Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!gatech!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: InCider
Message-ID: <14892@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 17 Jan 91 23:43:42 GMT
References: <9101171308.AA21116@apple.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 20

In article <9101171308.AA21116@apple.com> lwv27@CAS.BITNET writes:
>There was NOTHING negative said about RamFast,and little bad said about
>the other two.  Yet , they were all described as being equal.  It is
>hard to understand equal when the RamFast is so much faster!

Like most magazines that depend heavily on advertising revenues, they
are hesitant to pan a product in a product review, unless it is so
clearly bad that even the manufacturer would have to agree with the
negative evaluation.

In fact I find that the choice between Apple's High-Speed SCSI card
and the RamFast SCSI card depends very much on factors that may very
well differ among potential users of such a product.  Apple's card
is (at present, anyway) better supported by GS/OS and better supports
a wide range of SCSI peripherals; it also has a nice I/O chaining mode
that can be exploited for certain applications.  On the other hand,
the RamFast card's caching gives much better disk throughput when
using 8-bit applications.  Different users may find different factors
to be decisive.  (I chose Apple's card; it's certainly fast enough for
my purposes.)