From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jun 26 8:41:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from q.closedsrc.org (ip233.gte15.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.244.233]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A895637B406 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lplist@closedsrc.org) Received: by q.closedsrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id C29F355407; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by q.closedsrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30FE51610; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Linh Pham To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Jason Stewart , , j mckitrick , Subject: RE: which is faster zip drive under FreeBSD: usb or parallel? In-Reply-To: <001701c0fe22$164f1ac0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 2001-06-26, Ted Mittelstaedt scribbled: # You know those SCSI zip drives from IOMEGA are about the # crappiest SCSI implementation that I've ever seen. Last # I checked they only supported async and didn't support # disconnection so your SCSI bus is stuffed while the drive # is doing it's thing. Iomega's implementation of anything is rather crappy... how does one explain that reading or writing to a Parallel Zip [100] drive on my dually P2-400 (with the parallel port set to either ECP or EPP) soaks up 80+ percent of my CPU. The only thing Iomega seems to do right is their specific USB Zip drivers for NT 4.0 :) # But I can assure anyone that the SCSI zip drives are much, # much faster than the parallel port ones. I still like my SCSI Zip 250 over my USB Zip 250 drive. -- Linh Pham [lplist@closedsrc.org] // 404b - Brain not found To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message