Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!noao!arizona!cjeffery
From: cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga competitiveness
Message-ID: <423@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 90 07:02:52 GMT
References: <1091@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 22

From an article by U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo):
>       CJ> (Clinton Jeffery) wildly claims that (Amigas innate beauty aside):
>       CJ> an Amiga's hard disk, even with FFS, is *ridiculously* slow
>       CJ> compared to the _identical_ hard disk running DOS or UNIX/386, etc.
> Clint, could you give the specs behind this claim please?
> What was the controller on the DOS or UNIX system?
> What was the controller on the Amiga system?
> [Lou goes on to point out that lots of other variables are involved]

Thanks Lou, my observations are for obsolete machines, so they can be taken
lightly: I was referring to a fairly early A2000 with a 2090 controller, vs.
a 12MHz 286 AT, typical WD-clone 1:1 MFM controller.  Variables my sweeping
generalization ignored include: bus speed (AT bus is 8MHz), CPU speed,
HARD DISK INTERLEAVE, OS version, etc.  What interleave does a 2090 use by
default, and is it changeable?

Anyhow an A3000 vs. a 486 and a Zorro-III bus vs. an EISA bus
comparison will have to be made by someone far richer than I :-).
-- 
| Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science
| cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery
--