|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Personally I like SCSI more than IDE. I find it easier to setup, supports
more devices and faster. I have had more problems with my IDE drives then
my SCSI drives.
SCSI is more expensive because of the added hardware on each device.
Someone gave a good explanation of how SCSI is controlled. But with this
extra hardware it makes the drives more efficient. For instance, if you
compared an IDE and SCSI drive (theoretically running at the same transfer
rate such as 20MB/sec) the SCSI drive would have a faster throughput.
JL
fastgroup@xxxxxxxxxx
Manana is often the busiest day of the week.
-Spanish Proverb
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Augustine <RonAug@xxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 8:31 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.
>
>
>
|