Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) (11/14/89)
I know that this has been thrashed royally here before, but could
someone send me the particulars of the problems with the SeaGate 296n
hard drive mechanism? As I understand it, there is a problem with
REVISION 8, or is it 7? 1:1 interweave chokes, etc...
Private e-mail would be fine since this has been discussed rather
heavily in the net before. Many thanks!!!
Larry Rymal: |East Texas Atari 68NNNers| <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>pegram@uvm-gen.UUCP (pegram r) (11/17/89)
From article <891113.14502027.074992@SFA.CP6>, by Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252): > > I know that this has been thrashed royally here before, but could > someone send me the particulars of the problems with the SeaGate 296n > hard drive mechanism? As I understand it, there is a problem with > REVISION 8, or is it 7? 1:1 interweave chokes, etc... Stuff deleted... > Larry Rymal: |East Texas Atari 68NNNers| <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET> I'm also thinking of getting a 296N, perhaps a synopsis of 296N problems could be reposted? On the other hand, it might be better to post a list of problem drives/manufacturers and sources of info on the problems, and emailing me the specifics on 296Ns. Thanks, Bob Pegram (pegram@griffin.uvm-gen.uvm.edu , if that helps)
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (11/17/89)
In article <1341@uvm-gen.UUCP> pegram@uvm-gen.UUCP (pegram r) writes: >From article <891113.14502027.074992@SFA.CP6>, > by Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252): >> >> I know that this has been thrashed royally here before, but could >> someone send me the particulars of the problems with the SeaGate 296n >> REVISION 8, or is it 7? 1:1 interweave chokes, etc... > Stuff deleted... >> Larry Rymal: |East Texas Atari 68NNNers| <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET> > >I'm also thinking of getting a 296N, perhaps a synopsis of 296N >problems could be reposted? On the other hand, it might be ROM 8 Does NOT format 1:1 successfully... sure it will run.. if a 57K/sec DTR is satisfactory for you ! The older ROM 7 drives (hard to find these days) will format 1:1 and give you about 550 K/sec. Seagate recognized the problem with ROM 8's and, I believe, successfully rectified it. I vaguely recall reading about a ROM 12? Perhaps someone else can fill in at this point, as i dropped following the Seagate drives when i ran into the ROM 8 problem last February. -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
jeh@elmgate.UUCP (Ed Hanway) (11/21/89)
In article <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes: >ROM 8 Does NOT format 1:1 successfully... sure it will run.. if >a 57K/sec DTR is satisfactory for you ! > >The older ROM 7 drives (hard to find these days) will format 1:1 >and give you about 550 K/sec. Just to confuse the issue further, I have a ROM 8 ST296N in my system (Amiga 2000,HardFrame) formatted 1:1, and it works reasonably well (>600K/second transfer rate). Perhaps the controller makes a difference. Ed Hanway jeh@elmgate.UUCP
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (11/21/89)
>In article <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes: >>ROM 8 Does NOT format 1:1 successfully... sure it will run.. if >>a 57K/sec DTR is satisfactory for you ! >> >>The older ROM 7 drives (hard to find these days) will format 1:1 >>and give you about 550 K/sec. > >Just to confuse the issue further, I have a ROM 8 ST296N in my system >(Amiga 2000,HardFrame) formatted 1:1, and it works reasonably well >(>600K/second transfer rate). Perhaps the controller makes a difference. > >Ed Hanway >jeh@elmgate.UUCP I think Vance from BMS said he has a 296N working perfectly fine with the BMS controller. When i originally bought the 296N from my dealer, we tried both ICD and Supra... neither worked.. we somewhat concluded that it probably was in the ROM. Then we contacted Seagate, and they told us they had problems getting it to run 1:1 on a 386 box. But it was really hard to get a straight answer. A week or so later, my dealer talked with Seagate again and was told there was a bug in the ROM 8 and that unfortunately the only solution was to do a revision. Hence ROM 12 ? Obviously, the 296N CAN work 1:1 with the right controller. Learn something new everyday! -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (11/22/89)
In article <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes: > [stuff deleted] >Perhaps someone else can fill in at this point, as i dropped >following the Seagate drives when i ran into the ROM 8 problem >last February. > >-kevin >ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu Friend of mine called Seagate about this problem. According an engineer there, there is no upgrade for us poor souls who have 2:1 296Ns. If anyone can prove this wrong, please let me know. Even though 550K/s isn't MUCH better than 407K/s, it's the principle that counts.. Mike
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (11/22/89)
In article <5664@umd5.umd.edu> matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) writes: >In article <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes: >> >[stuff deleted] >>Perhaps someone else can fill in at this point, as i dropped >>following the Seagate drives when i ran into the ROM 8 problem >>last February. >> >>-kevin >>ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu > >Friend of mine called Seagate about this problem. According an engineer there, >there is no upgrade for us poor souls who have 2:1 296Ns. If anyone can prove >this wrong, please let me know. Even though 550K/s isn't MUCH better than >407K/s, it's the principle that counts.. > >Mike There are at least 296N users that have it running 1:1. Vance from BMS, and someone from the Amiga world. Apparently, the problems lies not with the Seagate but with the controller being used. I had no success with ICD nor Supra with the 296N. Perhaps ICD and Supra have fixed the problem at this point. -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu