Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!wang!gozer!klm
From: klm@gozer.UUCP (Kevin [My Amiga has e-mail] McBride)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: 2090A brain damaged?
Summary: What "brain damage"?
Keywords: damage, I don't see no steenking damage!
Message-ID: <0313.AA0313@gozer>
Date: 2 Dec 89 18:52:49 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: McBride Software Consulting Group, Inc.
Lines: 29

I've been reading some articles here recently about how the Commodore
2090A disk controller has "brain damage."  What does the new 2091
have that makes it superior, other than being a 2090++?

Would somebody out there who has an informed opinion please tell me
what kind of brain damage?

I have had my 2090A for about 6 months now and I have not noticed any
such thing.  I'm using it to run a Quantum 80S drive and have been
getting very reliable, and reasonably fast ( ~100Kb/s with FFS **)
performance from it.  I don't consider this to be brain damaged in
the least.

What gives?  And why do some of you not like it?  I've had no problems.


**  Results using a disk performace utility of my own design.  This is
    average performance measured writing a 128K byte file in 4K byte
    chunks on a moderately fragmented disk.  In other words, real world
    performance.  Of course, If I write in 8K chunks on a completely
    fresh filesystem I get more like 240K bytes/sec.  The larger the
    chunk size, the better the performance.  But really, now, who has
    uucp software that reads and writes 64K bytes at a time? :-)

--
Kevin L. McBride, President    // Amiga:      | Brewmeister, VP of tasting,
McBride Software              // The computer | and Bottle Washer,
Consulting Group, Inc.    \\ // for the       | McBeer Home Brewery
uunet!wang!gozer!klm       \x/ creative mind  | Nashua, NH