From: guyd@austin.ibm.com (Guy Dawson)
Subject: Re: IDE vs SCSI
Originator: guyd@pal500.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 35


In article <1qlbrlINN7rk@dns1.NMSU.Edu>, bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
> In PC Magazine April 27, 1993:29 "Although SCSI is twice as fasst as ESDI,
> 20% faster than IDE, and support up to 7 devices its acceptance ...has
> long been stalled by incompatability problems and installation headaches."
> note what it does NOT site as a factor: PRICE.

There is a premium of approx $200 for the controller. What is nice is 
being able to run hard disks, tape drives, cd-roms and scanners of
one dma channel and interupt!

SCSI makes sense is you are going to load up a machine, if you just want
a standard box for Windows then IDE makes sense.

I have one loaded box that uses SCSI and run Unix and one standard box
that runs DOS/Windows that uses IDE.


[ By standard I mean - 486, 4-8MB RAM, 200MH disk, S3 video ]

> int eh same article the PC would will get plug and play SCSI {from the
> article it seems you get plug and play SCSI-1 only since SCSI-2 in FULL
> implimentation has TEN NOT 7 devices.}

I beleive this last bit is just plain wrong!

> SCSI-1 intergration is sited as another part of the MicroSoft Plug and play
> program.

Guy
-- 
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson - Hoskyns Group Plc.
        guyd@hoskyns.co.uk  Tel Hoskyns UK     -  71 251 2128
        guyd@austin.ibm.com Tel IBM Austin USA - 512 838 3377
