🚀 go-pugleaf

I've been reading some articles here recently about how the Commodore
2090A disk controller has "brain damage."  What does the new 2091
have that makes it superior, other than being a 2090++?

Would somebody out there who has an informed opinion please tell me
what kind of brain damage?

I have had my 2090A for about 6 months now and I have not noticed any
such thing.  I'm using it to run a Quantum 80S drive and have been
getting very reliable, and reasonably fast ( ~100Kb/s with FFS **)
performance from it.  I don't consider this to be brain damaged in
the least.

What gives?  And why do some of you not like it?  I've had no problems.


**  Results using a disk performace utility of my own design.  This is
    average performance measured writing a 128K byte file in 4K byte
    chunks on a moderately fragmented disk.  In other words, real world
    performance.  Of course, If I write in 8K chunks on a completely
    fresh filesystem I get more like 240K bytes/sec.  The larger the
    chunk size, the better the performance.  But really, now, who has
    uucp software that reads and writes 64K bytes at a time? :-)

--
Kevin L. McBride, President    // Amiga:      | Brewmeister, VP of tasting,
McBride Software              // The computer | and Bottle Washer,
Consulting Group, Inc.    \\ // for the       | McBeer Home Brewery
uunet!wang!gozer!klm       \x/ creative mind  | Nashua, NH