Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!bradley!ninja
From: ninja@bradley.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3.5 Drive in 6300
Message-ID: <9300014@bradley>
Date: Sat, 12-Sep-87 19:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: bradley.9300014
Posted: Sat Sep 12 19:28:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 04:00:03 EDT
References: <2516@alvin.mcnc.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:alvin.mcnc.UUCP:2516:bradley:9300014:000:1256
Nf-From: bradley.UUCP!ninja    Sep 12 18:28:00 1987


On our campus, we have 650 - 900 IBM PC's/clones with 5 1/4" drives.
A lot of new IBM customers were saying, "Yeah, but if I buy this new
IBM, I have to run the new disks, and conversion's a pain."

So we borrowed a 3 1/2" drive from a local Radio Shack to see if we
could get it to work on our equipment.  We got their 720K drive to work on
a 6300, Zenith 159, and an IBM PC.  We used DOS 3.2, and each machine
required a different cabling scheme.  Also, it should be noted that the
Radio Shack drive in particular was expecting power on the the drive
jumper; should keep it in mind if you are adding other people's drives
to a RS machine.  

However, afterward this question appeared in my mind :  I've heard that
the 5 1/4" expansion drives for the model 25/30/50/60/80 run VERY SLOWLY
if you use the 5 1/4" intermitently with the 3 1/2" drive.  This would
seem to make sense because it would have to configure the controller
for the 5 1/4" drive each time it went to read or write to it, then
reconfigure it back for the 3 1/2" drive when it's done with the
5 1/4" drive.

So have any of the 6300 3 1/2" drive users seen performance problems
with the added drive ?

Frank McGee, Microcomputer Support Specialist
Bradley University, Peoria, Ill.  61625