rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/13/91)
In article <28@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >">>not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 >>** [What C= computer runs at 50 Mhz? ] ** > >It's a quite normal policy to let some of upgrade and add-on features up >to the 3rd parties. This device *IS* available, it exists, so it may be >used as a pro argument for the Amiga." > >Yes, but what's the argument? There are 50MHz 68030's AND 68040's for the Mac, >so what's the point? Is there a 50MHz 68040 available for the Amiga? Right now, you probably couldn't get a 50MHz 68040 chip, to save your life. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/15/91)
In article <22369@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.105947.22470@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > >> According to Commodore's 1990 annual report, Commodore spent >>$27.7 million on R&D in 1990. If Commodore spends at the same level >>in 1991, they may break $30 million in R&D spending. Wow, that's >>actually more than 5% of the amount that Apple is spending on R&D! > >Good point. Apple sure is wasting money, no wonder they've had those layoffs >and profits are down. I mean, they're spending 2000% more money, and they >still don't have real multitasking, real SCSI, a modern UNIX, etc. This may be a direct result of Apple's purchase of a Cray. They can sit around and simulate all kinds of wonderful but unmanufacturable machines. A very expensive toy. And they have had the perception that they don't need to fix the current problems because the money was rolling in. Now that they have made their prices a little more realistic, they are being hit in the face by the bottom line. You can only sell so many Max Classics. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/29/91)
In article <rkushner.3263@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >>In article <rkushner.2657@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wri >>> >>>their horror stories with their dealings...I am not alone, and it seems there >>>are quite a few starting to pop up, including another local BBS that has ALOT >>>of downtime because of his GVP HD controller sending his heads out of range o >>>his Seagate hard drive(same problem I had, which started my nightmare with >>>dealing with GVP)... >> >>Huh, there was a long thread here several months before about that >>"stiction" problem with Seagate drives. Are you sure the problems >>are with the controller and not with the drive? >> > >Yep, its the GVP controllers, for some reason, they somehow go flaky and on >296N's they send the heads out of range. They make an very LOUD POP or CRUNCH >and then R/W requester comes up on the next access...If you click Retry it >will run fine until the next crunch.. > >I had a CBM 2091 that no local dealer told me about turning off re-selection >(I would still have it today, probably not this A3000), but other than the >2091 lockups now and then, the two drives functioned properly. I went and >traded in for the GVP Series II with ramcard, and it ran both drives fine >until Christmas or so, then the Seagate started "CRUNCHING", went to >CompUSA(Soft Whorehouse at the time) and they swapped the drive for a new one. >Took it home and within 3 hours it crunched as well...Called GVP and they >suggested sending in the controller, but I can't go down, got too much going >on here to totally loose the system. Made an arrangement to have one mailed >out and then I would mail my old one back, they took 7 days to ship and then >billed me for it after I mailed the defective one back!! Anyways, it fixed the >crunching problem for about 2 months (Until March) and it started crunching >again..Borrowed a newer 2091 and they worked great for 24 hours(it was common >enough to be go down once in a 24 hour period), and then hooked up the GVP and >the sucker crunched again within a half hour...Sold the GVP S II and my A2000 >and haven't had any simular problems yet with the A3000... > >(The guy at CompUSA seems to still think its because SCSI isn't standard >enough to daisychain a Quantum and a Seagate, I think he's stuck in PC land) > >I am not alone on this, gfradl@instem.UUCP has the same problem, along with >someone else who mailed me(I forget)...It works fine with 1 drive, dies with 2 >or more daisychained(with a 296 somewhere in the chain)...Played with >termination on first drive, on second drive, no termination, chaning ID >jumpers, parity jumpers on/off, you name it...Extra special care was taken >with the SCSI cable as well, to make sure it didn't cross any other ribbon >cables, or power cables... It does sound like the GVP is the culprit here. Is the problem only exhibited on Seagate drives? A lot of people running UNIX on PCs have problems mixing certain brands of drives on the same controller. They get the same type of symptoms that you are seeing. The problem appears to be timing or loading. You have to consider that GVP sells Quantum drives with their controllers, and that is probably where they have done their worst-case testing. Personally, I wouldn't buy a Seagate SCSI drive. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/29/91)
In article <1419@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <rkushner.2657@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >> >>their horror stories with their dealings...I am not alone, and it seems there >>are quite a few starting to pop up, including another local BBS that has ALOT >>of downtime because of his GVP HD controller sending his heads out of range on >>his Seagate hard drive(same problem I had, which started my nightmare with >>dealing with GVP)... > >Huh, there was a long thread here several months before about that >"stiction" problem with Seagate drives. Are you sure the problems >are with the controller and not with the drive? At on time, both Seagate and Quantum had "stiction" problems. This was caused by a supplier of lubricants for the hard disk industry. They shipped batches of solvent that was too viscous. The result was, that when you powered down your hard disk, the heads would move to the landing zone and get stuck. When you tried to spin up the drive, it would not be able to retract the heads to track 0. Quantum solved the problem by changing their rom code to increase the power curve on the head controller servo. At power up it would simply yank the heads back harder than usual. I don't know what Seagate used as a fix. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/30/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >At on time, both Seagate and Quantum had "stiction" problems. This was >caused by a supplier of lubricants for the hard disk industry. They shipped >batches of solvent that was too viscous. The result was, that when you >powered down your hard disk, the heads would move to the landing zone and >get stuck. When you tried to spin up the drive, it would not be able to >retract the heads to track 0. Quantum solved the problem by changing their >rom code to increase the power curve on the head controller servo. At power >up it would simply yank the heads back harder than usual. I don't know what >Seagate used as a fix. I can add some information a friend sent to me back in Sept 1989: "I just remembered another thing.. the original ST-1xx drives WITH 3 PLATTERS such as the ST-138 and the ST-157R had a problem which Seagate called "sticktion" (or something like that... pronounced STICK-SHUN)." "I have spent literally hundreds of $$$ on calls to Seagate concerning both the sticking problem and the firmware revisions that we talked about the other day. The problem with stuck drives was condensation. Actually, it wasn't condensation like you see on a fogged up mirror, it was just a very thin (several molecules thick) layer of water. What happens is that a drive which is running circulates air through the filters. The drive circulates ambient air with a certain relative humidity. This air is warmed by the drive, but eventually the RH goes back up to what the ambient air has due to circulation. Then, when the drive is shut off, the air stops circulating and cools off. The RH goes up and water molecules condense on the platters. The heads and platters are so smooth and shiny that they just stick. Of course, they have already solved the problem and the current drives don't suffer from it." "Seagate engineers solved that problem with a different head stepper driver chip and different startup code which wiggles the heads to break them free upon startup." Whether or not the lubricant used had an effect on this problem, I don't know. Some say the lubricant story was made up. - <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (07/01/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >At on time, both Seagate and Quantum had "stiction" problems. >[....] don't know what >Seagate used as a fix. Apparently nothing. I bought my 277N a few years ago (before the 296) and the stiction problem was well known by then. I assumed that Seagate had corrected the problem. Bzzzzt. I lose. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (07/01/91)
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > "Seagate engineers solved that problem with a different head stepper > driver chip and different startup code which wiggles the heads to break > them free upon startup." Can anything be done about older drives? -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu