Actually the thread was DirectCD software problems (see Subject) and some
better choices of burner software.  IDE drives have come a long way since
the the time when SCSI was the clear choice for performance and reliability,
albeit at a price.  Fixing an obvious software problem by adding expensive
hardware isn't the best choice, IMO, because you become hostage to your
investment. Besides, are the scsi drives mechanically superior in some
respect than the IDE drives?  I think not because whatever mechanical
improvements there are get sucked up in the higher rotational performance.
So I would have a higher performance drive spinning at turbine speeds doing
just as little as the IDE drive and no better reliability margin.  BTW I run
my WD Caviar IDE drives 24/7 for years and have found that I always have
upgraded to the newer higher capacity drives long before any have ever
failed because doubling capacity is so cheap.  So I have a bunch of cheap
hangar queens in storage that have a certain value in that they represent
the state of the art at various points in time, with complete OS and driver
backups intact.  And I have little incentive to reformat and use them
because they are so much LESS expensive than the same SCSI drives would be,
even though I have SCSI interface in my computers.  Just my two cents. :o)

regards,

Tim Hutcheson
Research Associate
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
University of West Florida
40 S. Alcaniz St.
Pensacola, FL 32501
USA
805-202-4461

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:39 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs.
DirectCD)


Yes, all disks can and do fail and yes people should be responsible for
backing up their data.  My point was simply that IDE disks are your bottom
line cheap commodity storage solution and it should be noted that you can
spend a slight bit more money and get a storage solution that is several
orders of magnitude better in performance and reliability.  This original
thread was from users who have to close every program and disconnect from
the
internet to nurse their PC through simply burning a CD... which is
ridiculous.  Sure many of the users on this list may not be doing heavily
I/O
intensive tasks like audio/video editing, file serving, etc... but when you
cant even burn a CD.. that should toss up the red flag for sure, no matter
how slow/old your system is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:46 PM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs.
DirectCD)


My drive is from the 120GXP family, not the 75GXP.

I read about Mr. Granito's lawsuit. It's bogus. He and some lawyers are
fishing for $$$$$. Period. $75,000 per plaintiff; that will by a lot of
future computers for each of those greedy individuals. Even if it were
true, it was focused on one model of drive which was released early in
the 'big drive' war. If there were design problems, I bet they are gone
now.

Overview Section 6 is amusing: "...stored their vital (and in many cases
invaluable and irreplaceable) computer data on them, and many times lost
that data without warning..." Really? Didn't backup...HA HA HA what were
they thinking? I knew a guy that bought 5 drives of brand x, and stacked
them in a case and they were so hot, they all failed within a couple
months. I wonder how many people have done that and blamed the drive
manufacturer??

People need to be responsible for backup. Any system could fail at any
moment for any reason. Those people that lost data were lazy. (I've said
that before)

I could have started similar actions against any HD company: Seagate,
Quantum, Maxtor, WD, Fujitsu. They all fail.

You say: "SCSI is intended for servers and high end workstations where
as IDE is more suited for the home PC user who is using AOL and Word."
Really?? Hmmm, I make a living on THIS computer and I USED to have SCSI
back when the machine was around Pentium200MHz or so. Now, my current
IDE system will run rings around that older SCSI system.

What makes IDE not suitable for "professionals?" BTW, I've had several
SCSI drives die on me, particularly a Quantum Grand Prix.

I've had a very good experience with IBM drives. They are quiet, fast
for the money, and I haven't had one fail yet. (I now own 4 of them in
various flavors and ages)

I do have a large disks cache, I don't notice my machine chugging slowly
when it hits the drive. Sure SCSI160 is faster, but I don't care. There
simply isn't that much difference, and most people know it. I rather
spend the money on a faster CPU, a second CPU, or more memory. Like I
said in my last post, the hard drive is barely accessed
in THIS workstation. If it were a server, I would agree with you, but my
point was in workstations.

Maybe they were running Protel and it's Protel's fault for writing too
much data. :)

Tony



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:55 PM

> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE & IBM Deathstars (was Protel
> vs. DirectCD)
>
>
> Its very noticeable... especially if you have any kind of
> disk caching.  Also anytime you do anything I/O intensive you
> are taking a CPU hit which slows performance.  SCSI is
> intended for servers and high end workstations where as IDE
> is more suited for the home PC user who is using AOL and
> Word.  IDE hits a great price for large cheap storage but its
> hardly a reliability or performance solution.
>
> Also, I hope you have good luck with your new DEATHstar.  To
> prove a point about the unreliability of IDE drives you
> should look into the ongoing major class action law suit
> against IBM over its Deskstar line of drives.  Disks failing
> at abnormally high rates and IBM turning the blind eye.  Most
> users have reported having a disk fail and then that
> replacement fail and the replacement for that failing.
> Something like that would be unheard of in the SCSI realm due
> to just plain higher quality drives.
>
> Another thing you should be aware of is that if you look in
> the IBM documentation the deskstar is described as having
> "recommended power-on hours" of 333 per month--about 11 hours
> a day.  Drive reliability is typically measured with the
> assumption that the drive is on 60 percent of the
> time--somewhat higher than 46 percent of the time that 333
> hours a month would mean. On laptops, the standard duty is 40
> percent, and on servers, which usually use SCSI drives, it is
> 100 percent.  So even in the manufacturer's documentation
> they don't consider the drive to be used for constant duty
> cycle.  That's plain unacceptable for a work/development environment.
>
> So to answer your question..."why would I pay 3 times as much
> for SCSI as I would with ATA100"... higher throughput
> performance, half the access time, 4-8X larger caches with
> prefetch algorithms, and 4-5X the MTBF.
>
> How much is your data and productivity worth to you?  Is it
> worth saving that extra $1-300 bucks?
>
> matt
>
> PS: Below is a link to a benchmark of a $200 Fujitsu disk in
> my system as compared to all flavors of IDE.  The results
> speak for themselves.
>
> http://www.mecards.com/SCSI_v_IDE_Benchmark.jpg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:20 PM
> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
>
>
> It may be fast, but it is useable or noticeable in a
> workstation?? Probably not. I've been watching my harddisk
> like, and it rarely blinks. That tell me my system doesn't
> spend much time chugging on the disk and therefore why would
> I pay 3 times as much for SCSI as I would with ATA100? I just
> bought an 80GB IBM deskstar drive for $90 to my door.
>
> I looked at the media transfer rate and the sustained rate of
> a IBM Ultrastar Ultra160SCSI drive (at 10k RPM) and Deskstar
> 120 ATA100 drive (at 7200 RPM) and the rate between the two
> isn't enough for me to justify triple the cost. (And the fact
> you need a controller card that is roughly another $100.
>
>                       Ultra160SCSI            ATA100
> Media rate:           373 to 690 Mbits/s      592(max) Mbits/s
> Sustained rate:       29 to 57 MB/s           23 to 48MB/s
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Daggett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:47 AM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
> >
> >
> > You should invest in SCSI I/O if you have a lot of throughput
> > problems to cause buffer underruns.  I can defrag a partition
> > while burning from the other without underrun issues and
> > without burnproof.  Most of the problems arise with all IDE
> > based systems that use 100% CPU to burn CDs and MUST use
> > burnproof or else you get a coaster.  With a SCSI based
> > system you'd see about a 1-2% CPU hit while burning.  I have
> > a 200Mhz Pentium Pro machine that I used to use to duplicate
> > CDs that can copy a CD to five burners at 8X at once w/o any
> > underrun issues.  IDE couldn't even dream of that...
> >
> > I cant really stress enough how important I/O is to system
> > performance independent of CPU and memory size.  A single
> > Ultra160 15K disk will outperform two ATA100 disks in a RIAD
> > 0 stripe.  Also when putting a SCSI disk under full
> > throughput stress it doesn't use 100% of the CPU like all IDE
> > based systems.  Not to mention the reliability and increased
> > cache sizes you get with most server-class SCSI disk.  SCSI
> > disks have no where near the high failure rates of IDE disks
> > because you are buying a enterprise solution. Prices have
> > really come down as well.. you can get a 73GB 10k RPM
> > Ultra160 disk for about $320 now...that's really cheap!
> >
> > Anyhow, back to Protel...
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:53 PM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
> >
> >
> > it works for me (new roxio)
> > i have had far less coasters w/ roxio than nero and i find it
> > much easier to use
> >
> > but i usually close all other apps while burning and don't do
> > other tasks at the same time
> >
> > Dennis Saputelli
> >
> >
> > mariusrf wrote:
> > >
> > > if you Google  rec.video.desktop you will see the vast majority of
> > > people had problems with roxio and switched to ahead nero for cd
> > > burning .
> > directcd
> > > and easy cd creator historically had tons of issues with the most
> > > diverse
> > pc
> > > configurations .
> > >
> > > Matt Tudor , MSEE
> > > http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:33 AM
> > > Subject: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
> > >
> > > > I've just encountered a problem which essentially crashes
> > my machine
> > > > (W2K P99SE SP6) when I try to run Protel while Roxio's Easy CD
> > > > Creator v
> > > 5.01_E2
> > > > is running. I think it's just a shell for DirectCD; it
> > came bundled
> > > > with
> > > my
> > > > Dell, but is actually just crippleware (lowering my
> > opinion of Dell;
> > > > they promised a CDRW with supporting software, but this
> > comes with
> > > > ads to buy
> > > the
> > > > full software).
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone else seen this? Is there anything specific I
> can do to
> > > > alow continuing to at least view schematics in Protel
> > while writing
> > > > a CD of unrelated files?
> > > >
> > > > Steve Hendrix
> > > >
> >
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > **********
> > * Tracking #: 79CB9D5E956ED94B9A4A281EF20A5D3A14E050EF
> > *
> > **************************************************************
> > **********
> > --
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > _____________
> > www.integratedcontrolsinc.com            Integrated
> Controls, Inc.
> >    tel: 415-647-0480                        2851 21st
> Street
> >       fax: 415-647-3003                        San
> Francisco, CA 94110
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to