🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1720@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> c08_d036@jhunix.UUCP (Dom Alvear) writes:
>
>
>I just purchased a Seagate ST296N, but haven't received it yet.  I
>remember reading articles previously about problems with the Rom 8
>chip set over the Rom 7. 
>
>Domingo B. Alvear (Dom)
>


I can be positive that most netters who followed my
"Seagate Swet" would do best to hit "n" at this point.

I became quite interested in the Seagate ST296N for two reasons:

	1) 80+ megs
	2) "Fast" 28ms and 1:1 interleave.

Mind you, i had researched several drives over a period of several
months... reached the conclusion that the 296N was very good for the 
money.  

Got it home with Supra host.  Worked like a wonder!  The joys of
a hard drive were mine.  In comparison to the floppy, it was night
and day... at least for "smaller" sized files.  I was disturbed
by the fact that it took nearly 30 seconds to pull up NOTATOR.

Got to thinking.  Was about the same time that the ICD ratehd.prg
hit the nets along with a sequence of hard drive performance articles.

I ran the program on my drive.  A whopping 57k/s transfer rate! and
a 23-25ms seek.  THe seek was looking good. But other netters were
getting 300 -675 k/s transfer rates with a sundry of drives.
To make a long story short (and i know it's too late ) ... i 
had the newer ROM 8's. Older 296N's had ROM 7's.  WHile Seagate
had advertized their drives to go 1:1, it was obvious that the drive
was running about 10% of its suggested speed.  My dealer at the
time had heard something about ROM 8's not being as fast as ROM7's.

More transpiration && perspiration.  The denoument revealed that 
Seagate themselves failed an attempt to format their 296N 1:1
and run it on a 386.  Further research led Seagate back to the
drawing boards. Seagate has indicated that they will be revising the
firmware, but that there would be no easy upgrade (read "No upgrade.").

However, the drive works perfectly fine formatted 2:1,
though the transfer rate is noticeably slower -> 407 k/s...
than it would be were the 1:1 format to succeed. 

BTW: Other netters with the 296N ROM 8's confirmed my ratehd.prg
results.... but are happy with 407k/s.  Anyone who has achieved
acceptable results with ROM 8's 1:1, please reveal yourself.
I would like to think i was a fool for a month and a half... 
(ie. perhaps the problem was elsewhere in the drive).
 
I ended up with a Quantum 80S, because neither Seagate nor my dealer
could guarantee me an exchange for a ROM7 296N. 

My Quantum does 675 k/s and is perfectly quiet.  

-kevin
bissiri@blake.acs.washington.edu