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: Zeuspaul who wrote (4251)	12/14/1998 11:20:00 PM
From: doniam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

May I interrupt the ongoing boot,drive,dos,os discussion to inform that late this afternoon I ordered my Dream from Minotaur? Many thanks for all the suggestions I got. I'll continue lurking and I'm sure will have new questions in the future. -Don

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (4251)	12/15/1998 12:38:00 AM
From: RagTimeBand	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

>>Did you get any specs or comparisons to the IDE LS120 drives or are you assuming the SCSI LS120 is faster?<< The Winstation spec sheets winstation.com show the IDE and SCSI drives as having the same Transfer Rate (450KB/sec Sustained). I haven't seen any comparisons where they run "real world" tests. AS I understand it, if a move or copy command is issued to move data between two SCSI devices plugged into the same SCSI card there is practically no load on the CPU or the PCI bus. Whereas if the data is being moved between devices that aren't SCSI or are a mix of SCSI and IDE there is a load on the CPU; additionally the PCI bus is involved. This should make the SCSI transfers faster, by how much I don't know. FWIW - I've seen reports comparing the time it takes to scan documents on SCSI 2 vs USB and SCSI 2 is faster. So, as you can see I'm currently making an assumption. And you know what they say about assumptions. :-) Emory