Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

How did it lack in storage?

Are you referring to the stupid idea to use 2.5" laptop HDD's instead of standard 3.5" ones,

Using 2.5" laptop drives was an awesome idea - small enough to comfortably fit inside the awesome A1200 (or A600) case, simple installation with a single cable, and much lower power consumption so you didn't need to upgrade your power supply. Usually quieter as well, and many shut down after a few minutes of inactivity for even lower power consumption and zero noise.

In the 90's we benefited from PC users needing ever larger hard drives to run their bloated OS and apps. In 1991 I bought a Quantum 120MB 3.5" SCSI drive for my A3000 for $999. Then the prices started dropping. In 1996 I picked up a 256MB 2.5" drive for my A1200 for $52 in a stock clearance sale. A few years later I got a 1GB 2.5" drive for free from a hapless PC user who had to upgrade his laptop. I still have that drive in my A1200 today, and it's still working perfectly (typically running 5-8 hours a day).

or the lack of a HD FDD?

Which is no big deal when the standard drive can do 880k. I had an HD floppy drive in my A3000, but never used high density disks because they was less reliable. My PC has one too of course - only 63% higher capacity than Amiga 880k, and HD disks are not very reliable in it either!

[redblade]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

. A few years later I got a 1GB 2.5" drive for free from a hapless PC user who had to upgrade his laptop. I still have that drive in my A1200 today, and it's still working perfectly (typically running 5-8 hours a day).

Which is no big deal when the standard drive can do 880k. I had an HD floppy drive in my A3000, but never used high density disks because they was less reliable. My PC has one too of course - only 63% higher capacity than Amiga 880k, and HD disks are not very reliable in it either!

What brand is the HDD? Does it boot up first time or does it need the delay (KICK 31).

Any reason on why HD disks are not as reliable as DD disks?

[van_dammesque]

Originally Posted by redblade

Any reason on why HD disks are not as reliable as DD disks?

The only reason I can think of (which maybe incorrect) was that in order to use HDD floppies you had to use extra hardware. I used the catweasel with no problems whatsoever.

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Using 2.5" laptop drives was an awesome idea

It was a shit idea. The drives were extremely expensive compared to their 3.5" equivalents, and many 1200 users went without a HDD because they couldn't afford one of the 2.5" drives. Others did ugly hacks to their case to enable a 3.5" drive to be installed.

Originally Posted by redblade

Any reason on why HD disks are not as reliable as DD disks?

They're storing twice the data on the same media.

It's not unlike how a Blu Ray is much more sensitive to damage than a CD or DVD.

[-Acid-]

Originally Posted by Hewitson

Others did ugly hacks to their case to enable a 3.5" drive to be installed.

But 3.5" drives fit (tightly) you just leave the cradle out. No need to hack anything.

[jizmo]

Originally Posted by -Acid-

But 3.5" drives fit (tightly) you just leave the cradle out. No need to hack anything.

If there was no way to get a 3.5" HDD in without breaking the case, I'd say it was a good call for Commodore to go with something that fits in there instead. But as we all know, there is.

In practise though retrofitting one meant for most of the users brute forcing it in, consequently making it much more of a hassle than it ever needed to be if Commodore had designed the machine to support this.

Offering users a limited number of smaller, pricier and slower drives was not an awesome idea, but just another needless way to needlessly handicap the machine.

[no9]

[QUOTE=Bruce Abbott;1375485]

Originally Posted by -Acid-

But 3.5" drives fit (tightly) you just leave the cradle out. No need to hack anything.

No?

[chb]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Using 2.5" laptop drives was an awesome idea - small enough to comfortably fit inside the awesome A1200 (or A600) case, simple installation with a single cable, and much lower power consumption so you didn't need to upgrade your power supply. Usually quieter as well, and many shut down after a few minutes of inactivity for even lower power consumption and zero noise.

I think it was a terrible idea. I had a 3.5" drive running outside my A1200 in a wooden box, having to cut the case slightly to get the IDE cable out, while the power came from an Y-adapter to the floppy cable; and even with a second floppy drive, an 030 turbo board + RAM the stock power supply never generated any problems.

Making the case some millimeters bigger wouldn't have cost Commodore anything; including a slightly more powerful power supply maybe a low one-digit figure - and that probably wouldn't have been even necessary, because they could have picked 3.5" drives with low power consumption for their factory HD models.

The pricey 2.5" drives made their A1200HD models expensive. The A1200 was a budget computer with a really good price, but if you wanted a HDD (absolutely necessary already in 1992 for any serious work) it wasn't looking that attractive anymore compared to PCs. IMHO they shoot themselves in the foot with that decision.

[d4rk3lf]

Isn't the 2.5HD drives much better (physical) quality then 3.5, or it is a myth?
I always thought (as a kid), that Commodore chooses 2.5 because of quality, but now I am not so convinced about C= decisions.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

Isn't the 2.5HD drives much better (physical) quality then 3.5, or it is a myth?

Myth.

[coder76]

I have a 3.5" 1.2 GB HDD in my A1200. It fits inside, and it was actually installed in the shop I bought it from, but yeah, it's tight with the space inside. 2.5" HDDs were more expensive, had smaller capacity, and were slower than 3.5" HDD drives at the time when A1200's were still being sold in shops. Same with the accelerator board expansion slot, could have had a little bit more space with the trapdoor.

[grond]

I'm in the "2.5-inch-was-a-huge-mistake" camp. I spent 800DM in 1994 for a 330MB 2.5" harddisk. That was an insane amount of money. The A1200 had more than enough PCB real estate to put a 3.5" IDE socket and power plug on it.

While we are now happy to have PCMCIA on the A600/A1200, that also was a mistake because it was mostly useless at the time. With 3.5" IDE, no PCMCIA, no onboard 68020 (but only CPU-cards) and a scan-doubler it would have been close to perfect.

[chb]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

...that Commodore chooses [...] because of quality...

That definitely never ever happened.
Joking aside, 2.5" drives were more shockproof, because they were made for laptops and had smaller discs; but unless you were dropping your Amiga regularly from the table, I guess that wasn't such an important aspect.

[-Acid-]

Originally Posted by jizmo

If there was no way to get a 3.5" HDD in without breaking the case

You are mistaken, I had a 1gb 3.5" drive in my case properly screwed together for years. They fit.

[rare_j]

3.5 inch hard drives can be different heights. It's nice that you had a nice slim 1gb hard drive but the drive casings used to be taller, and the pcb underneath also took up more space. Back in the day i hooked up a 20mb hard drive using a kit, (specially made ide cable and floppy drive power splitter) and had to cut holes in the case for the ide and power cables because it would not fit. The grille at the back of the A1200 case would not close down over the drive.

[jizmo]

Originally Posted by -Acid-

You are mistaken, I had a 1gb 3.5" drive in my case properly screwed together for years. They fit.

Originally Posted by jizmo

If there was no way to get a 3.5" HDD in without breaking the case [...] But as we all know, there is.

Like I said, there is – but it's a far cry from just opening the case up and popping one in.

I've seen more hacky, bulky, dremelled solutions than I care to count. It's all needless struggle that could've been avoided if the issue was properly addressed by Commodore.

[robinsonb5]

Don't forget that 3.5in drives needed more power than their smaller counterparts, and tended to run hotter. Plenty of people might have got away with using such a drive, but there's a big difference between "will probably be fine" and "solution that we're prepared to support with a warranty".

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by robinsonb5

Don't forget that 3.5in drives needed more power than their smaller counterparts, and tended to run hotter. Plenty of people might have got away with using such a drive, but there's a big difference between "will probably be fine" and "solution that we're prepared to support with a warranty".

Absolutely. The point I'm trying to make though, is that the machine should have been designed for (and shipped with) 3.5" drives in the first place.

It would have reduced the cost of the HD models considerably, and provided better performance as well.

[duga]

Installed a 3.5" HDD in 1996, no modifications to the chassis were needed.

[chb]

Originally Posted by robinsonb5

Don't forget that 3.5in drives needed more power than their smaller counterparts, and tended to run hotter. Plenty of people might have got away with using such a drive, but there's a big difference between "will probably be fine" and "solution that we're prepared to support with a warranty".

That's certainly a valid aspect; also all other integrated-keyboard computers of that time that I'm aware of with internal HDD had 2.5" internal drives (Atari Falcon 030, A600/A1200, Acorn A3020), so they were not the only ones to go that route.

Still, I think Commodore and the other manufacturers made a miscalculation. They probably thought that prices would approach those of standard drives pretty fast, which didn't happen - similar thinking may have lead to the inclusion of the PCMCIA port, that, even if it had worked perfectly, would have given access mainly to laptop extensions that carried a prohibitively high price tag for still some years after release of the A1200. And last but not least, by testing the drives for their factory models they could have ensured that they worked reliably by picking suitable drives. I haven't heard of people having problems with their internal 3.5" drives (and some retailers even included them), but of course that may have been already some years later when drives had improved.

And hindsight is of course always 20/20...