gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) (02/21/90)
Sorry for the delay in making the following report. I finally got around to calling the people in Somerville who, it was reported, have the WD2010 in stock. When I asked about a discount, they guy asked what sort of numbers I was talking about. I said 40-50 (trying to sound optimistic :-), and he said $15.00 (which is the retail price). I asked what sort of quantity we'd need for a discount, and he said their markup wasn't all that great, so he really couldn't offer one. I did ask about the model number, though, after getting a message from Gil, who said the following in a recent message: > One thing -- when you order the WD2010s, make sure that they're the > WD2010B type (I think that's right .. one or both of us should check with > Lenny, who probably does remember). We checked with Lenny, who confirmed that it was the "B" type that are best. Here's what Gil says: > ...These seem to be the more reliable of the bunch -- the reason I say > more reliable is because I've heard of many people using WD2010 (anything) > chips, and some work and some don't. I haven't heard of a WD2010B > failure yet...although that doesn't mean there hasn't been one. Well, anyway, I asked the guy, and he said they have *only* WD2010A's. :-( So, if you're interested, here's the info again: Solid State Sales P.O. Box 74 Somerville, MA 02143 Phone: 1-800-343-5230 Phone: 1-617-547-7053 The total cost, including postage and handling is: $15.00 chip .95 tax (I assume this is for Mass residents only) 1.60 postage & handling $17.55 total He said they'd exchange any chips which turn out to be bad. Gary -- Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP (Mark Dapoz) (02/21/90)
In article <628@gnosys.svle.ma.us> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes: >Well, anyway, I asked the guy, and he said they have *only* WD2010A's. :-( I ordered two of these from them about 6 months ago and I've had absolutely no problems with either of them. Both of them were A's and have been installed in two 3B1's which get a lot of disk activity (full news feeds!). I wonder if it's the WD2010A's or the 3B1's which have the problem. There's been more than one case in the past where certain revisions of motherboards have different timing characteristics than newer ones. -- Mark Dapoz (mdapoz@hybrid.UUCP) ...uunet!mnetor!hybrid!mdapoz I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy. -- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.
dold@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) (02/21/90)
in article <628@gnosys.svle.ma.us>, gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) says: > have the WD2010 in stock. When I asked about a discount, they guy I have a Convergent MiniFrame, sort of a close cousin to the 3B1. I replaced the WD1010 with a 2010 and saw no change in disk speed. Remembering the discussion about 'restore only' steprate change, I started perusing .h files when I found #define STEPMSK 7 in gdisk.h. It would appear that I can't set the step rate to 14. Might this be why some level of 3B1 UNIX won't take advantage of the new chip, or is the MiniFrame different in this respect? -- --- Clarence A Dold - dold@tsmiti.Convergent.COM (408) 435-5293 ...pyramid!ctnews!tsmiti!dold FAX (408) 435-3105 P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685 MS#10-007
paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) (02/26/90)
In article <1990Feb20.234235.26713@hybrid.UUCP> (Mark Dapoz) writes:
/ I ordered two of these from them about 6 months ago and I've had
/ absolutely no problems with either of them. Both of them were A's
/ and have been installed in two 3B1's which get a lot of disk
/ activity (full news feeds!). I wonder if it's the WD2010A's or
/ the 3B1's which have the problem. There's been more than one case
/ in the past where certain revisions of motherboards have different
/ timing characteristics than newer ones.
My experience is that some 7300's (at least mine) DO NOT work with a
WD2010(x) (where x = A || B). I have an early 7300, and a later 3B1.
I bought two WD2010B's from Thad's group purchase, and the 7300 works
fine with the WD1010A in it, but can't find a hard disk when a WD2010B
is installed. I can take that same WD2010B and put it in the 3B1 and
have no problems. This is the case for BOTH of my WD2010B's.
There is evidently some sort of timing or logic problem, and I wish I
knew what it was so I could fix it. I bought a Maxtor XT2190 and
installed the PAL5.1 mods in hopes of using > 1024 cyls and 15 heads.
Since the WD2010B won't work in the machine, I ended up with 15 heads
and only 1024 cylinders.
In summary, I do not think it is true that you can plug replace a
WD1010 with a WD2010 in all Unix-PCs.
--
Paul Homchick :UUCP {rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. :Internet cgh!paul@manta.pha.pa.us
259 Radnor-Chester Rd, Suite 140 :MCI PHOMCHICK
Radnor, PA 19087-5299 :GEnie HOMCHICKmark@gizzmo.UUCP (mark hilliard) (02/27/90)
In article <1087@cgh.UUCP> paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) writes: >In article <1990Feb20.234235.26713@hybrid.UUCP> (Mark Dapoz) writes: >In summary, I do not think it is true that you can plug replace a >WD1010 with a WD2010 in all Unix-PCs. This is true, the early .5meg boards in the 7300 and some of the 1 meg 7300's have external support to the chip which renders the upgrade non-functional. Mark Hilliard N2HHR
scj@casux4.uucp (Steve Johnson) (02/27/90)
In article <1087@cgh.UUCP> paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) writes: >... > >My experience is that some 7300's (at least mine) DO NOT work with a >WD2010(x) (where x = A || B). I have an early 7300, and a later 3B1. >I bought two WD2010B's from Thad's group purchase, and the 7300 works >fine with the WD1010A in it, but can't find a hard disk when a WD2010B >is installed. I can take that same WD2010B and put it in the 3B1 and >have no problems. This is the case for BOTH of my WD2010B's. > >There is evidently some sort of timing or logic problem, and I wish I >knew what it was so I could fix it. I bought a Maxtor XT2190 and >installed the PAL5.1 mods in hopes of using > 1024 cyls and 15 heads. >Since the WD2010B won't work in the machine, I ended up with 15 heads >and only 1024 cylinders. > >In summary, I do not think it is true that you can plug replace a >WD1010 with a WD2010 in all Unix-PCs. >-- I'll be trying more tests to verify, but I tend to agree with Paul's observations, above. I have both WD2010 A's and B's. On some machines the A's work and not B's, and the converse (the errors are always seek related with LOTS of recal's). I have *yet* to find a 7300 or 3B1 where *both* revisions will work---it's always one or the other revision. Are there any hardware guru's out there who can help find the definitive answer? My hardware expertise is severely limited when it comes to logic design and analysis. By the way, Thad Floryan's group buy was the source for my WD2010B and the the firm previously posted (Somerville, Mass. --- arghh! what's their name?) was the source for the WD2010A. (Sorry, my memory is failing, but the Somerville, MA firm was very prompt and seemed like nice people!) Anyway, Thad, the WD2010B you sent me is NOT fried, and is working fine in a 3B1 (mine's a 7300). Steven C. Johnson, Bell Communications Research, Inc. {scj@casux4.custom.bellcore.com (128.96.153.2)} or {bellcore!navaho!scj}
rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) (03/01/90)
In article <113@gizzmo.UUCP> mark@gizzmo.UUCP (mark hilliard) writes: >In article <1087@cgh.UUCP> paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) writes: >>In article <1990Feb20.234235.26713@hybrid.UUCP> (Mark Dapoz) writes: >>In summary, I do not think it is true that you can plug replace a >>WD1010 with a WD2010 in all Unix-PCs. >This is true, the early .5meg boards in the 7300 and some of the 1 meg >7300's have external support to the chip which renders the upgrade >non-functional. > OK, next obvious question: Can the external support be eliminated or altered so that the 2010[AB] can work with the board?? -Rob
jcm@mtune.ATT.COM (John McMillan) (03/01/90)
In article <3247@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) writes: >In article <113@gizzmo.UUCP> mark@gizzmo.UUCP (mark hilliard) writes: >>In article <1087@cgh.UUCP> paul@cgh.UUCP (Paul Homchick) writes: >>>In article <1990Feb20.234235.26713@hybrid.UUCP> (Mark Dapoz) writes: >>>In summary, I do not think it is true that you can plug replace a >>>WD1010 with a WD2010 in all Unix-PCs. ====== ====== >>This is true, the early .5meg boards in the 7300 and some of the 1 meg >>7300's have external support to the chip which renders the upgrade >>non-functional. > > OK, next obvious question: > > Can the external support be eliminated or altered so that the > 2010[AB] can work with the board?? While we are discussing "obvious questions", I need a little advice: I thought the principle difference between the WD1010 & WD2010 was that the former has a ten-bit (0-1023) counter, while the latter has an eleven-bit (0-2047) counter. Note: the counter is purely INTERNAL -- there are NO external differences here -- and all the counter does is wiggle its cute li'l strobe once for each step it increments or decrements -- ie., wants to move. The WD1010 and WD2010 are generally pin-compatible. I'd dearly like to be informed of the external support to the chip which "renders the upgrade non-functional". There were a number of board changes over time... but I didn't see ANY changes in support of the WD1010 in the four schematics I SKIMMED, so I was probably too cursory. While I'm awaiting Rob's disclosure, and while I'm awaiting WD's call to explain the nuances differentiating the 'A and 'B chips, I'll remind folks that previously all manner of reports have been made regarding exchanges of WD1020 & WD2010 chips. Quite possibly most of these stories contain truth, but few ARE The Truth. john mcmillan -- att!mtune!jcm -- muttering for SELF, not THEM