-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 27 September 2002 03:58, you wrote:
> That's why it was a Quantum drive in
> the first place. I have a 1.7 GB Quantum that's 7 years old and still
> going. I shuddered when Maxtor bought them. Besides, middle-end,.
heh.. i think that everyone who liked Quantum back in the day shuddered with
you ;-)
> high-end, whatever, I expect a hard drive with a 5 year warranty to last at
> least something _close_ to the length of its warranty period. 1999, 2000,
> 2001, 2002, and I've used up 3 drives. I'm getting a little over a year
> per drive. Is the fact that they're SCSI got anything to do with that?
> Probably not. It's just an interface, after all. But a previous poster
> asked to be humoured with evidence that IDE is as good as SCSI, and that's
> been my experience with them, that's my evidence. :-)
unfortunate, but rather unusual all the same.
> > which is, of course, why everyone who sets up serious data
> > systems uses SCSI
> > if they are going with a commodity solution? right. maybe you
> > should start
> > calling data centre around the world and letting them know. ;-)
>
> If you ask me all this RAID stuff is there because the people setting it up
> are covering their asses because they know the SCSI drive is gonna die.
> ;-)
*laughs*
another interesting data point is that Apple used SCSI in all of their systems
back when they actually cared about providing top flight (if not mainstream)
hardware... SCSI + ADB + consistent GUI and good graphics (for the time) made
Apple hardware quite worth it back then...
> > seriously though, SCSI is generally better than IDE. the gap has narrowed
> > CONSIDERABLY over the years, however. primarilly because of the
> > HUGE market
> > for IDE drives, ergo the increased R&D budgets. you can primarily thank a
> > certain company in Redmond and another associated with the colour
> > blue for
> > that. had the same efforts been put into SCSI, not only would the
> > prices be
> > what they are for IDE, we'd probably have larger, faster and more
> > reliable
> > drives today. SCSI technology has not topped out, is more
> > scalable and had a
> > head start on IDE.
>
> If having a head start was the only qualification for choosing a
> technology, we'd be using Windows right now because they got a "head start"
> over Linux. I don't choose a technology because it came out first, I choose
> it because it works and I trust it. :-)
perhaps you misunderstood me. SCSI was technologically superior to IDE by a
very considerable margin before IDE started to really become a reasonable
drive choice for anything but low end desktops. that's what i meant by "head
start". that gap has continued to close with time, but had the industry
started out with SCSI's advantages and put the same amount of effort into
improvements in SCSI as they did IDE, we'd probably be much futher along now.
- --
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
- Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9lOVu1rcusafx20MRAvMzAKCEhKnvgNE0QCUGtNcBuQt3S/cv1ACgkLWT
cvJQxGPgMJOuyeIB3ZVB9f8=
=WdWe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
