On 28 Feb 2002 23:48:28 -0500 Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have any IDE drives to test, but I can offer my main reason on > going scsi instead of IDE. I still think that SCSI offers better > response performance than IDE, while they are often close on raw data > transfer. I've had numerous IDE drives fail after many years of service > ... and I have yet to have a scsi drive fail on me. I think scsi > hardware is just better hardware, kind of like the difference between a > mercedes and a hyundai. Sure, they're both cars that perform the same > function, and while one may go a little faster, most people don't need > to go that fast in the first place, and there is a huge price > differential. But the mercedes will still be running decades later, > while the hyundia will most likely be sitting upon the scrap heap. > That's probably not a very good analogy, but it's all I could think of > at this late hour .... I like the idea of massively large storage for > little money, but I don't see myself ever leaving scsi unless something > drastic happens to its quality of manufacture.
Let me see. If your IDE drives only fail "after many years of service", then the disposable solution is simple, buy a new IDE drive when the time comes. I'm sure some new technology will turn your super-durable SCSI drive into a relative sluggard. No wait! You're a Greenpeace activist and land fills just horrify you ;-) But then why buy a Mercedes or Hyundai, when you can take the train?
