SCSI pros & cons

From: Don Maslin <>
Date: Fri Oct 12 21:52:19 2001

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Jan Koller wrote:

> 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?

I think a better comparison would substitute ST-506 and ESDI for MFM
and RLL.
                                                 - don

> 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 - 21:52:19 BST

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