Autrey-Hunley@SRI-KL.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/01/83)
From: Gene Autrey-Hunley <Autrey-Hunley@SRI-KL.ARPA> In a September 1983 "Popular Computing" article entitled "How Invincible is Big Blue?", the author A. Richard Immel writes on page 52: "Early users of the IBM 10-megabyte hard disk call it a "dog," and many corporate buyers are sticking with outside vendors." Does anyone know what's behind this claim? Any experience, pro or con, with the IBM hard disk? --Gene
GILLMANN%USC-ISIB@sri-unix.UUCP (08/02/83)
From: Dick Gillmann <GILLMANN@USC-ISIB> I've been pleased with the hard disc on my XT. It's fast and relatively quiet. It has worked perfectly from the beginning. I've never had a bad sector. Of course, bigger and cheaper discs are available from outside vendors. -------
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (08/07/83)
Has anybody done any comparison shopping on winnies for the IBM-PC? Ie. comparison of specs such as transfer rate and seek times? DMA vs. busy wait? What are the specs for the XT? For the new 10 meg Shugart that is going for $995 US from a firm out of Chicago? (reply by mail, of course) -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
johnl@ima.UUCP (08/10/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-379900:ima:17300006:000:663 ima!johnl Aug 9 11:21:00 1983 When the disk on the XT works, it's quiet and reliable, if a bit slow. The problem is that a distressing number are DOA, either because of bad disks or, in some cases, power supplies that can handle one disk but not two which is a problem if you have an XT with an expansion unit. IBM is perfectly decent about fixing them, but since the demand for XTs is so huge it can take a while to get spares. I also notice that there are at least three different disks showing up in XTs, the MiniScribe, the CDC, and a Seagate. (I've seen all three.) Perhaps with more manufacturers in competition, they can be more sticky about quality control. John Levine, ima!johnl