bscott@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Ben Scott) (04/13/90)
I have a question for CATS hardware folks or anyone else in the know: Why are hard disk interfaces on the 500 or 1000 slower than they are on the 2000? Case in point: Commodore A-590 is supposed to be electronically identical in every important respect to the 2091, yet the 2091 can achieve much faster transfer rates. This seems to be a universal trait, but I can find no logic or rationale behind it. Signed, a puzzled A-500 owner (and maybe soon-to-be 3000 owner!): . <<<<Infinite K>>>> -- _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | Someday, I'm going to make up a clever .sig file like everyone else has... | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (04/14/90)
In article <3541@pikes.Colorado.EDU> bscott@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Ben Scott) writes: > I have a question for CATS hardware folks or anyone else in the know: Why > are hard disk interfaces on the 500 or 1000 slower than they are on the 2000? > Case in point: Commodore A-590 is supposed to be electronically identical > in every important respect to the 2091, yet the 2091 can achieve much faster > transfer rates. This seems to be a universal trait, but I can find no logic > or rationale behind it. It should be pretty much the same as long as you have some fast memory in the A590. I'd expect you probably do in the A2000... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)