On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ian C. Sison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > This is so true, and was my bottom line in my previous past posts.
> > Not only do you have the more expensive drive, you have to get an
> > expensive controller as well, as motherboards don't usually come with
> > SCSI onboard.
>
> Quoting a post to elsewhere:
>
> (1) Tekram DC-395UW PCI host adapter with Symbios (LSILogic) chipset, US
> $71 at the first mail-order place I checked. There are better ones;
> that one's OK.
71 US$ SCSI as opposed to $0.00 for a built in IDE controller in the board
is a big enough factor for me not to even consider scsi.
> (2) Hard drives these days come in basically one size, called "bigger
> than you can fill, and bigger than you can economically back up". Your
> $200 buys the same size in either SCSI or ATA ("IDE"): both "bigger
> than (et al.)", with a greater amount of excess-more-than-I-can-use
> space in the ATA case.
Your point is that hard disks come big enough for you to actually use it
all. My point is the _cost_ per megabyte of SCSI disks vs. IDE disks.
Two different things.
>From CDW.COM
IBM 60GB 7200rpm ATA-100 (EIDE) Hard Drive Option : 195.38
ACER 18.2GB U160SCSI 10K 80P 1" : 319.87
Surely 18.2GB at 319$ is expensive to you right? And all the acknowledged
advantages of SCSI over IDE is not enough to convince me to buy this acer
drive over the IBM drive, most especially if i am considering multiple
disks for a RAID array.
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
