Jan Koller skrev:
>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.
Well, low-level formatting IDE drives is a stupid idea, I concur. =)
>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.
Why are you telling me this?
>> 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?
What the hell are you talking about? Please point out where I have expressed
my dislike for SCSI.
>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.
You're preaching to the already converted. =?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
G? med i SUGA, Swedish Usergroup of Amiga!
WWW: http://swedish.usergroup.amiga.tm/
BBS: 08-6582572, telnet://sua.ath.cx:42512
Received on Fri Oct 12 2001 - 18:16:36 BST