Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!bncox
From: bncox@sactoh0.UUCP (Brian N. Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Bridgeboard Hardcard
Summary: IBM Hardcards
Keywords: bridgeboard, hardcard, hard drive
Message-ID: <880@sactoh0.UUCP>
Date: 19 Apr 89 02:00:23 GMT
References: <10359@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA
Lines: 27

In article <10359>, cknight@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (King Claudius) writes:
> It's probably been asked a thousand times before but:
> 
> 	I could get a hardcard for my XT bridgeboard, and I was wondering
> 	is there any difference between using this and a normal Amiga-side
> 	hard drive?  How does WB1.3 handle it?

ST506 IBM controllers and drives are cheaper than AMIGA drives
(ALOT CHEAPER).  But for the lower price you have a slightly slower
drive access time (ST506 isn't as fast as SCSI.)  On top of that
you will have a great reduction in speed because the data must
travel over the bus that connects the AMIGA to the Bridgeboard.

You still have the convinience of not needing to flip around floppy
disks all the time, but the speed of a hard drive is lost in the
transfer from IBM to AMIGA or visa-versa.  It depends on what you
use your AMIGA for.  If you run alot of applications on your IBM
that would make good use of a HD, then buy a drive to fit into
your IBM side.  If you use the AMIGA applications that could
benefit from a HD then install a drive on your AMIGA side.  In the
former case the speed is present when running IBM software, but
AMIGA software is run at floppy drive speed.  In the latter
situations the reverse is true.  The AMIGA runs at full speed,
while the IBM access time is slowed.  If you use both equally then
mabye you need 2 hard drives.

Brian Cox