Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (3374)	11/3/1998 1:23:00 AM
From: Dan Spangenberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

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

To: Clarence Dodge who wrote (3374)	11/3/1998 9:23:00 AM
From: Spots	Respond to of 14778

>>why are conflicts more prevalent with PC ScSI? I don't think I can answer this question very well. In my case, it has been mostly driver problems of one kind or another. Also I have had compatibility problems from "SCSI" devices which were not really scsi (older devices, it's true, eg, HP scanjet II). Also cabling problems -- there's a different connector type every day, it seems -- and problems with the devices themselves, such as a self-terminating device that really wasn't or a CD-R that magically appeared at every SCSI address on the controller. Guess I'm just lucky, eh? Spots