[comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware] Ultrastor 12F vs. Adaptec 2322D--which is better?

smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (02/17/91)

I will soon be buying a 486-25 from Gateway and I've been
offered the Ultrastor 12F ESDI 32k caching controller from
Gateway for $175.  I was going to get the Adaptec 2322D ESDI
64k caching controller for $163 through mail order, so I am
wondering if the Ultrastor would be a better buy; it would be
more *convenient* (warranty, tech support) to pay the extra 
$12 for the Ultrastor *if* it is as reliable as the Adaptec.

I already have all the specs on the Adaptec, but since I don't
know much about the Ultrastor I thought I would ask the net.
Any good/bad experiences?  Formating problems?  Compatibility?

P.S. I will be using it with a Micropolis 1654-7 ESDI (160 MEG)
     drive.

Stephen M. Smith  \  +  /
<smsmith@hpuxa.   \+++++/    " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@
 ircc.ohio-state. \  +  /      {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-)  "
 edu>             \  +  / 
 BTW, WYSInaWYG   \  +  /                              --witty.saying.ARC

martin@saturn.uucp (Martin J. Schedlbauer) (02/20/91)

In article <1991Feb17.041725.13430@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes:
>I will soon be buying a 486-25 from Gateway and I've been
>offered the Ultrastor 12F ESDI 32k caching controller from
>Gateway for $175.  I was going to get the Adaptec 2322D ESDI
>64k caching controller for $163 through mail order, so I am
>wondering if the Ultrastor would be a better buy; it would be
>more *convenient* (warranty, tech support) to pay the extra 
>$12 for the Ultrastor *if* it is as reliable as the Adaptec.
>

The UltraStore 12F is at least if not more reliable than the Adaptec. However,
the new Western Digital WD...V/SE2 is faster. If you'll ever run Unix, get
the UltraStore 12F - it's supported by all 386 Unixes and the Adaptec is not.

	...Martin

P.S. I tried 4 different ESDI controllers: WD...V/SE2, UltraStore, Adaptec,
and CompuAdd HardCache - the only one that worked reliably under ESIX was
the UltraStore 12F - however all performed well under DOS 4.01 using large
(> 32MB) partitions.


-- 
==============================================================================
Martin J. Schedlbauer	| martin@saturn.UUCP	| ...!ulowell!saturn!martin
8 Gilman Road		| mschedlb@ulowell.edu	| ...!uunet!wang!saturn!martin
Billerica, MA 01862 USA	| CIS: 76675, 3364	| /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (02/24/91)

In article <1991Feb19.183953.1563@saturn.uucp> martin@saturn.UUCP (Martin J. Schedlbauer) writes:

| P.S. I tried 4 different ESDI controllers: WD...V/SE2, UltraStore, Adaptec,
| and CompuAdd HardCache - the only one that worked reliably under ESIX was
| the UltraStore 12F - however all performed well under DOS 4.01 using large
| (> 32MB) partitions.

  Did you have (a) a small disk and (b) and old CompuAdd? Since the last
rev of the CompuAdd ROMS we have ben having zero problems with them,
even in very fast machines. The Ultrastor wanted to LL format all drive
we tried over about 500MB as 54 sectors per track, and wouldn't let us
change that parameter. It seems to have read it, wrong, off the drive.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me