To: Scrapps who wrote (11723 ) 1/17/1998 1:59:00 AM From: Dwight E. Karlsen Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22053
Scrapps, I don't know the transfer rate numbers on both my parallel vs. my friend's scsi, but I've used them both for scanning pictures, and put it this way: they both take less than a minute to scan a photo. I couldn't tell any difference in speed, is what I was saying. So considering the fact that he had to end up buying a higher end scsi card to get his to work without using up 2 slots (scsi card for each his zip and scanner), I think parallel is a better deal for low volume work. I agree re You have to compare a parallel to a SCSI using the same brand of scanners. I know what you're saying. My transfer rate on my parallel may be higher than on his cheaper scsi. What I'm saying though, is that don't be fooled into believing that only scsi is acceptable. Regarding parallel vs. scsi Zip drives, I realize the scsi is faster there. But I've talked to people who have a parallel zip, and they feel like it's plenty fast for them. I think it all depends on how much you use it. I've never used scsi disk drives, and I feel like my IDE ATA-2 1GB 5400 RPM Fireball drive is fast enough. For the real work that I do which is accounting/tax work, my system is plenty fast enough all the way around. Where the bottleneck is of course is when I get on line, then 28.8 for downloading complicated pages is where I have to wait. So far (7-1/2 months now) my ISP has failed to find a telephone company able to install a line to use their equipment though. They've had USR Total Control Hub sitting in a closet meanwhile, if they are telling the truth. They've given up on US Worst, and now the latest company is a month past when they said they could have it done. Wouldn't matter if I had a PII 333MHz system next week, I'd still have the same old bottleneck. DK