Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!gumby!bowden
From: bowden@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Michael L. Bowden)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Don't buy from HDI
Summary: a better value than first stated
Keywords: 4096 vs 296N
Message-ID: <905@gumby.cc.wmich.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 89 13:05:45 GMT
References: <754@dekalb.UUCP> <11040@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <902@gumby.cc.wmich.edu> <1456@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: bowden@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Michael L. Bowden)
Organization: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
Lines: 22

In article <1456@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <902@gumby.cc.wmich.edu>, bowden@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Michael L. Bowden) writes:
>
>|... I had purchased the 4096 I wouldn't be getting more than about 230KB/sec.

> ... I can't comment on most of what you said, but you comment about the
>transfer rate of the 4096 is not correct. With a track buffered 1:1
>controller the theoretical max for MFM is 510kb/s, with RLL 780kb/s. I...

That's true Bill, but you assume that my controller is capable of 1:1,
which it isn't.  So that would be an additional expense, thus lowering
the value (for me at least).  In addition, the 296N is about 82 megs
formatted, the 4096 is 80 megs unformatted, (which someone on this group
said comes out to around 75 megs formatted) so I'm getting an extra 7 megs
or so and still paying less.  In order of necessity, capacity comes first,
speed second, though speed is certainly very nice.

-- 
Michael L. Bowden               Internet:  bowden@gumby.cc.wmich.edu
Western Michigan University                bowden@gw.wmich.edu
Academic Computer Center        Voice:     (616) 387-5448
Kalamazoo, MI  49008