I'm guessing you haven't spent much time with SCSI. MS-DOS probably won't benefit much from a U320 controller, and could actually be slower. U320 is meant for PCIX or better, otherwise it'll tie up the whole bus. You won't get more than 133MB/s or 266MB/s (on 64bit or 66mhz PCI) out of it. Best get something like an adaptec 2930. Cache is bit of a joke and as far as I know, only come on raid cards. It slows things down more unless your running a DB on an array. The reason I know all this is I went down that road and got burned. Adaptec 2100S, U320, 32bit PCI, RAID, onboard cache=garbage with really cool knightrider LEDs.

Drivers have nothing to do with boot time. The card needs to have an onboard BIOS ROM to boot.

EDIT: You only need drivers for devices not used at boot time like removable disks, cdroms, scanners, etc. You could get a 29160N to max out your bus if you really wanted to, but if you plan to run Windows 3.1x, you will not be able to run 32-bit disk drivers.

EDIT: You also can't run NT 3.51 on a 29160N. They only supported NT4/95 and up.

Don't confuse bus speed with hard drive speed. Even if PCI is limited to 133 MB/s, you can still have a hard disk that does 320 MB/s, since that is the speed between the hard disk and the controller (not read speed from the media!). And it's faster than a hard disk that does only 160 MB/s, since it can transfer the same amount of data to the controller in less time.

And MS-DOS will benefit from it, especially from a cache controller. Windows will benefit less, since it does lots of disk caching itself. Unless it's a server with heavy load...

EZFlyer wrote:

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time with SCSI. MS-DOS probably won't benefit much from a U320 controller, and could actuall […]
Show full quote

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time with SCSI. MS-DOS probably won't benefit much from a U320 controller, and could actually be slower. U320 is meant for PCIX or better, otherwise it'll tie up the whole bus. You won't get more than 133MB/s or 266MB/s (on 64bit or 66mhz PCI) out of it. Best get something like an adaptec 2930. Cache is bit of a joke and as far as I know, only come on raid cards. It slows things down more unless your running a DB on an array. The reason I know all this is I went down that road and got burned. Adaptec 2100S, U320, 32bit PCI, RAID, onboard cache=garbage with really cool knightrider LEDs.

Drivers have nothing to do with boot time. The card needs to have an onboard BIOS ROM to boot.

EDIT: You only need drivers for devices not used at boot time like removable disks, cdroms, scanners, etc. You could get a 29160N to max out your bus if you really wanted to, but if you plan to run Windows 3.1x, you will not be able to run 32-bit disk drivers.

EDIT: You also can't run NT 3.51 on a 29160N. They only supported NT4/95 and up.

derSammler wrote:

Don't confuse bus speed with hard drive speed. Even if PCI is limited to 133 MB/s, you can still have a hard disk that does 320 MB/s, since that is the speed between the hard disk and the controller (not read speed from the media!). And it's faster than a hard disk that does only 160 MB/s, since it can transfer the same amount of data to the controller in less time.

And MS-DOS will benefit from it, especially from a cache controller. Windows will benefit less, since it does lots of disk caching itself. Unless it's a server with heavy load...

Thank you so much guys! very interesting....

I'd say MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroup 3.11

derSammler wrote:

Don't confuse bus speed with hard drive speed. Even if PCI is limited to 133 MB/s, you can still have a hard disk that does 320 MB/s, since that is the speed between the hard disk and the controller (not read speed from the media!). And it's faster than a hard disk that does only 160 MB/s, since it can transfer the same amount of data to the controller in less time.

And MS-DOS will benefit from it, especially from a cache controller. Windows will benefit less, since it does lots of disk caching itself. Unless it's a server with heavy load...

Cards with cache add latency. If the system is PCI based, use a software cache like smartdrive or Norton. I’m assuming the machine has at least 8mb RAM.

I will have to backpedal on my card suggestion, though. I’m still shopping and can’t find one with the flexibility I need. My 29160N runs DOS very nicely, and I upgraded the BIOS, so it’s rich in features. Unfortunately, there is no 32bit driver for Win3x. Without that, you can’t put a permanent swap file on a drive connected to that card. That means no Win32 software or 32bit access.. If you wanted to go that route, you could put an IDE disk in and put your pagefile there, but it’s flaky.. In shopping for older cards with Win3x 32bit drivers, it’s hard to find one that you can upgrade the BIOS to. If I find one, I’ll chime in.

EZFlyer wrote:

Cards with cache add latency. If the system is PCI based, use a software cache like smartdrive or Norton. I’m assuming the machine has at least 8mb RAM.

I will have to backpedal on my card suggestion, though. I’m still shopping and can’t find one with the flexibility I need. My 29160N runs DOS very nicely, and I upgraded the BIOS, so it’s rich in features. Unfortunately, there is no 32bit driver for Win3x. Without that, you can’t put a permanent swap file on a drive connected to that card. That means no Win32 software or 32bit access.. If you wanted to go that route, you could put an IDE disk in and put your pagefile there, but it’s flaky.. In shopping for older cards with Win3x 32bit drivers, it’s hard to find one that you can upgrade the BIOS to. If I find one, I’ll chime in.

Wow very interesting! Sorry EZ, somehow I missed your reply (a busy weekend was).
Why are all these "new" BIOS features important in an old MS-DOS / Win 3.11 machine?
Thanks so much again

Flexibility and compatibility. Older versions may only allow boot from SCSI ID 0 or 1, don’t have autoterminate, individual settings per ID as opposed to global settings. You need a certain bios version for zip compatibility if I remember right. I think the 2940 needed 1.25+. If your rig is simpler, you probably don’t need to care as much. On mine, I want to set up every ID just how I like and switch boot devices from SCSI BIOS instead of having to rip out drives and change their IDs. I could use a bootmanager, but I have to research for scsi support.

EZFlyer wrote:

Flexibility and compatibility. Older versions may only allow boot from SCSI ID 0 or 1, don’t have autoterminate, individual settings per ID as opposed to global settings. You need a certain bios version for zip compatibility if I remember right. I think the 2940 needed 1.25+. If your rig is simpler, you probably don’t need to care as much. On mine, I want to set up every ID just how I like and switch boot devices from SCSI BIOS instead of having to rip out drives and change their IDs. I could use a bootmanager, but I have to research for scsi support.

Wow, I never put my hands on SCSI in my life before, that's why...

My plan would be:

PCI SCSI Controller → ACARD SCSI to IDE bridge → IDE to CF card adapter → UDMA7 super fast SanDisk CF Card

aries-mu wrote:

My plan would be:

PCI SCSI Controller → ACARD SCSI to IDE bridge → IDE to CF card adapter → UDMA7 super fast SanDisk CF Card

I've tried this. It is expensive, but it works. I think you're speed is limited by the ACARD bridge adapter and the CF card. What CPU will you be using?
The only place I have a U320 controller is on a PCI-X slot in a dual Tualatin 1.4 GHz system, along with PCI-X gigabit ethernet. The PCI-X slots are on a different bus than the regular PCI slots.

those scsi bridge adapters are like $200+ right?

Scsi is stupid when you have PCI. Just get a sata2 card and a cheap chinese SSD. You are trying to hammer a nail with a jackhammer here.

The bridge adapters used to be cheaper. I bought mine for a lot less in 2011.

The downfall I see to the SATA cards is the lack of CD-ROM access and boot-ability in DOS.

they boot fine. the cheap chinese ones typically dont, but I have this guy: https://www.ebay.com/itm/PROMISE-SATA300-TX4- … &LH_TitleDesc=0

that particular card is a bit higher priced, but it is the model I have. boots fine into dos and win98. I tried it out on my dual pentium pro super system, the bottleneck will be the pci bus. ^.^

I only have the Promise SATA150 TX2plus and some Ultra100 cards.

Are you able to access SATA CD-ROM's or IDE-to-SATA CD-ROM's in DOS using the Promise SATA300? So if a DOS game is looking for the DOS CD for verification, the Promise SATA300 will work?

Secondly, SATA CD-ROM drives seem to lack analogue output for CD audio. How do you listen to the CD audio in DOS games?

you can just the onboard ide for optical drives imho. I did NOT try cd drives with this controller, so I can't say. there isn't a dos driver specifically, but I remember it just working with dos 6.22. It even worked without a driver in 98, but the addition of a driver did improve performance.

luckybob wrote:

you can just the onboard ide for optical drives imho. I did NOT try cd drives with this controller, so I can't say. there isn't a dos driver specifically, but I remember it just working with dos 6.22. It even worked without a driver in 98, but the addition of a driver did improve performance.

How do you avoid the problem of having the on-board IDE taking precedence over any card controllers when using both at the same time? You can't set the preferred hard disk boot option to one connected to a card controller on all motherboards...

leave that slot empty in the bios. So for one sata drive, leave the primary master slot open. Put the cd drive on the secondary master. If you have an ide drive connected, it will still prefer the onboard ide, but leaving the pri/master slot open, it gives the sata card a place to hook the sata drive into.

I did something similar with a 286 running both sata and MFM hard drive controllers.

I can't think of any real reason to have a super fast hard drive in a retro system.

That said, maybe you can get an adaptec ultra160 card and a 15K scsi drive

https://storageadvisors.adaptec.com/en-us/sup … w/ez-scsi_3.11/
I'm not sure if this will work for your application, but if you already have the hardware it's worth a shot

oohms wrote:

I can't think of any real reason to have a super fast hard drive in a retro system. […]
Show full quote

I can't think of any real reason to have a super fast hard drive in a retro system.

That said, maybe you can get an adaptec ultra160 card and a 15K scsi drive

https://storageadvisors.adaptec.com/en-us/sup … w/ez-scsi_3.11/
I'm not sure if this will work for your application, but if you already have the hardware it's worth a shot

For dos games, its just dick waving. A CF card is more than fast enough. I personally use a 15K scsi drive in my IBM ps/2 setup. Its fsst, but noisy. If i had the option for a quick, quiet sata drive, I'd be all over it like a fat guy on a chocolate bar.

oohms wrote:

I can't think of any real reason to have a super fast hard drive in a retro system.

Apart from using a retro system for tasks requiring a fast and reliable hard disk, such as audio and video editing, or running professional CAD solutions, there are none. And even then you'd be better off with a P3 or P4-based system...

For many in the retro computer landscape, doing something just because you can is reason enough. There is very little going on here that is actually practical. Uncommon and high-end hardware combinations spark excitement, which is more than half the hobby.