Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!caesar.cs.montana.edu!blake!ramsiri
From: ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: SeaGate 296n information...
Message-ID: <4570@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 89 18:53:34 GMT
References: <891113.14502027.074992@SFA.CP6> <1341@uvm-gen.UUCP> <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> <5664@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: Univ of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 36

In article <5664@umd5.umd.edu> matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) writes:
>In article <4480@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
>>
>[stuff deleted]
>>Perhaps someone else can fill in at this point, as i dropped
>>following the Seagate drives when i ran into the ROM 8 problem
>>last February.
>>
>>-kevin
>>ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
>
>Friend of mine called Seagate about this problem.  According an engineer there,
>there is no upgrade for us poor souls who have 2:1 296Ns.  If anyone can prove
>this wrong, please let me know.  Even though 550K/s isn't MUCH better than
>407K/s, it's the principle that counts..
>
>Mike


There are at least 296N users that have it
running 1:1.  

Vance from BMS,  and someone from the Amiga world.

Apparently, the problems lies not with the Seagate
but with the controller being used.

I had no success with ICD nor Supra with the 296N.

Perhaps ICD and Supra have fixed the problem at this point.

-kevin

ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu