RLL drives - blast from the past!

Adcadet

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,861
Location
44.8, -91.5
I was reading at the Redhill site, and came across a discussion of MFM and RLL, something that is totally new to me. At least I think it is.

My first computer was a Tandy, I believe a 386 that I got in the fall of 1991. My second computer, which we got around 1994, was a hand-me-down/gift from a distant not-related-by-blood but very nice guy, who I imagine is very similar to our own Merc. It was made of all used components, and over it's lifetime of about 4 years, nothing ever broke on it. The case was an old, all steel, heavy duty case that in today's terms would be called a full tower. I believed it used a SCSI drive, definitely plugged into a controller card that was in what looked like an ISA slot. I remember this guy talking to my dad and me when we picked it up, and I distinctly remember his saying that the hard drive, because it was somehow special, contained double the amount of storage as a regular drive. I believe when formatted it gave us a total of 640 MB of storage. Years later, I assumed that I had mis-heard him and that he meant that the HD was twice as fast, being a good SCSI (?) model or somesuch. But after reading about RLL at Redhill, I'm wondering if it was not only a SCSI drive, but also formatted with/by/as RLL, and hence the larger capacity. Could this be?

The computer was replaced by a Gateway 266-M (P2-266 with 96 MB of RAM) in the Spring of 1997 right before I went off to college. The old computer was then used sparingly by my parents, before they got the Gateway when I upgraded. Around 2002 I built my mom a new computer (Athlon XP 2500) and my father continued to use the old Gateway until Christmas of 2006 when he bought an HP with an Athlon X2 3800.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
21,594
Location
I am omnipresent
More than likely, the drive wasn't an MFM drive, nor RLL encoded. It was probably formatted with Stacker or Doublespace on it. Ages ago, ,we used to basically compress our whole hard disk and selectively uncompress just the parts that were needed.

Turned computers into slugs, most of the time.

However, you could get a hardware device that supported Stacker, which made the compression much more bearable.

That would dovetail nicely with the vintage of the equipment you're describing as well.
 

Adcadet

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,861
Location
44.8, -91.5
That computer was running Windows 3.1 and later Windows 95, and I never remember seeing any application called "Stacker" or "Doublespace" - would I have seen such a thing listed under "programs" or whatnot? And even if I did, there's a chance I wouldn't have remembered it, of course.
 

Adcadet

Storage Freak
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
1,861
Location
44.8, -91.5
Maybe that was it then. Doing a quick search, I see that the higher-end Stacker-enabled systems used a controller card - maybe that was the controller card I saw inside. I don't remember seeing any jumpers on it, which sounds consistent with a Stacker card.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
The first PC I had was a 8086 Compaq Deskpro With a MFM Rodine 45GB HD. Back Then, Compaq-Dos 2.11 ( a rebranding of MS-Dos) had a 33GB limit so that was the amount of space I had. When RLL (50% more space than MFM) controllers came out, I got one and that's when I, pleasently, found out that my 33GB drive was actually a 45GB drive. By then, MS-Dos allowed much larger drives, so I went from 33->65GB. Later still, there was one company, Perstor, that made ARLL controllers which gave a 100% increase: So my "33GB" Rodine drive went to 90GB.

I tried Stacker and it was simply interesting junk, because even with the controller card, it was just plain too slow. Then, of course Microsoft stole Stacker's technology and added it to MS-Dos. However the MS version was really no better, but it was free with the OS, so Stacker really stood no chance.
 
Top