Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!gargoyle!chinet!saj
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: SCSI controler...
Summary: Different host adapters have different strengths
Message-ID: <1990Mar16.224434.10948@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 16 Mar 90 22:44:34 GMT
References: <3790@plains.UUCP>
Reply-To: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 24

In article <3790@plains.UUCP> blee@plains.UUCP (Blaine Lee CME4FUN! ) writes:
>
>I am puzzled from the inconsistancy I see in SCSI controlers.  I seem
>to hear of many problems with the ICD controler, and that the BMS controler
>handles more and better commands (group 1).  With that in mind, I look
>in most ads and postings and see that ICD predominates...  What am I missing?
>They seem even to be listed for the same price, which confuses me even more.
>
>On a side note:  Will someone give me the list of GOOD drives or rather
>ones to keep away from (I am thinking about the N series of Seagate).
>
I'll say what I've gathered.  The only SCSI controller for any personal
computer that handles the Seagate 296N at 1:1 interleave is the BMS-200.
That's the most finicky drive around, as far as timing of commands and
responses is concerned.  There are lots of nice things about the BMS-200.

ICD makes a line of products incorporating their own host adapter, and which
work best with the controller software that ICD writes.  Their host adapter
allows the longest cable run between it and the hard drive.

So the BMS card is a better reduction to practice of the 'ideal' SCSI concept,
while the ICD card is the cornerstone of a system of available accessories.
You get what you need more, I guess.
                                Steve J.