CompuServe Thread

#A2500 questions

61 messages in this thread
#373From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 11, 1990 12:33 AM
I recently provided services for a company in exchange for a new Amiga. They wanted to surprise me and sent me the computer they had purchased directly from Comodore. The setup is as follows: Amiga 2500 68020 accelerator card 3 megs RAM – 1 meg chip and 2 megs 32 bit RAM on the accelerator 40 Meg hard drive flicker fixer Magnavox VGA monitor Not being too knowledgeable about the extra hardware, having upgraded from an A500, I read up on it and now have some questions. 1) How does the 68020 compare to the 68030? The 68020 also has the 68881 floating point math chip and the 68551 MMU. 2) The 68020 will allow another 2 megs of 32 bit RAM, for a total of 4. If I ever wanted to go beyond that, would that mean I would have to buy a 4 Meg memory board and add to that? Where would this board go and what would be the major difference between that RAM and the RAM connected to the accelerator? 3) I looked inside the computer and believe there is a A2090A Hard disk controller connected to a Rodime 40 Meg hard drive. The hard drive is connected to the 2nd 3 1/2" drive bay. I thought the A2090A was replaced by the A2091. Since the computer is brand new from Commodore, shouldn't they have sent the A2091? Also, I wanted a second internal floppy that the company is now getting me. If I get the A2091, is the hard drive attached to the card. If I don't get the A2091 can I mount the hard drive in a 5 1/4" chassis and put it in the 5 1/4" drive bay, thereby freeing up the second 3 1/2" bay for my second floppy drive? I also thought I would be getting a Quantum hard disk drive. Has anyone heard of Rodime? 4) The company is sending me a Magnavox VGA monitor for use with the flicker fixer. I don't have the model number, but are the cables from these monitors usually compatible with the flicker fixer port. If not, where can I purchase the correct cable or does one have to be made? A turnkey system like this is great, but the documentation for it is rather sparse. Any help answering all these questions would be appreciated. Thank you. Dom Fontana
#385From: BILL LEACHSep 11, 1990 7:39 AM
Dom; I believe that the 030 is a bit faster than the 020 with many instructions. The cache is larger so loops that will fit in the cache will run much faster. The 882 is also quicker than the 881. The 551 doesn't matter since AmigaDOS is not using the MMU anyway. For most uses, I doubt that you would notice much different between what you have and an 030 clocked at the same speed. Yes, if you wanted to go beyond the memory on the 020 board you would have to buy and additional memory board. I suspect that you would have to buy an 8 meg board since I have not heard of a 4 meg version. Also, your numbers do not seem right….. I would expect to see the 020 board support 2 or 4 meg for a system total of 3 or 5 (without additional memory boards). The additional board would definately be much slower than the memory on the 32 bit bus. I am surprised that you got a 2090A (of course I am surprised that you got an 020 accellerator too). The HD is NOT attached to the card on the 2091 though there is room. You can mount the Rodime in the 5 1/4 bay using an adapter. I used a Rodime drive for several years. Shipped it across the country and it stopped working. Suspected rough handling but could not prove anything. Rodime has been in the drive business for many years and makes a good drive. No, monitor cables and pin outs are not standard. The Flicker Fixer port connection does match one of the IBM Video Port "standards" but you need to be careful. My Flicker Fixer manual states that the cable supplied with the monitor should NOT be used for all of the monitor listed except the NEC Multisync II. Redmond Cable can supply the correct cables (don't have their address but ask since many others do have it). 73, bill
#477From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 12, 1990 1:19 AM
Bill, Thanks for the answers. I may have been unclear, but I have 3 Megs of RAM, consisting of 1 Meg of chip RAM and 2 Megs of 32-bit RAM on the accelerator. Where do I get the adapter to mount the 3 1/2" hard drive into the 5 1/4" bay? The company said they're going to get me a Packard-Bell monitor now, instead of the Magnavox, because Micro-Way said it has the correct cable. Do you know anything about this monitor? I'm trying to get all the individual documentation for the hardware that was included in the setup. Commodore only sent the standard manuals and made no mention of the flicker-Fixer at all. Thanks for your help. Dom Fontana
#482From: Jeff SchweigerSep 12, 1990 3:12 AM
Dom – You might want to check with Dave Minnich in the CBMService forum (go cbmser). He's part of CBM Customer Support and should be able to answer your questions. I don't recall what Commodore included in some of their package deals, so am not sure if third party hardware, such as the MicroWay Flicker Fixer was included. Your system might have been put together by an independent systems integrator. In any event, Dave should be able to give you as much assistance as anyone at Commodore can. Jeff Schweiger
#489From: BILL LEACHSep 12, 1990 8:34 AM
Dom; Try a computer dealer on the mounting adapter. I am pretty sure that the Rodime will only use a "normal" 3.5 to 5.25 adapter. That is an adapter that would adapt a regular floppy would work. A few manufactures' adapters rely on non-standard mounting holes present on their own drive but most do not. If you get one that uses the normal 3.5 mounting locations then all should be ok. From a software standpoint, you don't need anything on the flicker fixer. It is virtually transparent as far as the amy is concerned. Once it is hooked up it will work except that there is a phasing adjustment that may need to be made (small hole in the mounting bracket). The phasing may need to be adjusted if you see a small amount of jitter in the image. If you don't have a flicker fixer manual and MicroWay or CBM won't send you one, let me know as I should have a spare around here somewhere. Some add on video hardware will occassionally have problems with the flicker fixer. If you encounter such problems, give MicroWay a call as they are VERY good about helping with problems. Welcome to the world of Amiga. It may take you awhile to get used to multitasking but once you do, nothing else will please you! Also, on this forum…."the only stupid question is the one that you don't ask!" You will find that most folks here will go to a lot of trouble to answer any questions that you might have. Many of us sat in front of that original A1000 with almost nothing in the way of documentation and prayed for someone to talk to that could share experiences. 73, bill
#666From: Christopher LapriseSep 13, 1990 11:25 PM
Many 3.5" drives come with a drive-bay adapter (as my Seagate 1096N did). They can also be obtained from most dealers that sell hard drives.
#699From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 14, 1990 2:14 AM
Chris, Thanks for the information. Dom Fontana
#390From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 11, 1990 9:04 AM
Dom, I cannot answer ALL those questions, but I can answer some. I have a 2500/030 and a Flickerfixer. Before that, I had a 2000HD with the 2090A and a 40M Rodime drive. It autobooted, worked fine, and I had no complaints about it. I'm surprised that a new machine would have either the /020 card OR the 2090A, though. I got the 2091 with my 2500 machine in January, and it came with a Quantum 40M drive. The VGA monitor is fine, but less versatile than a multisync. I have a multisync myself, and my cable came from Redmond Cable in Redmond, WA. They seem to know already just what to do for cables for the Amiga. I just had to tell them the brand and model of my monitor and they did the cable. If you put another 2M of memory on the accelerator card, it will be 32-bit memory, and will work faster than the 16-bit memory you would put on a memory card, or on the 2091 controller card if you have one of those. Betty
#478From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 12, 1990 1:36 AM
Betty, Thanks for the reply. It seems everyone is surprised that I got the 2090A instead of the 2091. I thought they discontinued the 2090A and I don't know why they would give it to me in a brand new system. When you got your 2500/30, did you have a choice of hard disk controller cards or did the 2091 just automatically come with it? How much memory can you install on the 2091? If it takes another 4 Megs then together with the accelerator I would never need another memory board; just the chips, right? Thank you, Dom Fontana
#395From: peter selverstoneSep 11, 1990 1:24 PM
This sounds like one of the systems that Commodore put together for dealers as a desktop publishing system. If they didn't include a flickerfixer manual, call Microway tech support at (508) 746-7341 and ask for one. You will need a flickerFixer to VGA cable which can be provided by Redmond Cable, (206) 882-2009 (west coast) or (615) 478-5760 (east coast). Peter.
#479From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 12, 1990 1:42 AM
Peter, Thanks for the information. You mentioned that it sounds like a system Commodore put together for dealers as a DTP system. How long ago was this? Also, would you have any idea why I would get this system? In other words, did Commodore send an old system? Thanks, Dom Fontana
#446From: SyndesisSep 11, 1990 9:39 PM
I want to know what you did to deserve all that hardware! 🙂
#469From: Nelson IngersollSep 11, 1990 11:34 PM
Dom – Sounds like you got a nice setup. While I cannot judge whether or not it is a fair exchange for your services, I believe strongly that you did not get a "new" Amiga. CBM stopped making and selling the 2500/20 in 1989 or very early this year. They have been selling machines with the Quantum HD and A2091 controller since before January 1990… I bought an A2000HD last March after several months of waiting. – Nelson …
#481From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 12, 1990 1:51 AM
Nelson, Thank you very much for the information. I suspected Commodore had pulled a fast one. I agree that the system that they sent is excellent, and I'm grateful to have it, but they sent an outmoded system. It would be like buying software from a company and they sent you an older version. If the 2500/20 was replaced by the 2500/30 in 1989, then Commodore had no business selling a discontinued model. Thanks for your help. Dom Fontana
#665From: Christopher LapriseSep 13, 1990 11:25 PM
Dominick, I was not aware that Commodore charged the same for the 2500/20 as they do for the 2500/30. And is there is a real difference?
#698From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 14, 1990 2:13 AM
Chris, I believe there is about a $800 difference in price between the 2500/20 and 2500/30. Dom Fontana
#784From: Thomas HoladaySep 15, 1990 8:11 AM
However, older technology is not necessarily less desirable. The A2090a controller supports both IBM-type and SCSI-type hard drives, and the former have been cheaper than the latter. THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
#844From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 15, 1990 11:57 PM
Thomas, I know that, but isn't a SCSI drive better than an IBM-type? The 2090A uses the ST-506 Rodime drive. A number of people have told me that a SCSI drive is much better than an ST-506 drive. Also, I heard the 2090A crashed often especially when used with overscan. I was also told the 2091 was much faster than the 2090A. Finally, the 2091 has room for 2 Megs of Ram, the hard drive can be mounted on the card itself, and it lists for the same price as the 2090A. Do you have any knowledge of the differences I mentioned above? If they are true, why would anyone want a 2090A instead of a 2091, since they both cost the same? Thanks, Dom Fontana
#878From: BILL LEACHSep 16, 1990 12:55 PM
Dom; The reasons are getting weaker but the ST-506 interface type drives were very much cheaper than the SCSIs at one time (they still are a little cheaper but not worth the difference). Yes, there were overscan problems with the 2090/2090A controllers. The last of the drivers cleared up most of the problems as far as I know (I am still using a 2090 in an Amiga 2000 w/GVP 030 and do not have any problems with overscan). Of course the 030 may have some effect on that too.
#949From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 17, 1990 12:38 AM
Bill, I guess I could live with the 2090A, but if you were buying your hard drive controller now, would you buy the 2090A or 2091? I guess the company thought I wouldn't mind since it is my first hard drive. But, I do mind. Just because someone gets their first car, doesn't mean it has to be a Yugo. Dom Fontana
#1036From: Mike SchillerSep 17, 1990 10:35 PM
Dom: Another thought might be GVP's upgrade offers, they have 2 right now, 1 is a tradin/up of disk controllers (you send your controller, and some money, and get their newest controller), and many consider their stuff better than CBM's, and the other idea is to upgrade your 2620 card with their 3001 board, as it has an ST-506 style controller built-in, that works somewhat faster than CBM's, and has less problems in general. -Mike Schiller In sunny Fort Lauderdale
#1076From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 18, 1990 12:49 AM
Mike, I might consider those options if CBM doesn't allow me to exchange the controller. Thanks, Dom Fontana
#1123From: Brian BartlettSep 18, 1990 7:41 PM
Mike, unless something has changed, I thought the controller was an IDE which is why your pretty much stuck with buying their drives. Brian J. Bartlett
#1138From: Mike SchillerSep 18, 1990 11:23 PM
Brian: Perhaps I'm now showing my ignorance of PC style HD's. Is there a difference between an "ST-506" style drive, and an "AT" style drive? I thought they were the same. -Mike Schiller In sunny Fort Lauderdale
#1140From: David ArtSep 18, 1990 11:48 PM
Mike, The ST-506 drives were used in the IBM-AT with the standard controller. A new style of drives has emerged, called IDE (for Integrated Drive Electronics), which, for some reason unknown to me, is also called an 'AT' drive. The latter type is the one used with the GVP-3001. Hope this helps. 8) David
#1174From: Vic WagnerSep 19, 1990 12:47 PM
Mike, They are NOT the same. "AT" drives are NOT ST-506. Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
#1348From: Brian BartlettSep 21, 1990 9:11 PM
I see the others answered the question, so I'll just make an addendum. ST-506 and IDE/AT, no comparison! <grin>
#1126From: Ethan SolomitaSep 18, 1990 9:01 PM
Dom, the 2090A is not a BAD card, but the 2091 is faster. I don't think you will find it slow, though. Do you have the system? If not, wait till you get it and decide for yourself. — Ethan
#1154From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 19, 1990 3:03 AM
I don't want to use the system until I decide. I won't be able to exchange anything if the system is used. That was the whole point of soliciting opinions of users who have already tried one or both controllers, so I could decide without using the system myself. Also, when I do use the system, I'll have no basis of comparison with the 2091. I'm sure I'll be delighted with the 2090A as compared to floppies, but I might have been more delighted with the 2091. This is what I'm trying to determine before I use the system. Thanks, Dom Fontana
#1261From: Ethan SolomitaSep 20, 1990 5:36 PM
My God! You have a system sitting in front of you and you've resisted the temptation to plug it in! Sheesh!
#1300From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 20, 1990 11:23 PM
Ethan, Re not plugging in the system, I have a lot of self control. Actually, I'm still using my A500, so it's not that bad. I have someone who is buying my 500 and I'm waiting for my CBM 1950 monitor to arrive. I'm also waiting for a determination as to whether I can exchange the controller and drive. I don't want to set up the system and then tear it down again. I'm trying to orchestrate everything so that I can simultaneously sell the 500, set up the 2500, and leave it set up. Dom Fontana
#1380From: John GagerSep 22, 1990 1:18 AM
Unless there was a slowdown between the 2090 and 2090A, I consistently get better diskperf and diskspeed results on the 2090 as compared to the 2091. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong in setting up the 2091, but I'm using the standard 2091 setup disk. So I'm not convinced that the 2091 is faster.
#1505From: Ethan SolomitaSep 23, 1990 1:26 PM
I have been told of wierd results with the diskperf program and don't totally trust it. The 2091 should be a faster card, but of course the drive matters as well. — Ethan
#1570From: John GagerSep 23, 1990 9:14 PM
Well I tried 2 different diskperf type programs "Diskperf 2" by Khalid and MKsofts "Diskspeed 3.1". Both programs indicated that the 2091 was slower than the 2090, using the same drive a Quantum 105s. I've also been getting a larger number of read/write errors since I switched to the 2091. I've got an external 20meg SCSI drive hooked up to the 2091 along with the Quantum, and I read in some earlier threads that the 2091 is having problems with 2 or more SCSI devices hooked up. Sounds like Commodore needs to fix a bunch of problems in the 2091.
#1930From: Gary DunlapSep 27, 1990 11:08 PM
John: I have 2 drives on my 2091 and have had no problems at all with errors. This arrangment has been in use for almost a year. >> Gary <<
#2016From: John GagerSep 28, 1990 8:17 PM
I'm happy that you're not having any problems with your 2091 Gary. But a few of us are having problems and mine didn't show up until I switched from the 2090 to the 2091, so I think I have a valid reason to suspect the controller. Maybe we can blame it on Gremlins 8^)
#1554From: [F] ArnoSep 23, 1990 8:08 PM
Ick! Oooh. You must have something screwy there. I used to have a 2090A and it made me want to puke TINAR, the 2091 is *FAR* superior. Tom Gandey, Gold Disk
#880From: Thomas HoladaySep 16, 1990 1:35 PM
The main reason I'd like a 2090A instead of a 2091 is that ST-506 drives are cheaper than SCSI drives, and the 2090A handles both. I personally prefer cheap, slow drives and a huge RAM cache (using Blitzdisk2) to more expensive, fast drives and a small RAM cache. Infinite resources would clearly mean fast drives and lots of RAM, but within the limits, I'd rather have $200 more RAM than $200 faster drive. THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
#950From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 17, 1990 12:44 AM
Thomas, I'm not certain I understand you. Why does the 2090A have a huge Ram cache and the 2091 a small Ram cache? How do you figure the 2090A has $200 more Ram and the 2091 has a $200 faster drive? Also, isn't a SCSI drive preferable to a ST-506 drive? Dom Fontana
#965From: Thomas HoladaySep 17, 1990 9:50 AM
I mean, if I have a certain amount of money to spend, I can get better system performance (for _my_ applications) by economizing on the hard drive (in terms of speed) and spending the savings on additional RAM. Thus, the 2090A, which allows me to use cheaper ST-506 drives _as_well_as_ SCSI drives, for that reason allows me to implement my slow-drive big-RAM strategy.
#1083From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 18, 1990 1:12 AM
Thomas, In other words, buy cheaper drives, save money, and get more ram. What are your applications anyway? Also, are you happy with the performance of the 2090A? Dom Fontana
#1207From: Thomas HoladaySep 19, 1990 10:01 PM
My applications are programming, communications, drawing, and music. I'm delighted with the performance of the 2090A. THol() { cout << "Sir, I exist." ;}
#1222From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 20, 1990 12:43 AM
Thomas, I shouldn't have a problem with Midi software or with large sound samples with the 2090A, according to you experience? I forgot. Do you have the Rodime drive also? How many megs? Dom Fontana
#1342From: Thomas HoladaySep 21, 1990 6:22 PM
I don't know whether I have a Rodime or not.; I bought the A2500 about six weeks after its release. I'd be extremely skeptical of any scheme to handle large sound samples other than reading them all into FAST RAM to start and then swapping them into CHIP RAM, so a few ms on the hard drive won't make any difference.
#1373From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 21, 1990 11:44 PM
Thomas, Good advice re sound samples. I'll be keeping my 2090A and Rodime and I'm sure it will be fine. Dom Fontana
#955From: Clint H. WoeltjenSep 17, 1990 3:00 AM
Thol: The price difference is mainly a thing of the past. Looking at the DC Drives ad in Computer Shopper, here are a few comparisons: ST-506 SCSI 20 meg ST-125 $229 ST-125N $279 30 meg ST-138 $279 ST-138N $319 80 meg ST-4096 $559 ST-296N $439 ST-506 drives no longer have a $200 advantage. Clint <VRLI>
#883From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 16, 1990 1:40 PM
Dom, Among other things – the 2090A can handle two ST drives AND a full set of SCSI drives. The 2091 does not handle the ST drives at all – and the ST drives are not nearly so expensive. This is important to some people. Actually, I have the 2090A-Rodime drive on a 2000HD that my husband uses, and the 2091-Quantum40 on the 2500 that I use. I've had really good service from both of them. I had really thought that the 2090A had been discontinued, though. It occurs to me that the company might have purchased one of the DTP special offer units in order to get you the flicker fixer at a price they could afford. I don't recall seeing the FF advertised with any other system from Commodore, and last spring, they were advertising a special for DTP that included just the system you are describing. Perhaps the FF was the deciding factor. Betty
#952From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 17, 1990 1:08 AM
Betty, You're right on the money! The outside of the box says, "Amiga 2500-DTP". Since you've used both controllers, could you please verify what I've heard. (I do apologize for asking so many questions). Does the 2090A crash frequently and have problems with overscan? Since the 2090A doesn't boot from the FFS is it demonstrably slower than the 2091? In normal usage how much slower is the 2090A than the 2091? What are the advantages of a SCSI drive over an ST-506 drive? Thanks again for your help. Dom Fontana
#1025From: Betty Clay/SYSOPSep 17, 1990 9:40 PM
Dom, I had a very small – about 1M – boot sector on the Rodime drive, and then the rest of the boot process goes onto the FFS part of the drive. The drive is actually 43M instead of 40, so you don't really miss a lot there. I did not notice it being slow. Also, I didn't notice problems with overscan, but then – I rarely use overscan. I thought there was a program that cured that problem, though, and that it had been incorporated into the later models. Wish I knew more about this, but I don't. As for crashes – I had more with the 2500/2091 than with the 2000HD/2090A for quite a long while. A bit of work, and a different Agnus chip changed that, and now I'd say both machines behave in about the same way for me. SCSI drives are usually faster than ST drives, and the SCSI is a rather loose standard of drives that should work on any machine. Problem is, the standard is not always implemented the same way. Surely some others will chime in and give you more information here. Betty
#1075From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 18, 1990 12:47 AM
Betty, As usual, your help has been invaluable. I should know what's happening very soon and then I can just enjoy the system. Thanks, Dom Fontana
#974From: Vic WagnerSep 17, 1990 11:46 AM
Dom, No one ever reported an overscan problem with an ST-506 drive on the 2090, only SCSI drives. Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
#988From: Steve AhlstromSep 17, 1990 5:04 PM
Vic, I don't know why and will not question it, but, I've got a 2090 with 2 ST-506 HDs and a SCSI HD connected to it. I also run overscanned to the max. I've never noticed any perceptable (ible, able? Who knows?) slowdown. -sja
#1062From: Don Curtis/SYSOPSep 17, 1990 11:46 PM
Steve, I've noticed a slowdown of the SCSI drives only when running overscanned and interlaced modes. No slowdown on the ST-506 drives. Any other video mode there's no slowdown at all. Don
#1063From: Steve AhlstromSep 17, 1990 11:53 PM
Don, As I said, I've noticed no slowdown — my default configuration is 710×476. I would assume that qualifies as "overscanned and interlaced".
#1064From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 17, 1990 11:56 PM
Vic, So you recommend keeping the 2090A? Dom Fontana
#1168From: Vic WagnerSep 19, 1990 12:11 PM
Dom, If you're only gonna have ST-506 drives on it, I don't see why you would want to spend the extra money. Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
#1553From: [F] ArnoSep 23, 1990 8:06 PM
If I may make some suggestions based on my experiences with Hard Drive controllers… Hardframe – Hands down, the fastest ICD Advantage – Economical, fast, and no DMA problems A2091 – Excellent controller, especially if you don't have expanded ram already. Tom Gandey, Gold Disk
#1587From: Dominick J. FontanaSep 24, 1990 12:16 AM
Tom, I appreciate your reply, but I'm not quite certain if you were following the whole thread. I agreed to accept a new Amiga from a client for services rendered in lieu of cash. They got me an A2500 directly from CBM, since they are an Amiga developer and can get a big discount. The system was the discontinued A2500 DTP package with 2620, 3 Megs, 40 Meg hard drive, Flicker Fixer, and 1950 monitor. Great system, but it comes with the A2090A controller instead of the A2091. The purpose of the thread was to ascertain if the A2091 was that much better than the A2090A, to warrant my trying to exchange the controllers through CBM, which would have been a major undertaking. The general consensus was to keep the system as is, which I am doing. So although I appreciate your recommendations, I am not in a position to consider any non-CBM controllers. Thanks anyway. Dom Fontana
#1886From: [F] ArnoSep 27, 1990 8:42 PM
Then may I say…. 2091, 2091, 2091, TINAR, 2091, 2091. I have an A3000 (32-bit 2091) and I am very pleased performance wise. Tom Gandey, Gold Disk
#2190From: Ted StathamSep 30, 1990 2:30 PM
The big difference between the A2090(a) and the A2091 is their SCSI handlling. I went through this problem when I upgraded my A2500/020's HD to an 81MB Seagate ST-1096N SCSI. The older A2500's (the 68020 versions) all came with the A2090(a) controller. When doing SCSI handling in interlaced video modes, there was an incredible amount of DMA overhead introduced. It caused the video chip and the HD controller to compete for DMA time, and would basically lock up the HD. It could take several minutes to load in an interlaced image due to the conflict. The only way around it was to switch over to a non-interlaced screen, and the contention would disappear. I eventually gave up on the A2090(a), after talking to Commodore shops, and finding that they would NOT do a trade-up on it. I first tried a Kronos controller, which got rid of the DMA problem, but introduced another problem: I would be downloading, the comm software would write out to the HD, and due to it's handling, would introduce transmission errors into the dload. Finally, I got rid of the Kronos (it was fast, but the modem problems I couldn't handle) and bought a Xetec Mini-Fastcard. This is a dedicated SCSI controller, and has some advanced DMA handling routines which eliminated all contention problems! And to boot, it was about $200 cheaper than either the Kronos or Commodore's controller. Any questions? Feel free to ask… Ted
#2348From: Lloyd W. Dull IIIOct 1, 1990 10:48 PM
Ted, Too bad you didn't ask about that Kronos "problem" here. There would have been a very simple solution – one that was mentioned in the Kronos documentation. Just by changing "Disable_IRQ" to "NoDisable_IRQ" in the "DEVSetup" file for the drives. There would then be no contention with the data coming over the serial port – and therefore no problems with telecommunications programs. I tried the Xetec Fastcard before the Kronos, and there *was* NO COMPARISION. I've been trying the TrumpCard Pro, and with the same drive it *STILL* isn't as fast. Oh, well. If only the company that is *supposed* to be supporting the Kronos would ADVERTISE them! Lloyd