>Commodore disk drives (4040 and so on) actually use a very similar approach. There's no FDC controller chip and the 6502 is hooked to the drive (literally the same SA-390 as Apple used) via simple hardware.
I disagree that the approaches are similar. The 4040 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_4040> is a monstrosity; even the later single-drive models, such as the 1541, are massive. Apple's 1978 floppy drive + Disk II card takes up less space than 1985's 1571 drive (and still significantly faster).
>The only significant difference is that the 6502 (actually two of them) is in a separate enclosure from the Pet , communicating via IEEE-488.
Many things are possible when another 6502 is used just for the drives! That Commodore takes this approach is, as I said, no credit to its army of engineers versus one Berkeley dropout.
>Since Commodore manufactured the 6502 presumably it was ok to use them liberally.
I acknowledge that, had Apple been the owner of MOS and manufactured 6502s, it might also have been tempted to take the easy way out designwise and built Commodore-style drives, or implement the Disk II with a 6502 on it. But I'd like to think that Woz would have done the "right" thing regardless of available resources.
Even though the Disk ][ was significantly faster than the 4040, the 4040 was significantly faster than the 1541. Apparently the difference was largely due to a bug in the controller used for the Commodore serial bus.
Commodore's 8-bit micros also used IEEE-488 (or a serialized form of IEEE-488) for their floppy drives, rather than a dedicated expansion card that was connected to a bus with direct access to the CPU and RAM. While the expansion bus on the Apple II was fast enough to control the drive directly, the most Commodore could do was send and receive a stream of data to the drive. The drive had to have the smarts to interpret that stream of data. The drive electronics was going to be more complex than Apple's even if Commodore assigned amazing engineers to the task.
Finally, Commodore's approach had its own advantages. Since the drive accepted and handled commands, the CPU could be freed up for other tasks. I don't know how useful that was in general, but the classic example involved two drives autonomously copying floppies. (You could literally remove the cable between the computer and the drives after the operation was setup.) I also recall hearing about classroom setups where multiple computers would share a drive (PET era). It also allowed more drives to be connected to the same bus. Apparently 8 drives were supported. In contrast, the Apple II would support two drives per expansion slot.
I disagree that the approaches are similar. The 4040 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_4040> is a monstrosity; even the later single-drive models, such as the 1541, are massive. Apple's 1978 floppy drive + Disk II card takes up less space than 1985's 1571 drive (and still significantly faster).
>The only significant difference is that the 6502 (actually two of them) is in a separate enclosure from the Pet , communicating via IEEE-488.
Many things are possible when another 6502 is used just for the drives! That Commodore takes this approach is, as I said, no credit to its army of engineers versus one Berkeley dropout.
>Since Commodore manufactured the 6502 presumably it was ok to use them liberally.
I acknowledge that, had Apple been the owner of MOS and manufactured 6502s, it might also have been tempted to take the easy way out designwise and built Commodore-style drives, or implement the Disk II with a 6502 on it. But I'd like to think that Woz would have done the "right" thing regardless of available resources.
Even though the Disk ][ was significantly faster than the 4040, the 4040 was significantly faster than the 1541. Apparently the difference was largely due to a bug in the controller used for the Commodore serial bus.
Commodore's 8-bit micros also used IEEE-488 (or a serialized form of IEEE-488) for their floppy drives, rather than a dedicated expansion card that was connected to a bus with direct access to the CPU and RAM. While the expansion bus on the Apple II was fast enough to control the drive directly, the most Commodore could do was send and receive a stream of data to the drive. The drive had to have the smarts to interpret that stream of data. The drive electronics was going to be more complex than Apple's even if Commodore assigned amazing engineers to the task.
Finally, Commodore's approach had its own advantages. Since the drive accepted and handled commands, the CPU could be freed up for other tasks. I don't know how useful that was in general, but the classic example involved two drives autonomously copying floppies. (You could literally remove the cable between the computer and the drives after the operation was setup.) I also recall hearing about classroom setups where multiple computers would share a drive (PET era). It also allowed more drives to be connected to the same bus. Apparently 8 drives were supported. In contrast, the Apple II would support two drives per expansion slot.