cknight@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (King Claudius) (04/17/89)
It's probably been asked a thousand times before but:
I could get a hardcard for my XT bridgeboard, and I was wondering
is there any difference between using this and a normal Amiga-side
hard drive? How does WB1.3 handle it?
thanks.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
cknight ---King Claudius--- cknight@polyslo.calpoly.edu
Die, Hamlet, DIE! There are three types of people,
me, you, and everyone else.bncox@sactoh0.UUCP (Brian N. Cox) (04/19/89)
In article <10359>, cknight@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (King Claudius) writes: > It's probably been asked a thousand times before but: > > I could get a hardcard for my XT bridgeboard, and I was wondering > is there any difference between using this and a normal Amiga-side > hard drive? How does WB1.3 handle it? ST506 IBM controllers and drives are cheaper than AMIGA drives (ALOT CHEAPER). But for the lower price you have a slightly slower drive access time (ST506 isn't as fast as SCSI.) On top of that you will have a great reduction in speed because the data must travel over the bus that connects the AMIGA to the Bridgeboard. You still have the convinience of not needing to flip around floppy disks all the time, but the speed of a hard drive is lost in the transfer from IBM to AMIGA or visa-versa. It depends on what you use your AMIGA for. If you run alot of applications on your IBM that would make good use of a HD, then buy a drive to fit into your IBM side. If you use the AMIGA applications that could benefit from a HD then install a drive on your AMIGA side. In the former case the speed is present when running IBM software, but AMIGA software is run at floppy drive speed. In the latter situations the reverse is true. The AMIGA runs at full speed, while the IBM access time is slowed. If you use both equally then mabye you need 2 hard drives. Brian Cox
bty00298@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (04/22/89)
Date: 18 April 1989 22:00 edt
From: Brian N. Cox <bncox at SACTOH0.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Bridgeboard Hardcard
<text deleted>
that would make good use of a HD, then buy a drive to fit into
your IBM side. If you use the AMIGA applications that could
benefit from a HD then install a drive on your AMIGA side. In the
former case the speed is present when running IBM software, but
AMIGA software is run at floppy drive speed. In the latter
>Not true, the speed is *much* faster than an Amiga floppy. As a matter
>of fact, there isn't that much discernable speed difference between the
>IBM side using the hard drive and the Amiga side. The big disadvantage
>right now is the inability to use the FFS. This should be corrected
>when the next version of JANUS software is released.
I must disagree on this point. I don't know what kind of hard drive gives
him this kind of performance, but from my experience with a MiniScribe 30
on the IBM side with a 20MB Amiga partition the transfer rate is a minimal
improvement over a floppy. I have even FFS formatted the partition using
the trick outlined in the Amiga Transactor, but its performance is still
a joke compared to my Hardframe with 40MB Quantum.
I recommend getting the Amiga harddrive if you can't afford one for both sides.
The new Janus software is much more friendly when using an IBM partition on an
Amiga HD and the access rates are pretty great. In fact with the Hardframe and
Quantum, it's about the same/faster than the Miniscribe. And with the new
Janus software, the Bridgeboard can boot off the Amiga HD.
===========================================================================
Brian Yamanaka
University of Illinois
bty00298@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu