Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:2080 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10407
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hao!ames!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir1
From: ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 6300 graphics and EGA cards
Keywords: 6300, EGA, graphics, equivalents
Message-ID: <3578@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 14 Jan 88 23:43:06 GMT
References: <1037@bakerst.UUCP> <801@ur-tut.UUCP> <938@neoucom.UUCP>
Reply-To: ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.edu.UUCP ()
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 24

I am running an ATT6300 which for the purpose of this question is
the same as an IBM XT. I was running a Seagate 225 20M hard disk
which gave me a Norton Utility Index of 1.1. I have now switched to a 40M
Seagate 251 with a WD WX1 controller, partioned into a small C,
and a 20M D and E drive. (Partioning done with Speedstore.) The
Norton Index on the 251 is .5, and stopwatch timings of program
loading indicate that the new drive is half as fast as the old one. I didn't
do the low level format and Seagate doesn't seem helpful (although
they claim the 251 should be as fast as the 225). 

So, can any one help me out. I would happy if I got the 251 to be as
fast as the 225, although happier if it were faster. Does anyone
know the optimal interleave for the 251 with the WD WX1 and an XT.

Alternatively is there a better half height drive for the money
about $500-600).

Thanks in advance

Neal Beck
Dept. of Pol. Sci

beck@ucsd (Bitnet)
beck@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Arpa)