scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) (05/02/90)
In article <1990Apr30.185657.27512@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: > If I decide to go for a larger drive, all they have is ESDI. I'm > not comfortable at all with the thought of ESDI. It seems to be a > very small market, that is being over shadowed with SCSI, and I don't > feel like having a controller that isn't going to be supported by > everything I want to run. I also really don't want a SCSI drive, > I know ESDI and SCSI are faster than RLL, but I'd much prefer > to sacrifice some speed for compatability sake. On the contrary, everything I've seen lately indicates that ESDI is much more popular than SCSI for IBM-AT bus machines. Most of the ESDI controllers are compatible at the register level with the traditional MFM and RLL controllers, so there is no problem with compatibility. (And they really are MUCH faster, and at least as reliable as MFM which is far more reliable than RLL.) ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!scjones SDRC scjones@SDRC.UU.NET 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 "You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well MINE are even WORSE!" -Calvin
rwh@me.utoronto.ca (Russell Herman) (05/03/90)
In article <1375@sdrc.UUCP> scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >On the contrary, everything I've seen lately indicates that ESDI >is much more popular than SCSI for IBM-AT bus machines. Another ESDI vs. SCSI issue which I recently learned painfully is that [at least some] SCSI controllers have a hunk of BIOS living above 640K. This will eat into what can be loaded high with QEMM or 386^MAX. Russ Herman INTERNET: rwh@me.utoronto.ca UUCP: ..uunet!utai!me!rwh