1541 vs. Apple II disk

[geoffm3]

I was playing around with an Apple IIgs this evening and I wondered... everyone always gives the 1541 crap for banging the head against the track 0 stop repeatedly, but the Apple II does it every time you reboot. I never hear anyone complain about it on the II... what gives?

 

[Chuck(G)]

Same-o, same-o, as far as I'm concerned. Use just the bare drive mechanics to minimize cost. Write protect sensors, track zero sensors, index sensors, feh--it means we can save a dollar or so in costs. The user will never know.

 

[vwestlife]

It is quite amazing how simple the Disk II is and how utterly and needlessly complex the 1541 is. The 1541 is basically its own computer, with a 6502 CPU and its own built-in operating system, but yet, all that was wasted by running it through a seriously flawed serial port which slows data transfer down to a crawl.

Both use generic off-the-shelf drive mechanisms, so yes, both can be knocked into misalignment by excessive seeking against the head stop -- indeed, I've seen a corrupted Apple disk rattle the drive against the head stop continually upon power-up, instead of just for a moment.

But did the Apple Disk II really not have a write protect sensor? It's been years since I used an Apple II, so I don't remember either way.

 

[Chuck(G)]

The Disk II did indeed have a write-protect sensor, now that I've gone back and checked my notes. What I was trying to recall was the nature of a fairly popular modification to the Disk II was that involved the sensor. It wa a write-protect bypass switch installed on the drive to enable one to write "flippies" without notching them.

 

[MikeS]

The Disk II did indeed have a write-protect sensor, now that I've gone back and checked my notes.

So did the Commodores or you wouldn't have had to notch 'em to use the reverse; I was gonna pipe up but figured I'd give ya a break ;-)

But yeah; index and track 0 sensors? Who needs 'em!

mike

 

[Chuck(G)]

I've got to admit that it's been donkey's years since I've fooled with an Apple II or C64. I still have a 1571 rigged up to do disk transfers to a PC, but even that's been out of use for more than a decade. There are faster and easier ways to handle it nowadays.

 

[geoffm3]

It is quite amazing how simple the Disk II is and how utterly and needlessly complex the 1541 is. The 1541 is basically its own computer, with a 6502 CPU and its own built-in operating system, but yet, all that was wasted by running it through a seriously flawed serial port which slows data transfer down to a crawl.

Both use generic off-the-shelf drive mechanisms, so yes, both can be knocked into misalignment by excessive seeking against the head stop -- indeed, I've seen a corrupted Apple disk rattle the drive against the head stop continually upon power-up, instead of just for a moment.

But did the Apple Disk II really not have a write protect sensor? It's been years since I used an Apple II, so I don't remember either way.

I'm not really sure why they opted to do a whole standalone computer for the disk drive. But you have to consider also that Atari did the same thing... and the Coleco ADAM drive was also the same way.

The serial port speed really wasn't much of a real life issue once you used a fast loader cartridge, or the software included its own. I think the issue there was to maintain backward compatibility with the VIC-20... why that was much of a real world problem is beyond me though.

 

[MikeS]

It is quite amazing how simple the Disk II is and how utterly and needlessly complex the 1541 is. The 1541 is basically its own computer, with a 6502 CPU and its own built-in operating system, but yet, all that was wasted by running it through a seriously flawed serial port which slows data transfer down to a crawl.

Well, in all fairness the speed problem was in part a result of a marketing "let's get it out before it's quite ready" demand, and easily overcome by various third-party solutions; a lot of C64/1541 combos were sold with an accelerator as just a standard part of the package.

As to its being needlessly complicated, that depends on your point of view; instead of a different I/O card, cable, connector, etc. for each peripheral as in the Apple, IBM and most systems of the day (a disk interface for the disk, a parallel interface for the printer, a serial interface for the modem, etc.) Commodore were actually ahead of their time. Just like today's USB ports (where every peripheral also has its own microprocessor), there was just one port that you plugged everything into, disks, printers, what have you; not only that, but unlike USB several computers could even share those peripherals, all on the same bus, an important factor for cash-strapped school boards, etc.

 

[Chuck(G)]

Actually, the 1541 makes a lot of sense when viewed in the context of the C64 (and, by inference, the Vic 20). The C64 was supposed to be a "home computer" with minimal online storage (cartridges would fill most needs) and it may be that the tape drive was viewed as the first tier expansion option.

Now, consider what it would have taken to put a traiditional (e.g. WD1772 or 179x) controller into an external box. You need all of the accompanying circuitry, including some way to control the controller. So, what the heck, if you'd need a CPU inside anyway, why not let it handle the drive directly? I suppose you could hook the drive to the expansion bus, but I don't think it would save that much in parts.

 

[MikeS]

Actually, the 1541 makes a lot of sense when viewed in the context of the C64 (and, by inference, the Vic 20). The C64 was supposed to be a "home computer" with minimal online storage (cartridges would fill most needs) and it may be that the tape drive was viewed as the first tier expansion option.

Now, consider what it would have taken to put a traiditional (e.g. WD1772 or 179x) controller into an external box. You need all of the accompanying circuitry, including some way to control the controller. So, what the heck, if you'd need a CPU inside anyway, why not let it handle the drive directly? I suppose you could hook the drive to the expansion bus, but I don't think it would save that much in parts.

Exactly. I think that's part of the reason for the C64's phenomenal success: leaving out I/O cards & connectors, expansion slots, etc. let them sell it for a low base price, and once you owned it and got tired of playing cart games, well, if the proprietary peripherals cost a little more you just paid it; they certainly weren't the only folks to play that game...

 

[vwestlife]

Commodore were actually ahead of their time. Just like today's USB ports (where every peripheral also has its own microprocessor), there was just one port that you plugged everything into, disks, printers, what have you;

Ahead of their time in general, maybe, but a year behind Atari, who had a single "peripheral" port for everything on their 400/800 series, while Commodore used three (serial, cassette, and user ports).

 

[MikeS]

Ahead of their time in general, maybe, but a year behind Atari, who had a single "peripheral" port for everything on their 400/800 series, while Commodore used three (serial, cassette, and user ports).

Whatever...

The VIC and C64 Commodore computers of the day (as opposed to PET and CBM systems) did not have a "serial port," they had an IEC port which was the equivalent of the Atari peripheral port. I sure don't see how also having a couple of additional ports put them "behind" Atari; would a laptop with a printer port in addition to a USB port be "behind" one with only USB? Commodore was using the more expensive IEEE488 version long before Atari built their first computer AFAIK.

The cassette port was compatible with earlier PETs (not a problem for Atari) and the easiest (and often only) way to communicate and exchange data with the preceding and concurrent PET series of computers.

The user port gave you direct access to the computer bus and let you do things that were difficult or impossible with many other computers.

Most C64s only used the single IEC port, with disk drives, printers, modems, etc. all plugged in daisy-chain fashion.

 

[geoffm3]

All good pro comments. I'll add that having the additional CPU in the drive also helped to offload some of the dirty work from the CPU. You could tell the 1541 to format a disk while the CPU is off doing other things. Not so with the Apple II.

 

[MikeS]

All good pro comments. I'll add that having the additional CPU in the drive also helped to offload some of the dirty work from the CPU. You could tell the 1541 to format a disk while the CPU is off doing other things. Not so with the Apple II.

As a matter of fact you could even copy from one drive to another, also without CPU involvement once started.

 

[geoffm3]

I'd like to see what the MSRP was in 1983 for a 1541 vs a Disk II as well. Did the cost reduction net the customer anything, or did Apple just pocket it and have a high price?

 

[geoffm3]

As a matter of fact you could even copy from one drive to another, also without CPU involvement once started.

I thought I remembered that as well, but wasn't sure.

 

[Chuck(G)]

On the other hand, consider, say the Atari ST. One[/b] chip--a WD1770--to add floppy support. No drivers, receivers--it handles the floppy directly. That would have certainly been cheaper than the stuff in the 1541, but would have demanded that Commodore have included the floppy interface as standard kit.

Probably didn't fit in with their business model.

 

[MikeS]

On the other hand, consider, say the Atari ST. One[/b] chip--a WD1770--to add floppy support. No drivers, receivers--it handles the floppy directly. That would have certainly been cheaper than the stuff in the 1541, but would have demanded that Commodore have included the floppy interface as standard kit.

Probably didn't fit in with their business model.

Well, from the very first PET the peripherals (except for the cassette) were connected via a universal bus similar in principle to today's USB, first the IEEE488 and later the IEC with its cheaper connectors & cables; AFAIK, even the internal drives on systems like the 64SX were 'on the bus'.

And of course Commodore had a more or less captive market for disk drives, printers etc. with that unique interface, at least for a while.

 

[Dave Farquhar]

I'd like to see what the MSRP was in 1983 for a 1541 vs a Disk II as well. Did the cost reduction net the customer anything, or did Apple just pocket it and have a high price?

In 1983, a 1541 cost $299 MSRP and Commodore had a very difficult time keeping up with demand.

I flipped through an early 1983 issue of InfoWorld, and couldn't find a price on a genuine Apple Disk II, but two vendors were selling aftermarket Apple-compatible drives for $299. One quoted a retail price of $479. So that tells me the retail price on the Apple drives had to be higher than $479, otherwise there wouldn't have been a market for the clones.

Commodore's thinking was that not everyone would buy a disk drive, so they built the intelligence into the drives so you didn't pay for stuff you didn't need. Had the VIC-20 and C-64 had the disk controller built in, they wouldn't have been able to hit the initial $299 and $595 price points at release. That did mean additional drives cost more, but the majority of Commodore owners stayed with single drives. And in spite of the added complexity of the Commodore drives, they still were priced competitively with Apple.

As for the captive audience, the supply problems and frailties of the 1541 worked against it--some people wanted to buy anything but a 1541. But copy prevention reduced the compatibility of the third-party drives. And most of the third-party drives had their own problems. I had a good friend who replaced his 1541 with an Excelerator+ drive, which was regarded as one of the best aftermarket drives. He had more reliability problems with it than he had with his 1541. The Excelerator was nice in that it was really small, it cost $50 less than a 1541 did, and the compatibility was pretty high, but he had to send the thing in for service a two or three times and that pretty much wiped out the cost savings.

The people I knew who tried other aftermarket drives (Blue Chip, Indus) weren't enamored with them either. The couple of people I knew who had MSD drives were happy with them, but people who were buying MSDs weren't looking for full 1541 compatibility. They were looking for the additional features the MSD offered, and were willing to live with less compatibility and a higher price.

 

[geoffm3]

In 1983, a 1541 cost $299 MSRP and Commodore had a very difficult time keeping up with demand.

I flipped through an early 1983 issue of InfoWorld, and couldn't find a price on a genuine Apple Disk II, but two vendors were selling aftermarket Apple-compatible drives for $299. One quoted a retail price of $479. So that tells me the retail price on the Apple drives had to be higher than $479, otherwise there wouldn't have been a market for the clones.

Commodore's thinking was that not everyone would buy a disk drive, so they built the intelligence into the drives so you didn't pay for stuff you didn't need. Had the VIC-20 and C-64 had the disk controller built in, they wouldn't have been able to hit the initial $299 and $595 price points at release. That did mean additional drives cost more, but the majority of Commodore owners stayed with single drives. And in spite of the added complexity of the Commodore drives, they still were priced competitively with Apple.

As for the captive audience, the supply problems and frailties of the 1541 worked against it--some people wanted to buy anything but a 1541. But copy prevention reduced the compatibility of the third-party drives. And most of the third-party drives had their own problems. I had a good friend who replaced his 1541 with an Excelerator+ drive, which was regarded as one of the best aftermarket drives. He had more reliability problems with it than he had with his 1541. The Excelerator was nice in that it was really small, it cost $50 less than a 1541 did, and the compatibility was pretty high, but he had to send the thing in for service a two or three times and that pretty much wiped out the cost savings.

The people I knew who tried other aftermarket drives (Blue Chip, Indus) weren't enamored with them either. The couple of people I knew who had MSD drives were happy with them, but people who were buying MSDs weren't looking for full 1541 compatibility. They were looking for the additional features the MSD offered, and were willing to live with less compatibility and a higher price.

I suspected as much... you could practically buy a Commodore 64 AND a 1541 for the price of the Disk II alone. Apple must have been making hand over fist on each unit sold.

I thought the Indus GT was a pretty good drive all things considered. Although, I have to say that our flippy door 1541 lasted forever and never had any problems with alignment. All the problems I saw with 1541s were with the finger trap door mechs. I used a Cinemaware Warp Speed cartridge and was very happy with it. The drives performance was very good using that and maintained a high degree of compatibility with software that had its own fast loader routines. I loved that thing... way better than the Epyx Fast Loader IMO.

Disclaimer: I bash the Apple II pricing as the happy owner of two MacBooks.