I think I said some of the part numbers were badly managed in this set of
products. It's quite confusing when you're ordering. I definitely ordered
the board with the 1010 chip on it, knowing that it would physically fit my
application, only to have the 1000-05 with the 8x300 and 1100 chipset
arrive. These chips, (the 1100's) were really just msi parts easy to turn
out while they tested the functions separately. The project was so far
behind that they had to do something to recover costs.
The 2010 chip wasn't available for quite some time. It was the version with
the ECC capability built in. The 1010 was the one used in the PC, though,
since it was available. By the time the 2010 became available, the RLL
scheme used in the 5010 and other LSI's (from other vendors) became popular,
and the ECC capability was ultimately not exploited via the 2010 in a PC
application.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Ancient disk controllers
>> The functional differences were that the -05 versions were physically
>> smaller (5.75 x 8 inches) and didn't support the 8-inch drives. Someone
>> else pointed out that the WD1000-05 uses the WD1010 integrated controller
>> rather than the 8X300 and the WD1100 chip set. Since the main difference
>> between the WD1000 and WD1001 is that the latter supports ECC, I would
guess
>> that the WD1001-5 must use a WD2010 controller.
>
>The WD1001-05 uses the older chipset (or at least mine does). It uses the
>WD1100-06 ECC/CRC logic chip rather than (I guess) the WD1100-04 CRC chip.
>
>The WD1001-05 is based on the 8x300 + control ROMs, and not a WD1010.
>
>-tony
>
Received on Mon Apr 19 1999 - 19:03:57 BST