|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I've found SCSI drives are especially useful when browsing the internet because the
internet browsers transfers large amount of data to and from the internet cache area on
your hard drive. Among other reasons SCSI hard drives are used SCSI drives have a much
higher transfer rate than IDE (in my case 40 MB/ second) and have traditionally had a
lower drive failure rate than IDE.
The newer SCSI adapters are much easier to install in the computer than they used to be
because they are Plug-and-Play and software controlled. The hard drives can usually be
installed with factory defaults, if it is the first SCSI hard drive. Once the hard drive
is installed and a change is made to config.sys, Windows 95-98-NT recognize the SCSI the
controller and the SCSI drives appear the same as IDE to the user, in DOS or Windows.
For background it's SCSI adapters that have an independent SCSI Bus that are used for hard
drives, not the simple SCSI cards that many people are familiar with used for backup
devices or CD-ROM. The new Universal Serial Bus (USB) that's included in the latest
motherboards and supported in Windows 98 is similar to the SCSI bus - it's an independent
bus with it's own controller than runs independent of the CPU, relieving the CPU of the
responsibility for managing individual devices. The independent bus allows the CPU to
run faster since it no longer has responsibility to manage the devices on the USB. Same
applies for SCSI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Augustine <RonAug@xxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: SCSI vs IDE
|
|SCSI has a lot of problems working comfortably and efficiently in a
|DOS/Windows environment but it is faster. Installing and integrating is not
|trivial and --in my opinion-- not worth the aggravation. IDE is generally
|sufficient for almost any set of normal applications and the Pentium II data
|bus is 66Mhz (twice that of a regular Pentium), so that alone improves the
|throughput.
|
|A case for SCSI could be made if you have a heavy-duty server application
|with multiple hard-drives, but you better have a SCSI Geek on staff and
|sleeping in the back room to keep the thing running.
|_____________________________________
|At 12:01 PM 7/24/98 -0700, you wrote:
|>Hi folks,
|>
|>Did anyone notice any significant improvement after switching to SCSI.
|>
|>Looks like DOS boxes were not meant for it, and we might have just another
|>vulnerable link in terms of reliability and compatibility.
|>
|>This "graphics" stuff we use in TS is not that heavy duty from the long
|>time DTP apps user point of view.
|
|
|
|