Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:21:45 +600 CDT From: "Larry Dolinar" <LARRYD@bldg1.croute.com> To: questions@freebsd.org Cc: jeffa@sybase.com, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PC configuration advice wanted. Message-ID: <567A60719E4@bldg1.croute.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
| Doug S. stands accused of saying: | > Yes, and if youre creating a solution to take advantage of *one* OS | > or application, then you *may* find a SCSI implementation that supports | > your hardware and software. However, if you (as many of us are) want to | > remain as standardized as is reasonable, to take advantage of various | > OSs, then (E)IDE is (currently) the *only* way to go. | | Still totally bogus. All of the major SCSI interface families have good | vendor support for all of the major operating environments, and have for | many years. Do I need to make a list? | | In the closed minds of the average PC retailer, your argument is very | popular. Out here in the real world, it's just so much crap. Indeed: and something that may already have been mentioned: how many manufacturers make 2 and 4GB (E)IDE drives? Practical MTBF on (E)IDE drives is lower on IDE than SCSI (your mileage may vary). I've personally experienced this over the last 5 years, and in an enginerring/manufacturing environment. The idea for smart IDE controllers and LBA was added ex post facto (IMHO): SCSI hosts had been doing this for quite a bit longer. IDE is a fine fair thing for the DOS/Windows user -- get a big one (or two) and do your thing. But I suspect the profit margin for the manufacturers and PC vendors also keeps them attractive vs. SCSI. I've used them myself for quite a while, but when it comes to setting up a platform to play with various OS's, I've made the switch and am very glad of it. But let's lose this thread; Doug's already made up his mind... cheers, larry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?567A60719E4>