Choice between 2400 and 2300

[Dan K]

On 12/7/02 Paul Nelson <artworks at victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>At 10:44 AM -0500 12/7/02, Larry Friedman wrote:
>>So I've heard from several people that the 2300c is slower than the
>>280c, anyone know why this is? Being almost the same machine (the 2300
>>has the internal IDE drive which I always thought was faster) with the
>>faster processor, I'd have thought the 2300c was the faster Duo.
>
>	AFAIK, IDE is slower than SCSI, not faster, and the 2300 is slow
>because it has no L2 cache as well.
>Paul

Yeah, shame about the lack of L2 on the 2300, it coulda' been a 
contenda'!!

The IDE bus in the 2300 is probably faster than its scsi bus, and for 
sure any native 2.5" scsi drive will absolutely be slower than any modern 
2.5" ATA drive. Bottom line is that modern ATA drives will always be 
_much_ faster on a 2300's IDE bus than any internal (and external?) scsi 
drive on any nubus-based PB.

I'll have to do some more testing as my original tests on a 2300 used a 
2GB ATA drive, attached to the IDE bus directly, and to the scsi bus 
using an Apple/ADTX adapter plate. Results were pretty dismal, with 
transfer speeds maxing out on the ATA bus/drive at under 1MB/s and under 
500K/s using the ADTX plate on the scsi bus. Nowadays I've got much 
faster/larger ATA drives on hand, as well as a much faster Century 
IDE-SCSI adapter plate, both of which should give a much better picture 
of the capabilities of the buses, rather than the drives.

I'll mention the results here when (if?) I get around to it.

Dan K