Several posters here seem to want to compare the standard, non-ABS brakes with the ABS II brakes. So, can we list the differences that might affect the overall stopping ability of those two ST1100s?
Compared to a non-ABS, an ABS II bike has:
Wider front tire
Wider front wheel
Different front rotors
Different OEM pad
materials, front and rear,
right?
Different OEM pad
shape throughout (ridges instead of mere grooves, according to one poster)
Three piston front calipers, instead of two piston
(but with some debate about full usage of the third pistons)
Bigger fork tubes
Stronger fork brace (assumed)
Bigger triple clamp for the fork tubes
Different rear rotor
Three piston rear caliper, instead of two pistons,
ABS at both ends (which generally tends to make ones braking more carefree and aggressive) and
Linked or combined brakes in both directions (which generally prevents application of the rear brake without the front).
The non-ABS OEM pads seem to date from 19
87, judging from the front pad product code of ML7.
And at least one of the non-ABS, front caliper bodies seems to date from 19
88, judging from the MM Hurricane product code that I've seen on one of my early, non-ABS front calipers.
(For that, see Question 1 in a nearby thread on this page:
https://www.st-owners.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-139844.html , which has yet to be completed.)
Observed differences in overall braking feel and/or performance can be due to a lot more than a single item in the above list, such as caliper piston count.
(And every item in the list tends to up the price of the bike, which was US $2500 higher in 1996.)
Finally, for some of us, Honda's linking of the pedal to the front brakes causes us to greatly prefer ABS I or non-ABS to ABS II
even if a stronger pull on the lever is needed.