Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!van-bc!root
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Hard Drive Controllers
Message-ID: <2396@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 89 13:40:13 GMT
Sender: root@van-bc.UUCP
Lines: 76

In <2030178@hpcilzb.HP.COM>, daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) writes:
>>In <2030176@hpcilzb.HP.COM>, daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) writes:
>>> Along these same lines -- what do folks recommend when it comes to
>>> the drives themselves? I am droolong (slobber) over the prospect
>>> of getting a 2000 soon. I would like to know the advantages or
>>> disadvantages of the 3.5" vs 5.25" hard drives. 
>>> (ie 40 MB vs 65MB) I'm leaning toward the 5.25" so far.
>
>>> The access times are said to be the same, about 40 ms. (I think)
>
>>Huh? 3.5" drives come in many sizes and access times, as do 5 1/4" drives. My
>>smallest 3.5" is 10 megs, same as my smallest 5 1/4" drive. My largest 3.5"
>>drive is 96 megs, which is 20 megs more than my largest 5 1/4" inch drive.
>
>Ummm yeah -- so!?!?

'3.5" vs. 5.25" ... (ie. 40 vs. 65 Mb)'

Sounded a lot like you knew of only two drives, one 40, one 65 megs, one 3.5",
one 5.25".

>>Likewise for access times... they are all over the map, in both 3.5 and 5 1/4".
>
>Ummm yeah -- so!?!?

Same goes for access times.

>I'm sorry Larry - maybe it's because the kid kept me up last night or 
>something, but I just don't seem catch the point your trying to make here.

Just letting you know that there are a lot of choices, in both capacity and in
access times.

>There are two drives I am considering, one a 3.5" 40 MEG and the other
>a 5.25" 65 MEG.
>The price of the two drives I am considering is also the same.
>They both go inside the 2000 box.

Ahh... there's the crux of the matter. You were wondering about two specific
models of drive. OK. No problem. Hope my attempt at helping didn't upset you
too much.

>I haven't heard of anyone who uses a 5 1/4" HD with their AMIGA. I was
>just fishing for a possible reason why. It seems to me that if I can
>get 25 MEG more room for the same price then why not go for the
>5 1/4" drive. This is particularly true if I end up filling the thing up
>like I do at work. (450 MEGs and still could use more.)

I see no reason to avoid the 5.25" drive. At various times, I have had 5.25,
3.5, and both together internally, and full height 5.25 units externally. I
have seen people who preferred to leave the 5.25" bay clear in case they ever
want to put a 5.25" floppy and Bridge card into the machine, and some who
wanted the 3.5" bay free for a 3.5" floppy. Personally, I would never have a
need for a 5.25" floppy drive, and don't mind hacking a 3.5 floppy into the
5.25" bay or adding it externally if I need the extra floppy, so I just put
drives wherever they fit, with the preference being internally.

I think your overriding priority should be to get as large a capacity drive as
you can, within your budget constraints. They do tend to fill up.

>Sorry if I wasn't clear with my question.

Again, no problem. Just trying to be helpful.

>Dave S.

-larry

--
Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up on
                  the roof and gets stuck.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca or uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips  |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322                                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+