Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!well!espen
From: espen@well.UUCP (Peter Espen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Quantum ROM fix report
Summary: Complete mis-information
Keywords: quantum
Message-ID: <14887@well.UUCP>
Date: 10 Dec 89 00:16:28 GMT
References: <14618@well.UUCP> <9323@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <37039@apple.Apple.COM>
Lines: 60

In article <37039@apple.Apple.COM>, hardie@Apple.COM (Robert H. Tankersley) writes:
> 
> I am not authorized to make any statements for Apple.  But I work for them
> and might be able to shed some light.
> 
> 
> I also understand that tests have been performed that show that the new PROMs
> do not result in a performance change nor do they affect durability.
> 
> This is what I have heard from Apple.  But I have not been involved in any
> testing or development of the fix.  I'm just a simple field person.
> 
	WOW!! You mean Apple even lies to it's own employees!!!

	The new ROM certainly DOES degrade performance of th Quantum drive!

 I've had the new ROM installed on my Quantum 80 meg for 3 months now. The drive is still doing exercise routines at random times.
 
The info in the following graph was generated by "SCSI Evaluator 1.01" and
clearly shows the amount of performance degradation that takes place when
my 80 Meg Quantum with the new ROMS is doing it's "exercise routines".
 
The normal data was taken when the drive was acting normally, and the degraded 
data was generated while the new ROM routines were taking place. Remember that
these exercise routines occur at random times, and can sometimes go for a 
long time. NICE "FIX", HUH!!!


	View the following graph using Monaco 9 point......




20000      |#######
           |        #                        # = NORMAL PERFORMANCE
18000      |          #                      * = DEGRADED PERFORMANCE
           |          #
16000      |          #                 VERTICAL SCALE = KBITS/SEC
           |          #
14000      |           #                HORIZ. SCALE = TRANSFER SIZE (K)
           |           #
12000      |            #
           |            #
10000      |             #
           |              #
 8000      |               #
           |               #
 6000      |                ##################################
           |
 4000      |
           |    
 2000      |   ***********************************************
           |***
           |____________________________________________________
           10   15   20   25   30   35   40   45   50   55   60

	This should make things pretty clear!!

	Peter Espen
	espen@well