Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!allred From: allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: SCSI drive/controller Keywords: SCSI drive controlloer Message-ID: <17147@ut-emx.UUCP> Date: 15 Aug 89 22:27:25 GMT References: <1451@hydra.gatech.EDU> <823@gumby.cc.wmich.edu> Organization: UT-Austin, Dept. of Chem. Engr Lines: 27 > The stories that I hear are that some of the drives will do 900K/sec, > others will only do about 450K/sec. The people that are getting 900K/sec > have version 7 ROMs in their drives, the 450K/sec group have version 8 > ROMs. What happened was that (supposedly) Seagate purposely slowed down > the drive so that it would work with the Macintosh, thus crippling it for > everyone else in the world. It means that the best you can do is a 2:1 The speed result you've seen match those given by my 386sx at both 16 and 8MHz. You're the first person I've seen who has suggested the problem is in the drive and not the ST0x SCSI adaptor. My drive is brand new -- manufactured in May; so I'm pretty sure it would have the most recent BIOS. I think I'll call Seagate and try and verify this. If you get a v7 rom and can prove this is true, I bet we can drum up a lot of letters and phone calls to Seagate suggesting they make the better BIOS available to us speed hungry users. I talked to Shamrock (see Computer Shopper) on the phone before buying mine, and they claimed that their 16MHz was able to attain 900 KBPS using the ST02 and ST296N. I wonder if they have a costom BIOS. I ended up buying my drive from Treasure Chest and saving $70, so I don't have one from Shamrock to know if their drive is standard issue or not. -- Kevin Allred allred@emx.cc.utexas.edu allred@ut-emx.UUCP