SCSI pros & cons

From: Jan Koller <>
Date: Fri Oct 12 16:56:46 2001

Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Why? I've never had any need for a SCSI BIOS on my SCSI computers.

The onboard bios' diagnostics, low level formatting, and media
verification, termination control, among other features, can be
rather convenient. And you don't have to worry about overwriting
the engineering track(s?) that some(all?) IDE has.

You don't have the master/slave issues or incompatibilities that
some IDE drives had

with SCSI, you can do more devices per controller port in
case, if for no other reason than, you want to.

> I'd never stand up for IDE. I only use it out of necessity, like
> everyone else. But I'm not so sure that my next drive will be an
> IDE. Not if I'm not getting a new IDE controller at the same time.

> At the same time, even though drives for both interfaces share more
> and more parts, SCSI has only become more and more expensive, and
> now it's not even an alternative for a lot of semi-professional
> applications.

If you don't like SCSI? And you don't like IDE? And you don't like
expensive components? What are you going to use? only MFM and RLL?

If you must have the latest SCSI interface technology, yes, you
must "pay the man", but if you're willing to sacrifice a bit on
performance, and go one or two steps back on SCSI hardware technology,
there is nothing expensive about the parts. Plus, as it's
been up till now, the best, newest, most expensive IDE performance
level was only about par with that of whatever SCSI level was one
generation back.
Received on Fri Oct 12 2001 - 16:56:46 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:18 BST