single low cost input system that could be
> used on both the GS and the Mac, and he made one.
>
> > I'll see you an ADB and raise you a Twiggy Drive.
>
> He had nothing to do with that AFAIK.
Correct. A separate group spent, IIRC, years trying to get that
thing working. Woz was not involved with it, I think that he'd
mostly become by that time detached from day-to-day operations
at Apple.
Dave
> Hmmm, it's definitely digital by the time the CPU gets to look at it -
> but in some sense all magnetic disk storage devices have analog signals
> involved / stored on the media. Beyond the somewhat twisted GCR
> modulation used (in comparison with MFM), the 5.25" drive was a pretty
> standard mechanism.
Well yes the *mechanism* was fairly standard but the electronics certainly
were not. Maybe that's why it was called an "Analog" board inside the
5.25" floppy drives. :-)
Anyways, it's entirely possible I'm mis-remembering the Woz disk/cassette
thing. I'm sure I read it online somewhere a few years ago, however.
OTOH, they say the mind is the first thing to go.........
Lance Togar
>
>
>> would have us believe.
>
>as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
>"genius".
Bologna yourself. Woz was an interesting character in interesting times. His
biggest achievement - the WOZ state machine, later called the IWM was an
excellent way to sell proprietary Apple diskette drives - nothing more.
Western Digital was cranking out single chip *standard* diskette controllers
by the ton at the time - cheap too. These controllers make the IWM look like
a toy. Now, I like the WOZ but genius? Get a grip.
..
..
Dave
> But, not getting as much data stored per standard 5.25" disk.
>
> The TRS-80 Model I was a good example (and from the same time period,
> please don't forget) - it could only get 90KB on a single density floppy.
> The Apple II attained 140KB on the same media.
Isn't that *amazing*?!? I remember thinking 140k was a *lot*. Of course,
when your biggest programs were 32K, 140k *was* alot!
Ah, memories.......
Maury Markowitz
> The ADB is post-Woz, right?
No. They asked him to design a single low cost input system that could be
used on both the GS and the Mac, and he made one.
> I'll see you an ADB and raise you a Twiggy Drive.
He had nothing to do with that AFAIK.
Maury
Rob Barris
> In article <rbarris-2602...@192.168.1.16>,
> rba...@quicksilver.com (Rob Barris) wrote:
>
> < big snip >
> >
> > Then of course there's the floppy controller design of his.
>
> I seem to recall Woz saying much later that the Apple //'s floppy drive
> was essentially a "random access cassette drive", that it recorded an
> analog signal rather than digital. Anyone else remember this?
Hmmm, it's definitely digital by the time the CPU gets to look at it -
but in some sense all magnetic disk storage devices have analog signals
involved / stored on the media. Beyond the somewhat twisted GCR
modulation used (in comparison with MFM), the 5.25" drive was a pretty
standard mechanism.
Rob
Rob Barris
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
But, not getting as much data stored per standard 5.25" disk.
The TRS-80 Model I was a good example (and from the same time period,
please don't forget) - it could only get 90KB on a single density floppy.
The Apple II attained 140KB on the same media.
BTW floppy drives for the Apple II were available from a number of
companies, the interface was straightforward.
Rob
Rick
> wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
> <250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
> >I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
> >"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
> >Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
> >thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
> >Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
> >
> >Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
> ..
> I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in the
> right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press would
> have us believe.
> ..
> ..
Really... then how would explain the breakthroughs Woz regularly made?
He routinely shrank designs to fewer and fewer chips before anyone else.
He designed color circuitry ahead of anyone else. He designed teh disk
drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
Rick
> "Lance Togar" <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
> ><250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
> >>I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
> >>"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
> >>Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
> >>thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
> >>Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
> >>
> >>Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
> >..
> >I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in the
> >right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
> >business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press would
> >have us believe.
> >..
> >..
> >
>
> The true computer geniuses, at such places as tech square at MIT,
> laughed at the like of Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates. There's a big
> difference between making money and making history.
>
> --
> vapor
Really. They laughed at the disk drive he designed, and they didnt. You
can thank Woz for the popularity of the "consumer" disk drive. They
didnt laugh at the design at the color curcuittry either. They may have
laughed at the 4k computers, but they certainly didnt laugh at Woz.
Rick
> Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
> >In <3BpB2.134$x%6....@news3.ispnews.com> "Lance Togar" wrote:
> >> I lived through the whole thing.
> >
> > Yes, but most of us did.
> >
> >> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
> >> would have us believe.
> >
> > Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering skills
> >as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
> >"genius".
> ..
> Bologna yourself. Woz was an interesting character in interesting times. His
> biggest achievement - the WOZ state machine, later called the IWM was an
> excellent way to sell proprietary Apple diskette drives - nothing more.
> Western Digital was cranking out single chip *standard* diskette controllers
> by the ton at the time - cheap too. These controllers make the IWM look like
> a toy. Now, I like the WOZ but genius? Get a grip.
> ..
> ..
Thank you for proving you are a non-reading Wintroll. Wozniak has been
called an engineering genius many times. Woz's drive was a breakthrough
in design at the time (1977). It was a combination of hardware and disk
formatting that simplified things.
Lance Togar
>In article <SxJB2.238$BE5...@news3.ispnews.com>, "Lance Togar"
><lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
>> >In <3BpB2.134$x%6....@news3.ispnews.com> "Lance Togar" wrote:
>> >> I lived through the whole thing.
>> >
>> > Yes, but most of us did.
>> >
>> >> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
>> >> would have us believe.
>> >
>> > Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering
skills
>> >as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
>> >"genius".
>> ..
>> Bologna yourself. Woz was an interesting character in interesting times.
His
>> biggest achievement - the WOZ state machine, later called the IWM was an
>> excellent way to sell proprietary Apple diskette drives - nothing more.
>> Western Digital was cranking out single chip *standard* diskette
controllers
>> by the ton at the time - cheap too. These controllers make the IWM look
like
>> a toy. Now, I like the WOZ but genius? Get a grip.
>
>
>The TRS-80 Model I was a good example (and from the same time period,
>please don't forget) - it could only get 90KB on a single density floppy.
>The Apple II attained 140KB on the same media.
But shortly used DD controllers that yielded 175K and very soon after DS/DD
that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K. Apple
didn't move a bit during the same time period.
..
>BTW floppy drives for the Apple II were available from a number of
>companies, the interface was straightforward.
That's true. There wasn't much too it.
..
..
Lance Togar
>Lance Togar <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
>> >In <3BpB2.134$x%6....@news3.ispnews.com> "Lance Togar" wrote:
>> >> I lived through the whole thing.
>> >
>> > Yes, but most of us did.
>> >
>> >> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
>> >> would have us believe.
>> >
>> > Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering
skills
>> >as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
>> >"genius".
>> ..
>> Bologna yourself. Woz was an interesting character in interesting times.
His
>> biggest achievement - the WOZ state machine, later called the IWM was an
>> excellent way to sell proprietary Apple diskette drives - nothing more.
>> Western Digital was cranking out single chip *standard* diskette
controllers
>> by the ton at the time - cheap too. These controllers make the IWM look
like
>> a toy. Now, I like the WOZ but genius? Get a grip.
>> ..
>
>Thank you for proving you are a non-reading Wintroll. Wozniak has been
>called an engineering genius many times.
By who??? If you're talking about books, try some non-Apple press stuff.
People like Jack Kilby might be called geniuses in a computer sense. The WOZ
simply doesn't fit.
..
>Woz's drive was a breakthrough
>in design at the time (1977). It was a combination of hardware and disk
>formatting that simplified things.
It was a simple, proprietary design that was very slow and featured no error
detection/correction. Far from a breakthrough since standard floppy drives
and the controllers to run them had been around for a long time. The WOZs
design was simple but at the time I was much more interested in being sure
that what I got off a diskette was what I put on it.
..
..
Lance Togar
>Lance Togar <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
>> <250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
>> >I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
>> >"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
>> >Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
>> >thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
>> >Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
>> >
>> >Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
>> ..
>> I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in
the
>> right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
would
>> have us believe.
>> ..
>Really... then how would explain the breakthroughs Woz regularly made?
Such as?
..
>He routinely shrank designs to fewer and fewer chips before anyone else.
Like what?
..
>He designed color circuitry ahead of anyone else.
Guess again.
..
> He designed teh disk
>drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
>certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
As I explained in an earlier post, the Apple II diskette drive and it's WOZ
designed controller were a far cry from the then current standards in terms
of speed and reliability. To top it off, there weren't any cheaper. A lose,
lose in my book.
..
..
Lance Togar
>
>> "Lance Togar" <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >wil...@ekx.infi.net wrote in message
>> ><250219991930164055%wil...@ekx.infi.net>...
>> >>I just got my copy of Michael Malone's new book on Apple, entitled
>> >>"Infinite Loop", or "How Apple, the World's Most Insanely Great
>> >>Computer Company, Went Insane". First glances indicate it is a
>> >>thorough and not too complimentary review of Steve Jobs and Steve
>> >>Wozniak literally from grade school to the present.
>> >>
>> >>Has anyone finished their copy yet, and if so, comments please.
>> >..
>> >I lived through the whole thing. Fact is, Jobs, Wozniak & Gates were in
the
>> >right place at the right time. As it turns out, Gates was better at
>> >business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
would
>> >have us believe.
>> >..
>> >..
>> >
>>
>> laughed at the like of Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates. There's a big
>> difference between making money and making history.
>>
>> --
>> vapor
>
>Really. They laughed at the disk drive he designed, and they didnt.
Well, if they did, they certainly had reason.
..
> You
>can thank Woz for the popularity of the "consumer" disk drive.
You can, the rest of us know that Western Digital (controllers), Seagate
and a host of other floppy drive makers really deserve the credit. In fact,
I'll wager that you don't know that Apple, with the possible exception of
the twiggy drive, never manufactured floppy drives period (.)
..
> They
>didnt laugh at the design at the color curcuittry either. They may have
>laughed at the 4k computers, but they certainly didnt laugh at Woz.
The Apple IIs color circuitry was clever. Genius material... nope.
..
..
Lance Togar
>
>
>> would have us believe.
>
>as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
>"genius".
..
see what's on in the land of engineers.
..
..
Rob Barris
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
> Rob Barris wrote in message ...
> >In article <SxJB2.238$BE5...@news3.ispnews.com>, "Lance Togar"
> ><lto...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
> >> >In <3BpB2.134$x%6....@news3.ispnews.com> "Lance Togar" wrote:
> >> >> I lived through the whole thing.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but most of us did.
> >> >
> >> >> business. None of them were the "computer geniuses" they or the press
> >> >> would have us believe.
> >> >
> >> > Balogna, I have _never_ heard of anyone descrive Woz's engineering
> skills
> >> >as anything less than "brilliant" and the most common description is
> >> >"genius".
> >> ..
> >> Bologna yourself. Woz was an interesting character in interesting times.
> His
> >> biggest achievement - the WOZ state machine, later called the IWM was an
> >> excellent way to sell proprietary Apple diskette drives - nothing more.
> >> Western Digital was cranking out single chip *standard* diskette
> controllers
> >> by the ton at the time - cheap too. These controllers make the IWM look
> like
> >> a toy. Now, I like the WOZ but genius? Get a grip.
> >
> >But, not getting as much data stored per standard 5.25" disk.
> >
> >The TRS-80 Model I was a good example (and from the same time period,
> >please don't forget) - it could only get 90KB on a single density floppy.
> >The Apple II attained 140KB on the same media.
> ..
> But shortly used DD controllers that yielded 175K and very soon after DS/DD
> that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K. Apple
> didn't move a bit during the same time period.
With respect to the Apple II, third parties moved to double sided
drives as well (280KB capacity). IBM PC shipped at 360KB density in 1982
or 1983, Mac came out with 400KB on 3.5" media in 1984 (single sided)
which moved to 800K in 1986 or so.
When you say "same time period", um, which year did you have in mind?
> >BTW floppy drives for the Apple II were available from a number of
> >companies, the interface was straightforward.
> ..
> That's true. There wasn't much too it.
Make up your mind, call it proprietary or insult it for being too simple.
Rob
Dave
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> You can, the rest of us know that Western Digital (controllers), Seagate
> and a host of other floppy drive makers really deserve the credit. In fact,
> I'll wager that you don't know that Apple, with the possible exception of
> the twiggy drive, never manufactured floppy drives period (.)
That's the second reference I've seen in as many days. What's a twiggy drive?
Steve Hix
ci...@magicnet.net (Chad Irby) wrote:
> "Lance Togar" <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > But shortly used DD controllers that yielded 175K and very soon after DS/DD
> > that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K. Apple
> > didn't move a bit during the same time period.
"Didn't move a bit"?
> Actually, there were some DD floppies available for the Apple IIs
> (aftermarket), and by the time the 720K floppies hit the market, Apple had
> introduced the 3.5" floppy, and had gone to 800K per disk.
>
> And PC users were telling us that the 3.5" disk was silly, and the Apple
> was going to be going out of business...
Problem with Lance, he was looking for bigger 5.25" diskettes,
while the shift to 3.5" was well underway. Can't see changes
if you're looking in the wrong direction.
Chad Irby
> But shortly used DD controllers that yielded 175K and very soon after DS/DD
> that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K. Apple
> didn't move a bit during the same time period.
Actually, there were some DD floppies available for the Apple IIs
(aftermarket), and by the time the 720K floppies hit the market, Apple had
introduced the 3.5" floppy, and had gone to 800K per disk.
And PC users were telling us that the 3.5" disk was silly, and the Apple
was going to be going out of business...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Chad Irby
> You need to get out more. Maybe attend an IEEE meeting. You know, actually
> see what's on in the land of engineers.
Yeah. Like the SMPTE meeting I was at this week.
Where I had to keep explaining how computers worked. And how FireWire
worked. Et cetera.
Maybe you need to attend some of these meetings yourself.
Chad Irby
> Rick wrote:
> >He routinely shrank designs to fewer and fewer chips before anyone else.
> ..
> Like what?
Like the Apple II. And the floppy disk controller on the Apple II drive.
And the video circuitry in the Apple II, which has been "reinvented" by
Microsoft in their "LCD-enhancing" technology.
> >He designed color circuitry ahead of anyone else.
> ..
> Guess again.
No need to. At the time of the Apple II, color output in a small computer
was thought to be too expensive to be practical.
> > He designed teh disk
> >drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
> >certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
>
> As I explained in an earlier post, the Apple II diskette drive and it's WOZ
> designed controller were a far cry from the then current standards in terms
> of speed and reliability.
Really? You weren't around then, were you? Or if you were, you weren't
paying attention.
When Woz managed to make the II floppy controller so small and cheap
(while *increasing* reliability, compared to the other available drives),
it was pretty much a triumph.
> To top it off, there weren't any cheaper.
If you don't count a thousand dollars or so. At the time of the II's
introduction, a floppy drive controller for *anY* computer cost more than
the entire Apple II.
> A lose,
> lose in my book.
You have a very silly book, then.
ktaggart
Lance Togar wrote in message ...>>Lance Togar <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> He designed teh disk
>>drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
>>certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
>..
>As I explained in an earlier post, the Apple II diskette drive and it's WOZ
>designed controller were a far cry from the then current standards in terms
>of speed and reliability. To top it off, there weren't any cheaper. A lose,
>lose in my book.
Lance, you are such a poser. You have absolutely no idea of what you are
talking about and it shows. Here is a quote from someone who *actually*
"lived through it" as you claimed to have (from
http://www.laughton.com/Apple/Apple.html ):
"When Woz showed me the designs of the disk controller hardware and software
driver. I was truly amazed. At that time, all disk drive controllers were
big cards with dozens of large and small scale integrated circuits. The
design Woz created required only seven small scale integrated circuits. What
was even more amazing was that Woz's design had significantly better
performance ( data density, reliability, cost) than existing controllers.
When Woz started this design, he did not look at how other people had done
it. He thought about how it should be done. Using this process he created
something remarkable. This became my real world example of what was to later
be called "thinking outside the box." In my later life as an engineering
manager, I have told the Woz Controller story to many engineers as way
getting them thinking on a different path. Unfortunately, most engineers
will never attain the level of Steve Wozniak's creativity.
-Paul Loughton"
Did you happen to notice the bit about "better performance, reliability,
[and] cost" than the extemporaneous controllers of the time?
Stop being such a Wintard and at least have the backbone required to
acknowledge some brilliant engineering. I guess that is a difficult request
for a career computer repairman such as yourself.
--KT
JohnC
>That's the second reference I've seen in as many days. What's a twiggy drive?
It was a very strange sort of high-density 5.25" floppy drive+media
standard. It was developed in-house at Apple ca.1982 for the original
Lisa computer. A single 5 1/4" disk could hold about 2 megabytes, as far
as I recall. The original Lisa computers came with two of these drives
built-in as the only mass storage. The drives used two head assemblies at
180deg from each other, among other weirdnesses. The drives also used
"Disk Request" buttons that talked to the OS, rather than hard eject
levers.
My recollection is that the problem, aside from low-volume proprietary
expense, was that the drives were mechanically unreliable in the extreme.
Apple switched to the Sony 3.5" drive+hard-shell media with the Lisa2 and
the Macintosh in 1984.
--
JohnC | queer person | jo...@chicagonet.net | ICQ 8543232
vapor
(JohnC) wrote:
>In article <Dave-28029...@10.0.0.10>, Da...@myhome.net (Dave) wrote:
>
>>That's the second reference I've seen in as many days. What's a twiggy drive?
>
>It was a very strange sort of high-density 5.25" floppy drive+media
>standard. It was developed in-house at Apple ca.1982 for the original
>Lisa computer. A single 5 1/4" disk could hold about 2 megabytes, as far
>as I recall.
Your recall is a bit off, the twiggy drives were 860KB. The twiggy
drive was dropped rather quickly, IIRC. Wonder why that was?
Hmmmmm...*
>The original Lisa computers came with two of these drives
>built-in as the only mass storage.
I don't think that's correct either. IIRC, the original Lisa came with
a 5MB HD in addition to the twiggy drive.
>The drives used two head assemblies at
>180deg from each other, among other weirdnesses. The drives also used
>"Disk Request" buttons that talked to the OS, rather than hard eject
>levers.
>
>My recollection is that the problem, aside from low-volume proprietary
>expense, was that the drives were mechanically unreliable in the extreme.
*Guess we can stop wondering now.
>Apple switched to the Sony 3.5" drive+hard-shell media with the Lisa2 and
>the Macintosh in 1984.
Good thing, huh?
--
vapor
Lance Togar
>>
>> > But shortly used DD controllers that yielded 175K and very soon after
DS/DD
>> > that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K.
Apple
>> > didn't move a bit during the same time period.
>
>
>> (aftermarket), and by the time the 720K floppies hit the market, Apple
had
>> introduced the 3.5" floppy, and had gone to 800K per disk.
>>
>> And PC users were telling us that the 3.5" disk was silly, and the Apple
>> was going to be going out of business...
>
>while the shift to 3.5" was well underway. Can't see changes
>if you're looking in the wrong direction.
Actually, 3.5" DD/DS 80 track drives appeared to a standard WD controller
exactly as an 8" drive with the same parameters. Consequently I was using
3.5" drives formatting 3.5" diskettes to 1.2 MBs (that's more than 800K) on
a TRS-80 I _before_ the Mac was introduced AND with *no* changes to my
hardware or software. What was that about Apple innovation again?
..
..
Lance Togar
>In article <tCiC2.207$Dk....@news13.ispnews.com>, "Lance Togar"
><lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob Barris wrote in message ...
>> >In article <SxJB2.238$BE5...@news3.ispnews.com>, "Lance Togar"
DS/DD
>> that formatted out to 320K and then on to 80 track DD/DS and 720K. Apple
>> didn't move a bit during the same time period.
>
>drives as well (280KB capacity). IBM PC shipped at 360KB density in 1982
>or 1983, Mac came out with 400KB on 3.5" media in 1984 (single sided)
>which moved to 800K in 1986 or so.
>
> When you say "same time period", um, which year did you have in mind?
..
1984ish. In that year I had 5.25 DS/DD (720K), 8" DS/DD (1.2 MB) & 3.5"
DS/DD (1.2 MB) drives connected to a TRS-80 I at the same time running
TRS-DOS, LDOS & DosPlus. This was before the Mac was for sale.
..
>> >BTW floppy drives for the Apple II were available from a number of
>> >companies, the interface was straightforward.
>> ..
>> That's true. There wasn't much too it.
>
>Make up your mind, call it proprietary or insult it for being too simple.
..
It was proprietary and simple and I didn't intend to insult the effort but
in terms of reliability and sophistication, the WM and the drives it ran
were no match for WD 17xx controllers and industry standard drives. Not much
difference in price either.
..
..
Lance Togar
Let me see if I can put this in terms you'll understand. First, Paul
Loughton doesn't have a clue about disk drives, drivers or their controllers
which is to say that he must have somehow missed his entire experience at
IBM. To say that the WOZ machine out performed such as the Western Digital
17xx series is absurd. Second, you don't have a clue as to what I do for a
living. Third, read some non-Apple literature. Fourth, you're *way* out of
your league.
..
..
Lance Togar
>"Lance Togar" <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> You need to get out more. Maybe attend an IEEE meeting. You know,
actually
>> see what's on in the land of engineers.
>
>Yeah. Like the SMPTE meeting I was at this week.
>
>Where I had to keep explaining how computers worked. And how FireWire
>worked. Et cetera.
Must have been an interesting audience. Of those few who don't know, the
engineers I deal with would've gotten the message first time around. Not
rocket science you know.
..
>Maybe you need to attend some of these meetings yourself.
Sorry, I tend to drift off when bored but thanks for the invite.
..
..
Lance Togar
>> >He routinely shrank designs to fewer and fewer chips before anyone else.
>> ..
>> Like what?
>
>Like the Apple II. And the floppy disk controller on the Apple II drive.
>And the video circuitry in the Apple II, which has been "reinvented" by
>Microsoft in their "LCD-enhancing" technology.
Oh please. MS doesn't make LCD anythings. They're a software house...
remember?
..
>> >He designed color circuitry ahead of anyone else.
>> ..
>> Guess again.
>
>No need to. At the time of the Apple II, color output in a small computer
>was thought to be too expensive to be practical.
It was actually thought to be unnecessary. There's a difference.
..
>> > He designed teh disk
>> >drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
>> >certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
>>
WOZ
>> designed controller were a far cry from the then current standards in
terms
>> of speed and reliability.
>
>paying attention.
>
>When Woz managed to make the II floppy controller so small and cheap
>(while *increasing* reliability, compared to the other available drives),
>it was pretty much a triumph.
Let's see.... no meaningful error detection, no error correction and very
slow. A triumph in your book?
..
>> To top it off, there weren't any cheaper.
>
>introduction, a floppy drive controller for *anY* computer cost more than
>the entire Apple II.
Since I don't know where _you_ were doing your shopping, I can't comment
other than to say that I was paying a thousand bucks for a floppy diskkette
at the time.
..
>> A lose,
>> lose in my book.
>
And you should spend some time with publications that don't include the word
Apple unless, of course, it's Apple Records.
..
..
ktaggart
Lance Togar wrote in message <2dKC2.254$_Q4....@news13.ispnews.com>...>>>Rick wrote in message <199902271...@ts5-12.aug.com>...
>>>>Lance Togar <lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> He designed teh disk
>>>>drive with fewer chps and a simpler design than anyone else. Woz was
>>>>certainly (and may still be) a "computer genius".
>>>As I explained in an earlier post, the Apple II diskette drive and it's
>>>WOZ designed controller were a far cry from the then current standards in
A
>>>lose, lose in my book.
>>
>>
Trance,
You are such a buffoon. Perhaps when the drugs wear off you'll be able to
lie more creatively.
It is so predictable how you wintards always retort with non-facts to
bolster your ignorant claims. So you say that the guy that actually worked
with Woz on the drives doesn't have a clue about them, and you some how know
better. That's rich!
Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and provide some proof that
what you assert is true? Now, to be fair, the man never claimed that the wm
could outperform the wd17xx controller at all, but as that is the only
controller you have any experience with, you pulled that out of you ass.
Again, pull your head out instead.
Tell me trance, when did the wd17xx controller appear? Was it in 1977? What
are the performance specs? What was it cost compared to the wm? Do you know?
Nope.
The wd17xx controller became the de facto standard in the early '80's (I
don't know when it was released) and was used extensively in the later
trash-80's, commodore 1571/1581 disk drives and Amigas/Atari's. It was also
used on the wd100x HDD/FDD controllers (MFM/RLL/ESDI) that appeared on the
IBM XT's and clones at the time. That's when I first encountered them, as I
had to write the drivers for those cards for RMX.
The 8-bit CRC was the 17xx's only error detection, and that would always
result in a "seek error" after five passes, regardless of the actual
problem. Most of the CRC failures were caused by the magnetics on the head
assemblies of those early drives as they would frequently "read" collateral
track data.
Reliability was extremely low.
Now please, Trance, sober up and provide (fabricate, in wintard speak) some
facts to back up your lame-ass assertions for once.
>Second, you don't have a clue as to what I do for a
>living.
You are a wannabe. That's all.
>Third, read some non-Apple literature.
If you are referring to my above quote (that you slobbered all over in your
oafish reply), that isn't "Apple" literature, as you so amateurishly phrased
it. If you weren't such a dirtbag, you'd be able to understand that.
>Fourth, you're *way* out of your league.
Such weak-kneed, trembling bravado, Trance. What league are you in, the
League of Women Voters?
I highly doubt you are capable of carrying on any lengthy argument of a
technical nature, as you tuck tale and run like a bitch when you are
confronted with anything beyond hyperbole. Your nothing more than a sad
little panic-ridden girl that cannot back up the baby-talk that you spew so
often.
But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
antidepressants and tranquilizers).
--KT
Lance Togar
Perhaps when your buzz wears off, you'll be able to come up with something
original or, at least, on topic.
..
>It is so predictable how you wintards always retort with non-facts to
>bolster your ignorant claims. So you say that the guy that actually worked
>with Woz on the drives doesn't have a clue about them, and you some how
know
>better. That's rich!
Yup, and it's so predictable how you MacDroids drool on about Apple
innovations that weren't. For such a low cost, high performace solution, one
doesn't see many WOZ machines around. In fact, they're long gone. OTH,
*Apple* currently uses the WD/IBM answer. Ever wonder why?
..
>Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and provide some proof that
>what you assert is true? Now, to be fair, the man never claimed that the wm
>could outperform the wd17xx controller at all, but as that is the only
>controller you have any experience with, you pulled that out of you ass.
>Again, pull your head out instead.
If you've been reading the posts, you'd know that _I_ mentioned the WD 17xx
series since they and the wm were around at approximatly the same time.
Obviously, the WM wasn't serious competition to the 17xx series. BTW, in
addition to diskette controllers, you're command of anatomy is more than a
little lacking. 1771s were made in WD FAB facilities. I stored 'em in
conductive foam.
..
>Tell me trance, when did the wd17xx controller appear? Was it in 1977? What
>are the performance specs? What was it cost compared to the wm? Do you
know?
>Nope.
Well, actually, yes. You lose again. I have a 1771 with a date code that
starts with 78. It's not an engineering sample. If the WOZ and pals had any
access to standard trade magazines, they certainly knew about it. It had a
sustained transfer rate of 125 KBS, programmable stepper rates (gee what an
idea... the controller controlling the drive - radical, eh?), real error
checking, a single LSI part and certainly beat the hell out of the WM. But
then _anyone_ could buy it and it worked with industry standard drives.
About as non-Apple an idea as it gets.
..
>The wd17xx controller became the de facto standard in the early '80's (I
>don't know when it was released) and was used extensively in the later
>trash-80's, commodore 1571/1581 disk drives and Amigas/Atari's. It was also
>used on the wd100x HDD/FDD controllers (MFM/RLL/ESDI) that appeared on the
>IBM XT's and clones at the time. That's when I first encountered them, as I
>had to write the drivers for those cards for RMX.
The 1771 was available in TRS-80 model 1s in the late 70s. Notice the
correct spelling here.
..
>The 8-bit CRC was the 17xx's only error detection, and that would always
>result in a "seek error" after five passes, regardless of the actual
>problem. Most of the CRC failures were caused by the magnetics on the head
>assemblies of those early drives as they would frequently "read" collateral
>track data.
>
>Reliability was extremely low.
You mean with your drivers... don't you?
..
So... let's see if I understand you correctly:
..
A) Hardware calculated 8-bit CRCs are inferior to simple driver generated
8-bit check sums that were never used.
B) An automatic re-seek on CRC error (the 17xxs _did_ return a CRC error
flag but I guess you just plain forgot) is inferior to no error check at all
or, at best, banging the head mechanism against a mechanical stop because
someone (guess who) forgot to include a 50 cent track zero detector on Apple
diskette drives.
C) All the non-Apple drives you worked with had defective heads or were
misaligned.
D) You think most CRC errors are caused by umm... the "magnetics on the head
assemblies". I can't wait to hear where you think the data comes from.
..
Sounds a lot like the 1771 was fine but _your_ reliability was sub-par.
..
>Now please, Trance, sober up and provide (fabricate, in wintard speak) some
>facts to back up your lame-ass assertions for once.
READ my last paragraph.
..
>>Second, you don't have a clue as to what I do for a
>>living.
>
>You are a wannabe. That's all.
Gee... I'll bet you haven't heard that flaps ARE better than wings.
..
>>Third, read some non-Apple literature.
>
>If you are referring to my above quote (that you slobbered all over in your
>oafish reply), that isn't "Apple" literature, as you so amateurishly
phrased
>it. If you weren't such a dirtbag, you'd be able to understand that.
Actually, I was a bit teary eyed after I stopped laughing. Seriously though,
you might find some non-Apple literature useful. Especially if you're
looking for facts. I know it's hard to differentiate non-Apple literature
from all the rest but give it a try. Who knows you might get lucky.
..
>>Fourth, you're *way* out of your league.
>
>Such weak-kneed, trembling bravado, Trance. What league are you in, the
>League of Women Voters?
To repeat the obvious: You're *way* out of your league.
..
>I highly doubt you are capable of carrying on any lengthy argument of a
>technical nature, as you tuck tale and run like a bitch when you are
>confronted with anything beyond hyperbole. Your nothing more than a sad
>little panic-ridden girl that cannot back up the baby-talk that you spew so
>often.
Ah... so here's a puposed example of technical talk. Bong, Bong.... you
lose... again.
..
..
>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do with
the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
street.
..
..
William V. Campbell Jr.
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
ktaggert said:
[snip]
> To repeat the obvious: You're *way* out of your league.
> ..
>>I highly doubt you are capable of carrying on any lengthy argument of a
>>technical nature, as you tuck tale and run like a bitch when you are
>>confronted with anything beyond hyperbole. Your nothing more than a sad
>>little panic-ridden girl that cannot back up the baby-talk that you spew so
>>often.
> ..
> Ah... so here's a puposed example of technical talk. Bong, Bong.... you
> lose... again.
> ..
> ..
>>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
> ..
> You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do with
> the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
> maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
> street.
> ..
Poor Lance,
Can't you see that your obvious technical knowledge and experience make you
all the more such a sad and pathetic creature.
Trolling for dollars; taking this trolling stuff waaaaaayy too serious.
Sad and very scary, pathetic too.
Such talent gone to waste on CSMA.
Arguing about people who have made their millions, made their mark in the
world, while you troll us mac-heads trying to prove how much smarter you
are.
So sad, so sad, so very, very sad.
I would say get a life but maybe this is your life. So very sad.
Bong, Bong....you lose.....again.
--
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
Wm. (Soup) Jr.
ktaggart
Lance Togar wrote in message ...
<snip>
Original? Like your near line by line regurgitation of what I wrote?
Brilliant.
>>It is so predictable how you wintards always retort with non-facts to
>>bolster your ignorant claims. So you say that the guy that actually worked
>>with Woz on the drives doesn't have a clue about them, and you some how
>>know better. That's rich!
>..
>Yup, and it's so predictable how you MacDroids drool on about Apple
>innovations that weren't. For such a low cost, high performace solution,
one
>doesn't see many WOZ machines around. In fact, they're long gone. OTH,
>*Apple* currently uses the WD/IBM answer. Ever wonder why?
More non-facts. Trying to divert from the topic? We are discussing the
relative merit of the Apple drive/controller that came out in 1978, not what
happened since then. The wm was a short lived controller and completely
unsuitable for current systems - just as the wd1771 is completely unsuitable
for use - now and then. Now, please explain why you know more about the wm
than one of the principles involved in its creation.
Try to stay focussed.
>>Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and provide some proof that
>>what you assert is true? Now, to be fair, the man never claimed that the
wm
>>could outperform the wd17xx controller at all, but as that is the only
>>controller you have any experience with, you pulled that out of you ass.
>>Again, pull your head out instead.
>..
>If you've been reading the posts, you'd know that _I_ mentioned the WD 17xx
>series since they and the wm were around at approximatly the same time.
>Obviously, the WM wasn't serious competition to the 17xx series.
Of course it wasn't. Apple sold in excess of 2 million floppy drives that
connected to that non-competing wm controller. How many people were using
1771-based systems? Do you have a number? If you look at the immediate
competition for the Apple II at that time (1978), only the Commodore PET and
the trash-80 was available.
I am still waiting for your wintard-branded "proof."
>BTW, in addition to diskette controllers, you're command of anatomy is more
than a
>little lacking. 1771s were made in WD FAB facilities. I stored 'em in
>conductive foam.
You stored conductive foam in your ass as well? I guess someone might be
impressed by that rather embarassing admission.
>>Tell me trance, when did the wd17xx controller appear? Was it in 1977?
What
>>are the performance specs? What was it cost compared to the wm? Do you
>>know?
>>Nope.
>..
>Well, actually, yes. You lose again. I have a 1771 with a date code that
>starts with 78. It's not an engineering sample. If the WOZ and pals had any
>access to standard trade magazines, they certainly knew about it. It had a
>sustained transfer rate of 125 KBS, programmable stepper rates (gee what an
>idea... the controller controlling the drive - radical, eh?), real error
>checking, a single LSI part and certainly beat the hell out of the WM.
You really don't know this stuff do you? I thought you at least had a
working knowledge of what you are blathering on about, instead you supply
more non-factual bullshit. The wd1771 doesn't even come close to the wm in
performance (and does not have an xfer rate of 125 kilo-BYTES/sec as your
malformed notation tries to suggest), reliability or cost. The wm was also a
single chip (you *ARE* ignorant, trance), the 341-0041 (known as the IWM or
Incredible Woz Machine). The adapter card also contained support circuitry
(the "other chips" for the ignorant wintards in the crowd).
As far as error checking goes, the wd1771 used *only* an 8-bit CRC which was
so error prone due to stray magnetism that it was an industry joke. It
*always* returned a seek error *regardless of the return code* when it
encountered a r/w/seek problem. The wm controller OTOH, used a data
synchronizer in an integrated phase locked loop circuit that was *designed*
for application in magnetic hard disk and floppy disk drive memory systems
for data re-synchronization. The ds also had margin testing, error recovery
routines, and calibration - all lacking on the 1771, but later incorporated
into the wd179x series of controllers in the early 80's - *years* after the
wm.
>But then _anyone_ could buy it and it worked with industry standard drives.
>About as non-Apple an idea as it gets.
The wd1771 could only drive a single density disk drive (~90kb storage),
where as the wm could accomodate *INDUSTRY STANDARD* double-density drives
(143kb) from Shugart, MicroSci, Quentin Research, Vista Computer/ACP(They
also made the 5 disk Jukebox), Elite I,II,III from Rana Systems, etc. Dork.
Do you some how believe that a controller that could only handle 90kb SD
disk drives/diskettes was better than a controller that supported industry
standard 143kb DD drives/diskettes? You lose, dork.
The Apple/Shugart Drive II cost ~ $90 to manufacture, not including labor,
and had a street value of $495 in 1978. What were comparable drives for
trash-80's/PETs or any other system going for then?
You haven't provided the cost per part of the controller that is supposedly
cheaper than the Apple product. You haven't provided any MTBF of the
controller that you claim is more reliable. In fact you have provided
nothing that bolsters your pathetically incorrect argument one whit.
Instead, you have merely aped some specious claims without any supporting
data.
>>The wd17xx controller became the de facto standard in the early '80's (I
>>don't know when it was released) and was used extensively in the later
>>trash-80's, commodore 1571/1581 disk drives and Amigas/Atari's. It was
also
>>used on the wd100x HDD/FDD controllers (MFM/RLL/ESDI) that appeared on the
>>IBM XT's and clones at the time. That's when I first encountered them, as
I
>>had to write the drivers for those cards for RMX.
>..
>The 1771 was available in TRS-80 model 1s in the late 70s. Notice the
>correct spelling here.
Dork. One doesn't "spell" acronyms nor numerals, they are abbreviated and
enumerated.
>>The 8-bit CRC was the 17xx's only error detection, and that would always
>>result in a "seek error" after five passes, regardless of the actual
>>problem. Most of the CRC failures were caused by the magnetics on the head
>>assemblies of those early drives as they would frequently "read"
collateral
>>track data.
>>
>>Reliability was extremely low.
>..
>You mean with your drivers... don't you?
Nope, my drivers had nothing to do with the head assembly and the logic of
the controller.
>So... let's see if I understand you correctly:
You don't.
>A) Hardware calculated 8-bit CRCs are inferior to simple driver generated
>8-bit check sums that were never used.
Your comparison is flawed, as usual. They are irrelivent if the hw returns
false CRC failures regardless of the actual data integrity.
>B) An automatic re-seek on CRC error (the 17xxs _did_ return a CRC error
>flag but I guess you just plain forgot) is inferior to no error check at
all
Duh, you do know that a "seek error" is the result of a CRC failure, right?
Guess not.
>or, at best, banging the head mechanism against a mechanical stop because
>someone (guess who) forgot to include a 50 cent track zero detector on
Apple
>diskette drives.
Dork. The Apple drive mechanisms were built by Shugart and APS. Try again.
>C) All the non-Apple drives you worked with had defective heads or were
>misaligned.
Where did you come up with that one? That Imipramine saturated walnut you
call a brain is imagining things again.
>D) You think most CRC errors are caused by umm... the "magnetics on the
head
>assemblies". I can't wait to hear where you think the data comes from.
You are a complete fucking dork. Some CRC errors were caused by the heads
picking up stray magnetism from adjacent tracks on the disk (you do realise
that there are "things" called tracks and sectors on diskettes, right?). The
point is that the CRC on those early controllers was unreliable. Idiot.
>Sounds a lot like the 1771 was fine but _your_ reliability was sub-par.
Oh yeah, I'm the reason the 1771 was a failure! Good one, dipshit.
>>Now please, Trance, sober up and provide (fabricate, in wintard speak)
some
>>facts to back up your lame-ass assertions for once.
>READ my last paragraph.
Your last paragraph was pure idiocy and devoid of any facts. More wintard
fabrication...
>>>Second, you don't have a clue as to what I do for a
>>>living.
>>
>>You are a wannabe. That's all.
>Gee... I'll bet you haven't heard that flaps ARE better than wings.
Lets keep your feminine hygene issues out of the discussion.
>>>Third, read some non-Apple literature.
>>
>>If you are referring to my above quote (that you slobbered all over in
your
>>oafish reply), that isn't "Apple" literature, as you so amateurishly
>>phrased it. If you weren't such a dirtbag, you'd be able to understand
that.
>..
>Actually, I was a bit teary eyed after I stopped laughing. Seriously
though,
>you might find some non-Apple literature useful. Especially if you're
>looking for facts. I know it's hard to differentiate non-Apple literature
>from all the rest but give it a try. Who knows you might get lucky.
Sure, you know "its hard to differentiate non-Apple literature" because you
are an idiot and cannot separate fantasy from reality. Maybe someday I'll
stumble across some of that "literature" that you are inventing. All those
years as a shut-in really affected your grip on reality.
>>>Fourth, you're *way* out of your league.
>>
>>Such weak-kneed, trembling bravado, Trance. What league are you in, the
>>League of Women Voters?
>..
>To repeat the obvious: You're *way* out of your league.
The easiest way to spot an idiot is when they make such feeble statements.
You know absolutely nothing about this subject - or any other that you have
engaged in. Now, if you'd like to engage me in a debate over antidepressents
and Valium, you would certainly have me at a disadvantage.
Now, please provide some data that supports your specious claims.
>>I highly doubt you are capable of carrying on any lengthy argument of a
>>technical nature, as you tuck tale and run like a bitch when you are
>>confronted with anything beyond hyperbole. Your nothing more than a sad
>>little panic-ridden girl that cannot back up the baby-talk that you spew
so
>>often.
>..
>Ah... so here's a puposed example of technical talk. Bong, Bong.... you
>lose... again.
That is a perfect example of your "puposed" technical skills.
>>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
>..
>You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do with
>the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
>maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
>street.
I am referring to your dependency on Imipramine and Valium - two drugs that
have clearly affected your ability to reason, among other things.
--KT
Peter
> Perhaps when your buzz wears off, you'll be able to come up with something
> original or, at least, on topic.
I believe he just blasted you out of the water and he was very focused on
the topic of Woz and his "genius".
--
Peter
" Don't you eat that yellow snow
Watch out where the huskies go"
FZ
William V. Campbell Jr.
<ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> That is a perfect example of your "puposed" technical skills.
>
>>>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>>>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
>>..
>>You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do with
>>the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
>>maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
>>street.
>
>
> I am referring to your dependency on Imipramine and Valium - two drugs that
> have clearly affected your ability to reason, among other things.
What!! I've been duped.
Lance has no technical knowledge?
In that case I take back all my praise of him in my last post.
Lance, you sly troll you, taking advantage of us less knowledgeable
Mac-heads.
Thanks for opening my eyes "ktaggart."
And thanks also for exposing a wintroll in the process.
Bong, Bong Lance.......you lose......again.
--
"It was always so and always shall be so."
-Maitreya-
Wm (soup) Jr.
Lance Togar
Yes, original. Of course with your dubious cut and paste habits, I can
understand why you're confused.
..
>>>It is so predictable how you wintards always retort with non-facts to
>>>bolster your ignorant claims. So you say that the guy that actually
worked
>>>with Woz on the drives doesn't have a clue about them, and you some how
>>>know better. That's rich!
>>..
>>Yup, and it's so predictable how you MacDroids drool on about Apple
>>innovations that weren't. For such a low cost, high performace solution,
>one
>>doesn't see many WOZ machines around. In fact, they're long gone. OTH,
>>*Apple* currently uses the WD/IBM answer. Ever wonder why?
>
>
>More non-facts. Trying to divert from the topic? We are discussing the
>relative merit of the Apple drive/controller that came out in 1978, not
what
>happened since then. The wm was a short lived controller and completely
>unsuitable for current systems - just as the wd1771 is completely
unsuitable
>for use - now and then. Now, please explain why you know more about the wm
>than one of the principles involved in its creation.
More lost memories. FYI, the IWM was used in Macs long after the 1771 had
evolved. Is that you're definition of short lived? The 1771 was perfectly
suited for its intended purpose. The fact that you couldn't write a driver
that worked with it only means that you couldn't write a driver that worked
with it. Qualified driver jockeys didn't seem to have any problems. I didn't
have any difficult problems with the chip or the drives of the day. Hell, if
_you_ were stuck there was always the WD application sheets. You could've
just copied what was there. You did know about the application sheets didn't
you?
..
>Try to stay focussed.
..
Suppose you could take your own advice?
..
>>>Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and provide some proof that
>>>what you assert is true? Now, to be fair, the man never claimed that the
>wm
>>>could outperform the wd17xx controller at all, but as that is the only
>>>controller you have any experience with, you pulled that out of you ass.
>>>Again, pull your head out instead.
>>..
>>If you've been reading the posts, you'd know that _I_ mentioned the WD
17xx
>>series since they and the wm were around at approximatly the same time.
>>Obviously, the WM wasn't serious competition to the 17xx series.
>
>Of course it wasn't. Apple sold in excess of 2 million floppy drives that
>connected to that non-competing wm controller. How many people were using
>1771-based systems? Do you have a number? If you look at the immediate
>competition for the Apple II at that time (1978), only the Commodore PET
and
>the trash-80 was available.
Of course you have some evidence to support your 2 million sold assertion.
Didn't think so. And sure, I have a number - umm how about 12,536,732.
..
>I am still waiting for your wintard-branded "proof."
Yawn.... and I'm still waiting for some of your MacDroid "proof".
..
>>BTW, in addition to diskette controllers, you're command of anatomy is
more
>than a
>>little lacking. 1771s were made in WD FAB facilities. I stored 'em in
>>conductive foam.
>
>You stored conductive foam in your ass as well? I guess someone might be
>impressed by that rather embarassing admission.
Some more MacDroid tech-no-speak? Contrived and right on topic as usual.
..
>>>Tell me trance, when did the wd17xx controller appear? Was it in 1977?
>What
>>>are the performance specs? What was it cost compared to the wm? Do you
>>>know?
>>>Nope.
>>..
>>Well, actually, yes. You lose again. I have a 1771 with a date code that
>>starts with 78. It's not an engineering sample. If the WOZ and pals had
any
>>access to standard trade magazines, they certainly knew about it. It had a
>>sustained transfer rate of 125 KBS, programmable stepper rates (gee what
an
>>idea... the controller controlling the drive - radical, eh?), real error
>>checking, a single LSI part and certainly beat the hell out of the WM.
>
>You really don't know this stuff do you? I thought you at least had a
>working knowledge of what you are blathering on about, instead you supply
>more non-factual bullshit. The wd1771 doesn't even come close to the wm in
>performance (and does not have an xfer rate of 125 kilo-BYTES/sec as your
>malformed notation tries to suggest), reliability or cost. The wm was also
a
>single chip (you *ARE* ignorant, trance), the 341-0041 (known as the IWM or
>Incredible Woz Machine). The adapter card also contained support circuitry
>(the "other chips" for the ignorant wintards in the crowd).
Well, I never got the impression that you knew much of anything about what
you dribble. I haven't been disappointed thus far. The 1771 transfer rate
was 125 KBS - spelled out for _you_, the commonplace notation refers to 125
Kilo-Bits per second. The original WM wasn't a single chip which is why the
(I)ntegrated (W)oz (M)achine came about. Of course your Apple texts may
refer to the part as the Incredible Woz Machine but as I pointed out several
times, some non-Apple oriented reading might add some semblance of
credibility to your posts.
..
>As far as error checking goes, the wd1771 used *only* an 8-bit CRC which
was
>so error prone due to stray magnetism that it was an industry joke.
Really? And all this time I was under the impression that CRCs were
mathematically generated. Maybe you forgot your tinfoil lined hat while you
were working with the 1771. Rumor has it that these "specialty" hats guard
the wearer from "stray magnetism", radio & TV signals and, of course, those
pesky voices.
..
>It
>*always* returned a seek error *regardless of the return code* when it
>encountered a r/w/seek problem.
Better read the sheet again. Seek errors returned seek errors and CRC errors
returned CRC errors, just as one would expect. What a dud.
..
> The wm controller OTOH, used a data
>synchronizer in an integrated phase locked loop circuit that was *designed*
>for application in magnetic hard disk and floppy disk drive memory systems
>for data re-synchronization.
The term is self-clocking and has nothing to do with a PLL or a "data
synchronizer" (made that up on the fly eh?). The "data synchronizer" worked
so well that Apple placed a spindle motor speed adjustment screw
conveniently available from _outside_ the floppy drive case. Marvelous
engineering. I wonder if they took time to bury one under a pyramid.
..
> The ds also had margin testing, error recovery
>routines, and calibration - all lacking on the 1771, but later incorporated
>into the wd179x series of controllers in the early 80's - *years* after the
>wm.
ROFLOL, it's getting too deep for regular boots. Give me a minute to slip on
the hip boots..... Ok, it still smells bad but it's funny.
..
>>But then _anyone_ could buy it and it worked with industry standard
drives.
>>About as non-Apple an idea as it gets.
>
>The wd1771 could only drive a single density disk drive (~90kb storage),
>where as the wm could accomodate *INDUSTRY STANDARD* double-density drives
>(143kb) from Shugart, MicroSci, Quentin Research, Vista Computer/ACP(They
>also made the 5 disk Jukebox), Elite I,II,III from Rana Systems, etc. Dork.
Ah... MacDroid.... *INDUSTRY STANDARD* floppy drives had track zero and
index sensors neither of which were present on Apple II drives. Gimme
another minute..... time to pull them boots up a bit higher.
..
>Do you some how believe that a controller that could only handle 90kb SD
>disk drives/diskettes was better than a controller that supported industry
>standard 143kb DD drives/diskettes? You lose, dork.
Well, Droid, since Apple didn't use industry standard drives of any flavor,
you loose.
..
>The Apple/Shugart Drive II cost ~ $90 to manufacture, not including labor,
>and had a street value of $495 in 1978. What were comparable drives for
>trash-80's/PETs or any other system going for then?
Ok, you've got me here. Manufacturing without labor is a neat trick and
assigning contrived pricing is icing on the cake. I suppose you can tell us
about the no labor manufacturing technique and provide a credible source for
the pricing. NO? What a surprise!
..
The Woz Machine and later the Integrated Woz Machine was clever when
introduced. It provided Apple users with a relatively inexpensive
alternative to the cassette drive they all grew to hate. It was an
innovation only if you happed to be an Apple II user as evidenced by the
fact that no other computer manufacturer ever adopted the system or one
like it. Since facts are facts and this is getting really boring, it's the
end of the thread for me. I'm sure ktaggart, in his never ending quest for
the last word and a tutorial on Usenet readers (I hope he eventually finds
one that clears up the "who posted what" issue that he's forever dealing
with but I'm not hopeful), will have more to say. For me, it's time for some
fun.
..
..
Lance Togar
>>
>>>>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>>>>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
>>>..
>>>You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do
with
>>>the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
>>>maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
>>>street.
>>
>>
>> I am referring to your dependency on Imipramine and Valium - two drugs
that
>> have clearly affected your ability to reason, among other things.
>
Sure have! ktaggart STILL hasn't figured out how to tell who posted what,
where.
..
>Lance has no technical knowledge?
>
>In that case I take back all my praise of him in my last post.
>
>Lance, you sly troll you, taking advantage of us less knowledgeable
>Mac-heads.
>
>Thanks for opening my eyes "ktaggart."
>
>And thanks also for exposing a wintroll in the process.
>
>Bong, Bong Lance.......you lose......again.
ROFLOL, thanks....
..
..
Lance Togar
something
>> original or, at least, on topic.
>
>the topic of Woz and his "genius".
I think we were shooting for some facts. Sounds like you haven't been
following along too closely which is understandable given a rather boring
subject.
..
..
William V. Campbell Jr.
<lto...@msn.com> wrote:
>>William wrote:
>>Thanks for opening my eyes "ktaggart."
>>
>>And thanks also for exposing a wintroll in the process.
>>
>>Bong, Bong Lance.......you lose......again.
> ..
> ROFLOL, thanks....
You're welcome......you sly fox you!
Maybe vapor could learn a few things from a wintroll like you. ;-)
I'll send him over when I'm done with him; which should be soon.
I'm growing tired of his unrequited love.
Well that's my problem, not yours.
later,
--
"If it was not so
I would have told you".
'Jesus Christ'
soup jr.
JohnC
>The wm was also a
>single chip (you *ARE* ignorant, trance), the 341-0041 (known as the IWM or
>Incredible Woz Machine)
IWM stands for "Integrated Woz Machine", and this single-chip
implementation wasn't used until the Macintosh in 1984.
The 1977 Apple Disk ][ controller card under discussion here had multiple
(very simple) ICs on it.
ktaggart
Lance Togar, in a drug related incident, slurred in message
<_hoD2.142$Mc....@news15.ispnews.com>...
>ktaggart wrote in message <7bk4ls$l...@news.or.intel.com>...
<snip>
>Yes, original. Of course with your dubious cut and paste habits, I can
>understand why you're confused.
Sure, good response. You reword the very thing I wrote and then spout off
about some immaginary cut and paste operation. As you are a consumate idiot,
I can understand that you have failed to understand the difference between
typing and COPY and paste.
>>>>It is so predictable how you wintards always retort with non-facts to
>>>>bolster your ignorant claims. So you say that the guy that actually
>>>>worked with Woz on the drives doesn't have a clue about them, and you
>>>>some how know better. That's rich!
>>>..
>>>Yup, and it's so predictable how you MacDroids drool on about Apple
>>>innovations that weren't. For such a low cost, high performace solution,
>>>one doesn't see many WOZ machines around. In fact, they're long gone.
OTH,
>>>*Apple* currently uses the WD/IBM answer. Ever wonder why?
>>
>>More non-facts. Trying to divert from the topic? We are discussing the
>>relative merit of the Apple drive/controller that came out in 1978, not
>>what happened since then. The wm was a short lived controller and
completely
>>unsuitable for current systems - just as the wd1771 is completely
>>unsuitable for use - now and then. Now, please explain why you know more
>>about the wm than one of the principles involved in its creation.
>..
>More lost memories.
Stay off the drugs and that won't happen. Now, please explain why you know
more about the wm than the principles involved.
>FYI, the IWM was used in Macs long after the 1771 had
>evolved. Is that you're definition of short lived?
Sorry trance, but you are an idiot.
From http://www.apple2.org/A2WebRef/A2Reference06.html#Heading10 :
"Apple made two different 3.5" drives for the Apple ][, the AppleDisk 3.5"
and the UniDisk 3.5". The AppleDisk 3.5" is Apple Platinum colored and was
introduced along with the Apple IIgs. It is compatible with the Apple IIgs,
//c+, //e Emulation Card, Apple SuperDrive Controller and Universal Disk
Controller/ Laser 128. It DOES NOT WORK WITH THE LIRON Controller.
"Apple SuperDrive Controller
"This is a 3.5" drive controller card made by Apple Computer that can be
used with an Enhanced Apple //e or IIgs to use an Apple FDHD (1.44M) drive
or other compatible high density drive. It will also work with any
daisy-chainable 3.5" drive that is capable of plugging into the floppy port
on the IIgs or Mac. Such drives are:
"UniDisk 3.5" AppleDisk 3.5" ASA800K
800K Drive
1.44M Drive
Apple Computer
Apple Computer
American Micro Research Applied Engineering Applied Engineering
"AppleDisk 3.5"
"This is an external Apple 800K DSDD 3.5" Drive. See the compatibility chart
after the UniDisk 3.5" information for more detail.
"Apple UniDisk 3.5"
"This is an External Apple 800K DSDD 3.5". Compatibility with the following
computers is as follows:
"Please note: When dealing with 3.5" drives there are TWO different
controllers! The Apple 3.5" drive controller and the SuperDrive controller.
The initial shipments of the SuperDrive controller are/were titled the
'Apple 3.5" drive controller, this was renamed to the SuperDrive controller
to avoid confusion with the earlier product and for people to see that it is
indeed a new product. One that has an IWM (342-0041) chip in the middle of
the card and is labeled "Liron" on the back side. This is the original 3.5"
card, also known as the Apple SmartPort card, it is the //c SmartPort on a
card and can control external SmartPort hard disks as well. It does not
contain firmware for 5.25" drives. The other has a lot of surface mount
chips on it, and an LED on the top edge."
You are far too stupid to be in this debate.
When are you going to "prove" that you know more about the wm than Woz and
Paul Loughton?
>The 1771 was perfectly suited for its intended purpose. The fact that you
couldn't >write a driver that worked with it only means that you couldn't
write a driver that >worked with it. Qualified driver jockeys didn't seem to
have any problems. I didn't
>have any difficult problems with the chip or the drives of the day. Hell,
if
>_you_ were stuck there was always the WD application sheets. You could've
>just copied what was there. You did know about the application sheets
didn't
>you?
You're funny! My drivers are still being used in RMX installations around
the world! Remember dipshit, the controller is a flake, like you.
>>Try to stay focussed.
>..
>Suppose you could take your own advice?
Okay. Another great one. Did it take your entire retarded family to help you
come up with that?
>>>>Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and provide some proof that
>>>>what you assert is true? Now, to be fair, the man never claimed that the
>>>>wm could outperform the wd17xx controller at all, but as that is the
only
>>>>controller you have any experience with, you pulled that out of you ass.
>>>>Again, pull your head out instead.
>>>..
>>>If you've been reading the posts, you'd know that _I_ mentioned the WD
>>>17xx series since they and the wm were around at approximatly the same
>>>time.
>>>Obviously, the WM wasn't serious competition to the 17xx series.
>>
>>Of course it wasn't. Apple sold in excess of 2 million floppy drives that
>>connected to that non-competing wm controller. How many people were using
>>1771-based systems? Do you have a number? If you look at the immediate
>>competition for the Apple II at that time (1978), only the Commodore PET
>>and the trash-80 was available.
>..
>Of course you have some evidence to support your 2 million sold assertion.
>Didn't think so. And sure, I have a number - umm how about 12,536,732.
Here you go, dipshit...
From http://www.dg.com/about/html/apple_ii.html :
"Apple II (1977)The Apple II was one of three prominent personal computers
that came out in 1977. Despite its higher price, it quickly pulled away from
the TRS-80 and the Commodore Pet to lead the pack in the late 70s and become
the symbol of the personal computing phenomenon.
The Apple II's success has been attributed to many factors including its
name, attractive packaging and astute management. And, unlike the TRS-80,
the Apple II featured high quality and a number of technical
differentiators. It had an open architecture, used color graphics, and most
importantly, had an elegantly designed interface to a floppy disk drive,
something only mainframes and minis could use for storage until then.
"The rise of Apple Computer is one of America's great success stories.
Behind the business and technical savvy of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, and
the marketing expertise of Mike Markulla, Apple dominated the personal
computer industry between 1977 and 1983.
Price $970 (4K RAM), $1795 (48K RAM)
Units Shipped More than 2 million"
>>I am still waiting for your wintard-branded "proof."
>..
>Yawn.... and I'm still waiting for some of your MacDroid "proof".
Another brilliant AND original response from Trance the Drugged-Out Wintard.
>>>BTW, in addition to diskette controllers, you're command of anatomy is
>>>more than a little lacking. 1771s were made in WD FAB facilities. I
stored 'em >>>in conductive foam.
>>
>>You stored conductive foam in your ass as well? I guess someone might be
>>impressed by that rather embarassing admission.
>..
>Some more MacDroid tech-no-speak? Contrived and right on topic as usual.
The topic is "Lance Togar is a Fucking Idiot" and yes, I am right on topic.
Wrong answer dipshit, the "commonplace" notation is "125kB" = 125 kilobytes
while "125kb" = 125 kilobits. Don't you get tired of looking like a complete
asshole?
You still have not provided any "proof" that the wd1771 controller is more
reliable, faster and cheaper than the wm. You simply don't know, but keep on
insisting otherwise. Too bad troll.
>The original WM wasn't a single chip which is why the
>(I)ntegrated (W)oz (M)achine came about. Of course your Apple texts may
>refer to the part as the Incredible Woz Machine but as I pointed out
several
>times, some non-Apple oriented reading might add some semblance of
>credibility to your posts.
>>
>>As far as error checking goes, the wd1771 used *only* an 8-bit CRC which
>>was so error prone due to stray magnetism that it was an industry joke.
>..
>Really? And all this time I was under the impression that CRCs were
>mathematically generated. Maybe you forgot your tinfoil lined hat while you
>were working with the 1771. Rumor has it that these "specialty" hats guard
>the wearer from "stray magnetism", radio & TV signals and, of course, those
>pesky voices.
Does that work for you? How about the Viagra, has that helped counter the
effects of the Imipramine?
A CRC *is* a calculation wintard, the point I have labored to get you to
understand is that *frequently* a bad CRC would flip the S4 bit in the
wd1771 register to indicate a SEEK ERROR. Is this any more clear yet??? It
was a logic flaw, get it dipshit? You should be well versed in logic flaws.
>>It *always* returned a seek error *regardless of the return code* when it
>>encountered a r/w/seek problem.
>..
>Better read the sheet again. Seek errors returned seek errors and CRC
errors
>returned CRC errors, just as one would expect. What a dud.
Dork, under the wd1773 and subsequent controllers this worked fairly well.
On the wd1771 a CRC failure would set the S3 bit high (CRC) AND the S4 bit
(SEEK ERROR).
>> The wm controller OTOH, used a data
>>synchronizer in an integrated phase locked loop circuit that was
*designed*
>>for application in magnetic hard disk and floppy disk drive memory systems
>>for data re-synchronization.
>..
>The term is self-clocking and has nothing to do with a PLL or a "data
>synchronizer" (made that up on the fly eh?). The "data synchronizer" worked
>so well that Apple placed a spindle motor speed adjustment screw
>conveniently available from _outside_ the floppy drive case. Marvelous
>engineering. I wonder if they took time to bury one under a pyramid.
Wrong again Trance. It's called a Data Synchronizer and was made by National
Semiconductor IIRC, or perhaps NCR. Why don't you excersize your vaunted
"internet search capabilities" (ARF) and see if you can dig something up on
it.
>>The ds also had margin testing, error recovery
>>routines, and calibration - all lacking on the 1771, but later
incorporated
>>into the wd179x series of controllers in the early 80's - *years* after
the
>>wm.
>..
>ROFLOL, it's getting too deep for regular boots. Give me a minute to slip
on
>the hip boots..... Ok, it still smells bad but it's funny.
Ahh yes, you have now slipped completely out of your depth. This is your
usual response when you run out of bullshit.
>>>But then _anyone_ could buy it and it worked with industry standard
>>>drives.
>>>About as non-Apple an idea as it gets.
>>
>>The wd1771 could only drive a single density disk drive (~90kb storage),
>>where as the wm could accomodate *INDUSTRY STANDARD* double-density
>>drives (143kb) from Shugart, MicroSci, Quentin Research, Vista
>>Computer/ACP(They also made the 5 disk Jukebox), Elite I,II,III from Rana
>>Systems, etc. Dork.
>..
>Ah... MacDroid.... *INDUSTRY STANDARD* floppy drives had track zero and
>index sensors neither of which were present on Apple II drives. Gimme
>another minute..... time to pull them boots up a bit higher.
Uh, dipshit, Apple WAS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD AT THE TIME WE ARE DISCUSSING.
From http://www.apple2.org/A2WebRef/A2Reference02.html#Heading2 :
"The Apple Disk ][ Controller and is used for any brand 20 pin 5.25" drive.
This controller is used in the Apple ][+ & //e. Can be used in a IIgs as
well.
"Drives Known to work with this card. (But not limited to these)
Disk ][Apple Computer
MicroSci A5xxxMicro Sci (A70 High Density drive requires MicroSci CTRL'r)
Quentin ResearchQuentin Research
Vista 5.25"Vista Computer/ACP(They also made the 5 disk Jukebox)
SuperDrive4th Dimension
Elite I,II,IIIRana Systems(Elite II,III in 35/40 Track, Single Side mode
only)"
You are a dork.
>>Do you some how believe that a controller that could only handle 90kb SD
>>disk drives/diskettes was better than a controller that supported industry
>>standard 143kb DD drives/diskettes? You lose, dork.
>..
>Well, Droid, since Apple didn't use industry standard drives of any flavor,
>you loose.
Wrong answer again, dipshit. Go back to the drugs.
>>The Apple/Shugart Drive II cost ~ $90 to manufacture, not including labor,
>>and had a street value of $495 in 1978. What were comparable drives for
>>trash-80's/PETs or any other system going for then?
>..
>Ok, you've got me here. Manufacturing without labor is a neat trick and
>assigning contrived pricing is icing on the cake. I suppose you can tell us
>about the no labor manufacturing technique and provide a credible source
for
>the pricing. NO? What a surprise!
Try this one on for size, loser,
From http://www.hypermall.com/History/ah05.html :
"THE DISK II: COST
"The Disk II was finally available in July 1978 with the first full version
of DOS, 3.1. It had an introductory price of $495 (including the controller
card) if you ordered them before Apple had them in stock; otherwise, the
price would be $595. Even at that price, however, it was the least expensive
floppy disk drive ever sold by a computer company. Early production at Apple
was handled by only two people, and they produced about thirty drives a day.
"Apple bought the drives to sell with Woz's disk controller from Shugart,
right there in Silicon Valley. To cut costs, however, they decided to go to
Alps Electric Company of Japan and ask them to design a less expensive
clone. According to Frank Rose, in his book "West Of Eden":
"The resulting product, the Disk II, was almost obscenely profitable: For
about $140 in parts ($80 after the shift to Alps) [not counting labor
costs], Apple could package a disk drive and a disk controller in a single
box that sold at retail for upwards of $495. Better yet was the impact the
Disk II had on computer sales, for it suddenly transformed the Apple II from
a gadget only hard-core hobbyists would want to something all sorts of
people could use. Few outsiders realized it, but in strategic terms, Woz's
invention of the disk controller was as important to the company as his
invention of the computer itself."
You really need to pull your head out of your ass, trance.
>The Woz Machine and later the Integrated Woz Machine was clever when
>introduced. It provided Apple users with a relatively inexpensive
>alternative to the cassette drive they all grew to hate. It was an
>innovation only if you happed to be an Apple II user as evidenced by the
>fact that no other computer manufacturer ever adopted the system or one
>like it.
Nice copy and paste, err cut and paste in togar-speak. Here is some more
info for you to choke on.
From http://www.hypermall.com/History/ah05.html :
"As an experiment Woz had [earlier] conceived a circuit that would do much
of what the Shugart manual said was needed to control a disk drive. Woz
didn't know how computers actually controlled drives, but his method had
seemed to him particularly simple and clever. When Markkula challenged him
to put a disk drive on the Apple, he recalled that circuit and began
considering its feasibility. He looked at the way other computer
companies--including IBM--controlled drives. He also began to examine disk
drives--particularly North Star's. After reading the North Star manual, Woz
knew that his circuit would do what theirs did and more. He knew he really
had a clever design."
"Other issues that Wozniak had to deal with involved a way to properly time
the reading and writing of information to the disk. IBM used a complex
hardware-based circuit to achieve this synchronization. Wozniak, after
studying how IBM's drive worked, realized that if the data was written to
the disk in a different fashion, all that circuitry was unneeded. Many
floppy disks sold at that time were "hard sectored", meaning that they had a
hole punched in the disk near the center ring. This hole was used by the
disk drive hardware to identify what section of the disk was passing under
the read/write head at any particular time. Wozniak's technique would allow
the drive to do self-synchronization ("soft sectoring"), not have to deal
with that little timing hole, and save on hardware."
>>You haven't provided the cost per part of the controller that is
supposedly
>>cheaper than the Apple product. You haven't provided any MTBF of the
>>controller that you claim is more reliable. In fact you have provided
>>nothing that bolsters your pathetically incorrect argument one whit.
>>Instead, you have merely aped some specious claims without any supporting
>>data.
>>
>>>>The wd17xx controller became the de facto standard in the early '80's (I
>>>>don't know when it was released) and was used extensively in the later
>>>>trash-80's, commodore 1571/1581 disk drives and Amigas/Atari's. It was
>>>>also used on the wd100x HDD/FDD controllers (MFM/RLL/ESDI) that
>>>>appeared on the IBM XT's and clones at the time. That's when I first
>>>>encountered them, as had to write the drivers for those cards for RMX.
>>>
>>>The 1771 was available in TRS-80 model 1s in the late 70s. Notice the
>>>correct spelling here.
>>
>>Dork. One doesn't "spell" acronyms nor numerals, they are abbreviated and
>>enumerated.
>>>>
>>>>The 8-bit CRC was the 17xx's only error detection, and that would always
>>>>result in a "seek error" after five passes, regardless of the actual
>>>>problem. Most of the CRC failures were caused by the magnetics on the
>>>>head assemblies of those early drives as they would frequently "read"
>>>>collateral track data.
>>>>
>>>>Reliability was extremely low.
>>>
>>>Actually, I was a bit teary eyed after I stopped laughing. Seriously
>>>though, you might find some non-Apple literature useful. Especially if
you're
>>>looking for facts. I know it's hard to differentiate non-Apple literature
>>>from all the rest but give it a try. Who knows you might get lucky.
>>
>>Sure, you know "its hard to differentiate non-Apple literature" because
you
>>are an idiot and cannot separate fantasy from reality. Maybe someday I'll
>>stumble across some of that "literature" that you are inventing. All those
>>years as a shut-in really affected your grip on reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fourth, you're *way* out of your league.
>>>>
>>>>Such weak-kneed, trembling bravado, Trance. What league are you in, the
>>>>League of Women Voters?
>>>
>>>To repeat the obvious: You're *way* out of your league.
>>
>>The easiest way to spot an idiot is when they make such feeble statements.
>>You know absolutely nothing about this subject - or any other that you
have
>>engaged in. Now, if you'd like to engage me in a debate over
antidepressents
>>and Valium, you would certainly have me at a disadvantage.
>>
>>Now, please provide some data that supports your specious claims.
>>>>
>>>>I highly doubt you are capable of carrying on any lengthy argument of a
>>>>technical nature, as you tuck tale and run like a bitch when you are
>>>>confronted with anything beyond hyperbole. Your nothing more than a sad
>>>>little panic-ridden girl that cannot back up the baby-talk that you spew
>>>>so often.
>>>
>>>Ah... so here's a puposed example of technical talk. Bong, Bong.... you
>>>lose... again.
>>
>>That is a perfect example of your "puposed" technical skills.
>>>>
>>>>But the floor is open trance, regale us all with you knowledge (NOT of
>>>>antidepressants and tranquilizers).
>>>
>>>You seem fond of mentioning drugs as though they have something to do
with
>>>the subject at hand. Outta MacSpeak so soon? I'm really disappointed but
>>>maybe there's a pharmacy your future. Barring that, there's always the
>>>street.
>>
>>I am referring to your dependency on Imipramine and Valium - two drugs
that
>>have clearly affected your ability to reason, among other things.
>
>Since facts are facts and this is getting really boring, it's the
>end of the thread for me.
Run togar, run. As I predicted, you have once again run from an argument
that you have clearly lost on every point. Run back to your fair Prince
Valium, Lance of the Valium Faries.
>I'm sure ktaggart, in his never ending quest for
>the last word and a tutorial on Usenet readers (I hope he eventually finds
>one that clears up the "who posted what" issue that he's forever dealing
>with but I'm not hopeful), will have more to say. For me, it's time for
some
>fun.
You can deny that you are not the author of all those posts (in your name)
at "alt.support.anxiety-panic", but you aren't going to convince anyone.
Have a nice day,
--KT
ktaggart
JohnC wrote in message ...
>>single chip (you *ARE* ignorant, trance), the 341-0041 (known as the IWM
or
>
>IWM stands for "Integrated Woz Machine", and this single-chip
>implementation wasn't used until the Macintosh in 1984.
>
>The 1977 Apple Disk ][ controller card under discussion here had multiple
>(very simple) ICs on it.
John, The IWM was never used on any Mac ever. The IWM went through four
revisions, starting with the original 7-chip SSI adapter in '78 to the final
(but unreleased) IWM in 1983. That controller had an Hitachi 9306 (IIRC)
processor and a I/O buffer made by NS in addition to the LSI IWM. Previous
to this model were the IWM 341-0041 that supported the 5.25 DD diskettes,
and the subsequent 342-0041 that added support for 3.5" dikettes. These
controllers were in wide use in '79- in the II's and IIgs models.
See http://www.apple2.org/A2WebRef/A2Reference02.html#Heading2
for more info.
--KT
Lance Togar
>In article <7bk4ls$l...@news.or.intel.com>, "ktaggart"
><ktag...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>single chip (you *ARE* ignorant, trance), the 341-0041 (known as the IWM
or
>
>IWM stands for "Integrated Woz Machine", and this single-chip
>implementation wasn't used until the Macintosh in 1984.
>The 1977 Apple Disk ][ controller card under discussion here had multiple
>(very simple) ICs on it.
You're quite right but be prepared for a nonsensical ktaggart rant. I think
he's preparing for the Olympics.
..
..