> >Well, if I could use the UDMA/66 drive as a UDMA/66 it would beat that no
> >problem. Unfortunatly I don't believe that Solaris, BeOS, OPENSTEP, and
> >maybe even Linux support UDMA/66's. It's my Multi-OS box so compatibility
> >is more important than speed, and it's got plenty of speed for me.
>
> Who ran the benchmarks? Most UDMA/66 drives I've seen are still 5400RPM and
> can't hold a candle to the 7200/10000RPM SCSI3W drives for access times &
> buffer sizes (or you'll pay *more* for the UDMA drives to get the same
> thruput...) Also, even WinNT doesn't *seem* to support UDMA (tried to
> install one... it puked.) so that means that the standard isn't supported
> by an operating system. ;-)
>
> Also remember, UDMA still requires a lot more CPU than any SCSI controller
> worth 1/2 it's salt.
Take a look at the following website that specializes in drive reviews:
http://www.storagereview.com/
Based on the info I found there about three months ago it looks as if the
UMDA/66's are about the same as a U2W drive. To get the real advantage you
have to go with RAID and disk stripping. Also, unless I'm misreading things
UDMA/66 puts about the same load on the processor as SCSI. Yes, SCSI is
still superior, BUT the difference is so slight that you have to ask if the
added cost is worth it.
I looked into this quite a bit when I was deciding how I wanted to do the
drives on my PowerMac G4/450. It's running with UDMA/66.
Gack! I was just looking at that site, it looks like Maxtor now has a 41GB
UDMA/66 drive with a suggested price of $350! WOW! So what if it's slow,
I'm looking for a couple BIG, cheap drives for a backup server I want to
build one of these days.
Good luck on finding CoCo emulation, I've not tried either thing I pointed
you at. Personally I prefer the Mac version of MAME to the X-Windows
version. The last time I tried the X-Windows version it seemed seriously
slower on a machine that was about twice the speed of the Mac I had at the
time.
Zane
Received on Wed Dec 08 1999 - 21:11:47 GMT