Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!n65j
From: n65j@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: XT h/disk controller in 286AT
Message-ID: <1991May7.211525.4573@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 01:15:25 GMT
References: <647@smosjc.UUCP> <12995@monu1.cc.monash.oz>
Distribution: comp
Organization: CIT, Cornell University
Lines: 26

In article <12995@monu1.cc.monash.oz>,
int299s@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen McNamara) writes: 
> 
>    Having spent my last pennies on upgrading my XT to a 286 I found that
> the AT hard disk controller I hsd bought didn't work. (The perils of public
> auctions) I did however find that the XT controller would work if the
> BIOS setup was set to drive type NONE. Since I have been told that an XT
> controller cannot work in an AT machine I would like to know if any damage
> could be caused by running the machine like this. The BIOS is AWARD v3.03
> (I think), the controller is an unamed Taiwanese card and the drive is
> an ST225.
>    Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> --
>        The Silver Brumby of            int299s@monu3.cc.monash.edu.au
>         the Silicon Plains             brumby@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au
> 
>     The grass is always greener on the other side of the network link.

IBM's AT design allowed for XT controllers to work like this, and you obviously
have gotten it to work, so whomever told you that it "cannot work" was being 
rather conservative.  Why do you fear _damage_?  Perhaps you should only
be fearing boredom from the slower-than-optimum performance.

-- Steve Pacenka, Cornell U.