RE: IDE vs. SCSI. Just thought i'd interject my opinion. I don't want this to turn into another specifications battle, I've read plenty of those on usenet on this topic. But I do have to respectfully disagree. On balance, considering all the issues, in an identical configured system (1 or 2 internal drives, CD and maybe a scanner)I don't think SCSI is really any more difficult than IDE and is far less confining. If you follow the rules on termination, ID's and cable lengths, SCSI is great and very easy. IDE has a max of 4 devices and then you go and buy a SCSI adapter. Kind of restrictive.
We support about 20 Macs, very old to very new, and believe me, Macs do have plenty of SCSI bus problems, especially when you have large external drive stacks with CD burners, zip, jazz, MO, sysquest, scanner, film recorders, and some scsi printers, etc and try to get a combination that is reliable. This is no different on a PC. I believe it is due to different ways of treating the SCSI bus inside each individual drive case, and also due to the extended cable length. Anytime you get close to the max length with alot of connectors it is tough to get it stable under all conditions.
For me it comes down to this. NT workstation with only 1 or 2 drives and no external peripherals: I pick IDE, mainly because of cost and I believe in this setup, performance will be almost identical. For NT Server I always pick SCSI. Great expandability, multiple peripherals. Besides, most high end peripherals are always SCSI. Tape libraries, CD jukeboxes, High end scanners, image setters, all SCSI. It is also proven that performance will be better. Who wants to put in a NT that is handicapped from the start?
As always, just my experience and opinion, your mileage may vary. :)
Dan |
