On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 12:08:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> the key for us has been using a solid kernel compilation, with few patches,
> and no hokey, half supported hardware like add-on ide controllers.
>
> not to harp, but i hear a lot of noise on this list from folks who dont like
> the cost of scsi, and declare it is not worth the difference. i am not made of
> money either, and when they work 100%, ide systems are a great cost savings.
>
> but why is it that people (read: gamers) will ante up for twin cpu's, but wont
> buy a scsi card and a couple of decent disks? i hate to be a wet towel, but
> sometimes, guys, the old addage still applies-
Going from single to dual can give you around 100% speed increase, if you use
the system for some specific tasks, but at an only 25% higher cost. That's a
saving for some. And for the average geek it's bragging material worth at
least those 25% ;) (coming from someone with dual systems at home and
at work of course)
IDE might be more flaky than SCSI (let's not start that discussion again, I
said ``might'' and that should be good enough for everyone, and vague enough to
hold up in court ;) but if you set up the system with a sensible RAID
solution, you might actually survive a disk failure. SCSI _might_ give you more
reliability from the single disks, but it's closer to a 100% cost increase.
I used to use SCSI, back when IDE and SCSI were more identically priced. Today
I go with IDE on most systems, but I buy two IDE drives instead of one SCSI to
set them up in RAID. I belive I get more reliability for a virtually unchanged
price. (and belief my friends, is a hard one to beat ;)
>
> you get what you pay for.
Agreed.
--
................................................................
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : And I see the elder races, :
:.........................: putrid forms of man :
: Jakob �stergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, :
: OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............:
