🚀 go-pugleaf

SCSI is faster and you can hook up allot of devices but it is expensive and
it can be a pain in the butt..  IDE is cheaper and allot easer to set up but
it is slower.


"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> disadvantage?
> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> know enough of ide)
>
> X-Post?
>
>

First, you really shouldn't cross post to so many different newsgroup.

A comparison of SCSI and IDE can be rather long and drawn out depending out which
phase of the technology your at with each. Instead, I'll just go over the highlights
and let other who so desire dive into the gory details.

Typically SCSI has always been faster than IDE (Currently it's 160MB/s versus 100
MB/s), offered more devices than IDE (15 to 7) and had little impact on CPU usage (5%
versus 75%). With new technologies like UDMA and the ability to add multiple IDE
cards, you can now come pretty close to matching SCSI functions and performance.

SCSI also tends to be more expensive then IDE, partly because of it's advantages and
partly because SCSI devices have a longer mean time between Failure\repair
(MTBF\MTBR). SCSI cards are able to multi process, meaning they can carry out
multiple I/O request at a time, IDE, I believe, is still serial based meaning I/O
request line up. You also need an OS like Win NT/2000/Linux to be able to take
advantage of Multi process I/Os

With a normal PC, you can have 4 IDE devices. With any SCSI card you can have at
least 7 and with new cards 15 devices. SCSI pretty much always gives you external
connectors (as you probably won't find many cases that support 15 devices) SCSI also
tend to have the larger drives first, but it seems in the last year or so, IDEs are
really screaming by.

SCSI allows you to go greater distances. Depending on the technologies in use, the
SCSI devices could be from 6 meters to 25 meters from the PC. SCSI allows you to
share SCSI Buses, which is used in the cluster world to allow 2 or more PCs to access
the same disks or at least the same disks arrays.

Until recently, SCSI was the only technology that offered hardware RAID features.
(RAID is a subject in itself) Though most home users have never had a real need for
it, and the cost for a hardware raid controller is normally not worth the minimal
benefits (again, for a average home user). SCSI controllers also tend to have fairly
large amounts of cache (or memory) on them. Most standard controllers today have
between 32 to 64 megs of ram, with the big boys have as much as a gig of ram., of
course, the cost for a 64 meg SCSI RAID controller is around $1000-3000, depending on
the technology it deploys.

SCSI is ideal in environments that needs fast large disks, performing heavy read and
write request. For more home users, there is very little reason to go to SCSI because
the cost is so much more than the gain, especially running in the Win9x world. But if
you wanted to create a 400 Gig disks volume at the hardware level, then SCSI would be
the perfect technology.

Again, this is just kinda of skimming the surface, and their are plenty of variables
to this. If you really want to know more, I would start at www.Adaptec.com and do a
few searches on SCSI vs. IDE and RAID. Plenty of reading.

HTH

Dale


"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> disadvantage?
> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> know enough of ide)
>
> X-Post?
>
>

With advent of firewire and IDE raid, scsi on the desktop doesn't make any
sense unless you like lots of  Cdroms, DVDroms, CDRWs. Servers still should
use SCSI drives and SCSI raid for the better support and speed.

Lane

"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> disadvantage?
> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> know enough of ide)
>
> X-Post?
>
>
>

I agree 100% with this in the context of the average home user.

There are several companies that does have External storage towers, the Digital BA356
and the Compaq Universal Enclosure would be examples, of a simple way to had 7-14
SCSI drives to a standard PC (which is what I am doing). I'm fortunate enough to work
where we have a few spares of these and that's and so I don't have to buy the drives.
Though if someone wanted, they can get refurbish and such off of E-bay fairly cheap.
(at least compared to buying new)

But with 80-100 gig 7200 rpm drives out and fairly cheap, having a SCSI tower isn't
so important. I have 6 bay tower and even with 36 gig drives that's just over 216
gig, but for around $520 I can get (2) 100 Gig 7200 rpm drives and have pretty much
the same storage. Now if only those 40/80 gig DLT tape units would come down in
price.

Just my thoughts

Dale


"Lane Lewis" <lanjlewis1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8R4k7.5397$ld2.231777@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> With advent of firewire and IDE raid, scsi on the desktop doesn't make any
> sense unless you like lots of  Cdroms, DVDroms, CDRWs. Servers still should
> use SCSI drives and SCSI raid for the better support and speed.
>
> Lane
>
> "Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> > Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> > disadvantage?
> > what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> > know enough of ide)
> >
> > X-Post?
> >
> >
> >
>
>

One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE
is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading.  This
is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the
harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data
while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out.  Even more
important when you have dual channels for the SCSI.

Steve

On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 04:08:42 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White"
<whiteda@home.com> wrote:

>First, you really shouldn't cross post to so many different newsgroup.
>
>A comparison of SCSI and IDE can be rather long and drawn out depending out which
>phase of the technology your at with each. Instead, I'll just go over the highlights
>and let other who so desire dive into the gory details.
>
>Typically SCSI has always been faster than IDE (Currently it's 160MB/s versus 100
>MB/s), offered more devices than IDE (15 to 7) and had little impact on CPU usage (5%
>versus 75%). With new technologies like UDMA and the ability to add multiple IDE
>cards, you can now come pretty close to matching SCSI functions and performance.
>
>SCSI also tends to be more expensive then IDE, partly because of it's advantages and
>partly because SCSI devices have a longer mean time between Failure\repair
>(MTBF\MTBR). SCSI cards are able to multi process, meaning they can carry out
>multiple I/O request at a time, IDE, I believe, is still serial based meaning I/O
>request line up. You also need an OS like Win NT/2000/Linux to be able to take
>advantage of Multi process I/Os
>
>With a normal PC, you can have 4 IDE devices. With any SCSI card you can have at
>least 7 and with new cards 15 devices. SCSI pretty much always gives you external
>connectors (as you probably won't find many cases that support 15 devices) SCSI also
>tend to have the larger drives first, but it seems in the last year or so, IDEs are
>really screaming by.
>
>SCSI allows you to go greater distances. Depending on the technologies in use, the
>SCSI devices could be from 6 meters to 25 meters from the PC. SCSI allows you to
>share SCSI Buses, which is used in the cluster world to allow 2 or more PCs to access
>the same disks or at least the same disks arrays.
>
>Until recently, SCSI was the only technology that offered hardware RAID features.
>(RAID is a subject in itself) Though most home users have never had a real need for
>it, and the cost for a hardware raid controller is normally not worth the minimal
>benefits (again, for a average home user). SCSI controllers also tend to have fairly
>large amounts of cache (or memory) on them. Most standard controllers today have
>between 32 to 64 megs of ram, with the big boys have as much as a gig of ram., of
>course, the cost for a 64 meg SCSI RAID controller is around $1000-3000, depending on
>the technology it deploys.
>
>SCSI is ideal in environments that needs fast large disks, performing heavy read and
>write request. For more home users, there is very little reason to go to SCSI because
>the cost is so much more than the gain, especially running in the Win9x world. But if
>you wanted to create a 400 Gig disks volume at the hardware level, then SCSI would be
>the perfect technology.
>
>Again, this is just kinda of skimming the surface, and their are plenty of variables
>to this. If you really want to know more, I would start at www.Adaptec.com and do a
>few searches on SCSI vs. IDE and RAID. Plenty of reading.
>
>HTH
>
>Dale
>
>
>"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
>> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
>> disadvantage?
>> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
>> know enough of ide)
>>
>> X-Post?
>>
>>
>

Well, I believe that's what I said that, except I used the term multiple Process I/O
versus multi threading. Though I could be wrong, but UDMA does offer performance
gains in terms of multiple paths. Basically, if you have 2 EIDE controllers, like
most people do, then you should be able to access each controller independent of the
other. I've read in this group, but never confirmed it myself, that true DMA\UDMA
devices all act independent of each other. Which is where they make up some of their
performance on SCSI devices.

Dale

"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message
news:34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com...
> One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE
> is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading.  This
> is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the
> harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data
> while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out.  Even more
> important when you have dual channels for the SCSI.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 04:08:42 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White"
> <whiteda@home.com> wrote:
>
> >First, you really shouldn't cross post to so many different newsgroup.
> >
> >A comparison of SCSI and IDE can be rather long and drawn out depending out which
> >phase of the technology your at with each. Instead, I'll just go over the
highlights
> >and let other who so desire dive into the gory details.
> >
> >Typically SCSI has always been faster than IDE (Currently it's 160MB/s versus 100
> >MB/s), offered more devices than IDE (15 to 7) and had little impact on CPU usage
(5%
> >versus 75%). With new technologies like UDMA and the ability to add multiple IDE
> >cards, you can now come pretty close to matching SCSI functions and performance.
> >
> >SCSI also tends to be more expensive then IDE, partly because of it's advantages
and
> >partly because SCSI devices have a longer mean time between Failure\repair
> >(MTBF\MTBR). SCSI cards are able to multi process, meaning they can carry out
> >multiple I/O request at a time, IDE, I believe, is still serial based meaning I/O
> >request line up. You also need an OS like Win NT/2000/Linux to be able to take
> >advantage of Multi process I/Os
> >
> >With a normal PC, you can have 4 IDE devices. With any SCSI card you can have at
> >least 7 and with new cards 15 devices. SCSI pretty much always gives you external
> >connectors (as you probably won't find many cases that support 15 devices) SCSI
also
> >tend to have the larger drives first, but it seems in the last year or so, IDEs
are
> >really screaming by.
> >
> >SCSI allows you to go greater distances. Depending on the technologies in use, the
> >SCSI devices could be from 6 meters to 25 meters from the PC. SCSI allows you to
> >share SCSI Buses, which is used in the cluster world to allow 2 or more PCs to
access
> >the same disks or at least the same disks arrays.
> >
> >Until recently, SCSI was the only technology that offered hardware RAID features.
> >(RAID is a subject in itself) Though most home users have never had a real need
for
> >it, and the cost for a hardware raid controller is normally not worth the minimal
> >benefits (again, for a average home user). SCSI controllers also tend to have
fairly
> >large amounts of cache (or memory) on them. Most standard controllers today have
> >between 32 to 64 megs of ram, with the big boys have as much as a gig of ram., of
> >course, the cost for a 64 meg SCSI RAID controller is around $1000-3000, depending
on
> >the technology it deploys.
> >
> >SCSI is ideal in environments that needs fast large disks, performing heavy read
and
> >write request. For more home users, there is very little reason to go to SCSI
because
> >the cost is so much more than the gain, especially running in the Win9x world. But
if
> >you wanted to create a 400 Gig disks volume at the hardware level, then SCSI would
be
> >the perfect technology.
> >
> >Again, this is just kinda of skimming the surface, and their are plenty of
variables
> >to this. If you really want to know more, I would start at www.Adaptec.com and do
a
> >few searches on SCSI vs. IDE and RAID. Plenty of reading.
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >Dale
> >
> >
> >"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> >> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> >> disadvantage?
> >> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> >> know enough of ide)
> >>
> >> X-Post?
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Which is important in a server due to the thousands of accesses to the hard
drives, Home user doesn't matter much.
There just is no compelling reason for the home user to use SCSI. Firewire
will replace it soon on the desktop.

Lane

"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message
news:34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com...
> One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE
> is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading.  This
> is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the
> harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data
> while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out.  Even more
> important when you have dual channels for the SCSI.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 04:08:42 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White"
> <whiteda@home.com> wrote:
>
> >First, you really shouldn't cross post to so many different newsgroup.
> >
> >A comparison of SCSI and IDE can be rather long and drawn out depending
out which
> >phase of the technology your at with each. Instead, I'll just go over the
highlights
> >and let other who so desire dive into the gory details.
> >
> >Typically SCSI has always been faster than IDE (Currently it's 160MB/s
versus 100
> >MB/s), offered more devices than IDE (15 to 7) and had little impact on
CPU usage (5%
> >versus 75%). With new technologies like UDMA and the ability to add
multiple IDE
> >cards, you can now come pretty close to matching SCSI functions and
performance.
> >
> >SCSI also tends to be more expensive then IDE, partly because of it's
advantages and
> >partly because SCSI devices have a longer mean time between
Failure\repair
> >(MTBF\MTBR). SCSI cards are able to multi process, meaning they can carry
out
> >multiple I/O request at a time, IDE, I believe, is still serial based
meaning I/O
> >request line up. You also need an OS like Win NT/2000/Linux to be able to
take
> >advantage of Multi process I/Os
> >
> >With a normal PC, you can have 4 IDE devices. With any SCSI card you can
have at
> >least 7 and with new cards 15 devices. SCSI pretty much always gives you
external
> >connectors (as you probably won't find many cases that support 15
devices) SCSI also
> >tend to have the larger drives first, but it seems in the last year or
so, IDEs are
> >really screaming by.
> >
> >SCSI allows you to go greater distances. Depending on the technologies in
use, the
> >SCSI devices could be from 6 meters to 25 meters from the PC. SCSI allows
you to
> >share SCSI Buses, which is used in the cluster world to allow 2 or more
PCs to access
> >the same disks or at least the same disks arrays.
> >
> >Until recently, SCSI was the only technology that offered hardware RAID
features.
> >(RAID is a subject in itself) Though most home users have never had a
real need for
> >it, and the cost for a hardware raid controller is normally not worth the
minimal
> >benefits (again, for a average home user). SCSI controllers also tend to
have fairly
> >large amounts of cache (or memory) on them. Most standard controllers
today have
> >between 32 to 64 megs of ram, with the big boys have as much as a gig of
ram., of
> >course, the cost for a 64 meg SCSI RAID controller is around $1000-3000,
depending on
> >the technology it deploys.
> >
> >SCSI is ideal in environments that needs fast large disks, performing
heavy read and
> >write request. For more home users, there is very little reason to go to
SCSI because
> >the cost is so much more than the gain, especially running in the Win9x
world. But if
> >you wanted to create a 400 Gig disks volume at the hardware level, then
SCSI would be
> >the perfect technology.
> >
> >Again, this is just kinda of skimming the surface, and their are plenty
of variables
> >to this. If you really want to know more, I would start at
www.Adaptec.com and do a
> >few searches on SCSI vs. IDE and RAID. Plenty of reading.
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >Dale
> >
> >
> >"Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> >> Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage,
and
> >> disadvantage?
> >> what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about
scsi,
> >> know enough of ide)
> >>
> >> X-Post?
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Dale

You were right, I just did not understand it that way.   Sorry.

Steve

On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 19:02:34 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White"
<whiteda@home.com> wrote:

>
>Well, I believe that's what I said that, except I used the term multiple Process I/O
>versus multi threading. Though I could be wrong, but UDMA does offer performance
>gains in terms of multiple paths. Basically, if you have 2 EIDE controllers, like
>most people do, then you should be able to access each controller independent of the
>other. I've read in this group, but never confirmed it myself, that true DMA\UDMA
>devices all act independent of each other. Which is where they make up some of their
>performance on SCSI devices.
>
>Dale
>
>"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com...
>> One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE
>> is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading.  This
>> is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the
>> harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data
>> while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out.  Even more
>> important when you have dual channels for the SCSI.
>>
>> Steve

No problem, You term is probably the more correct term, I went with a term that's
more popular.

Dale

"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message
news:s003ptcoovq5pmcsi4gef0hpjk5u8s437d@4ax.com...
> Dale
>
> You were right, I just did not understand it that way.   Sorry.
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 19:02:34 GMT, "Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White"
> <whiteda@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, I believe that's what I said that, except I used the term multiple Process
I/O
> >versus multi threading. Though I could be wrong, but UDMA does offer performance
> >gains in terms of multiple paths. Basically, if you have 2 EIDE controllers, like
> >most people do, then you should be able to access each controller independent of
the
> >other. I've read in this group, but never confirmed it myself, that true DMA\UDMA
> >devices all act independent of each other. Which is where they make up some of
their
> >performance on SCSI devices.
> >
> >Dale
> >
> >"Steven Wiser" <SLWISERR@erols.com> wrote in message
> >news:34a2pt4qcjol9mujmbiam5504frvnl0d9m@4ax.com...
> >> One more thing that I think may be important to this issue is that IDE
> >> is single threading in its response and SCSI is multi-threading.  This
> >> is to say if you have more than one thread attempting to access the
> >> harddrive the SCSI will allow access to both threads to read the data
> >> while the IDE would have one thread completely locked out.  Even more
> >> important when you have dual channels for the SCSI.
> >>
> >> Steve

"Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White" <whiteda@home.com> writes:

> First, you really shouldn't cross post to so many different newsgroup.

> A comparison of SCSI and IDE can be rather long and drawn out depending out which
> phase of the technology your at with each. Instead, I'll just go over the highlights
> and let other who so desire dive into the gory details.
> 
> Typically SCSI has always been faster than IDE (Currently it's
> 160MB/s versus 100 MB/s), offered more devices than IDE (15 to 7)
> and had little impact on CPU usage (5% versus 75%). With new
> technologies like UDMA and the ability to add multiple IDE cards,
> you can now come pretty close to matching SCSI functions and
> performance.

for one drive, the 160MB/sec vs 100MB/sec is completely unimportant.
drive speed is limited by the rotation speed of the disk and the
density of the information.  the most any one drive can do is
60MB/sec -- and that's a SCSI 15krpm job.  the max for an IDE is about
50MB/sec.

besides, many tasks do not require the fastest linear streaming, but
seek plays an important role.

SCSI advantages
1) support more hard disks -- up to 15 disks on one ribbon cable.
   this is where the 160MB/sec helps you.
2) faster hard drives -- 10k and 15k rpm disks are only available in
   SCSI.  seek times are faster not only due to faster rotation, but
   also a quicker head arm.
3) better protocols such as tagged queuing and disconnect (which allow
   you to send commands to other drives even though one or more are busy)
4) external equipment.

the latest revision of IDE has a disconnect mode, but afaik very few
drives support it.  both IDE and SCSI use DMA/busmaster data transfer
and use little CPU time (the old PIO mode for IDE was a CPU hog but
no longer relevant).

of course IDE equipment is pretty good and it's much cheaper.

i'd get IDE if i figure on one or two hard disks and a cd-writer.  if
you want 3 or more disks, then go SCSI.

SCSI tends to better support a more multi-tasking style of usage.
thus for a busy server, SCSI can really be a win.

> SCSI also tends to be more expensive then IDE, partly because of it's advantages and
> partly because SCSI devices have a longer mean time between Failure\repair
> (MTBF\MTBR). SCSI cards are able to multi process, meaning they can carry out
> multiple I/O request at a time, IDE, I believe, is still serial based meaning I/O
> request line up. You also need an OS like Win NT/2000/Linux to be able to take
> advantage of Multi process I/Os
> 
> With a normal PC, you can have 4 IDE devices. With any SCSI card you can have at
> least 7 and with new cards 15 devices. SCSI pretty much always gives you external
> connectors (as you probably won't find many cases that support 15 devices) SCSI also
> tend to have the larger drives first, but it seems in the last year or so, IDEs are
> really screaming by.
> 
> SCSI allows you to go greater distances. Depending on the technologies in use, the
> SCSI devices could be from 6 meters to 25 meters from the PC. SCSI allows you to
> share SCSI Buses, which is used in the cluster world to allow 2 or more PCs to access
> the same disks or at least the same disks arrays.
> 
> Until recently, SCSI was the only technology that offered hardware RAID features.
> (RAID is a subject in itself) Though most home users have never had a real need for
> it, and the cost for a hardware raid controller is normally not worth the minimal
> benefits (again, for a average home user). SCSI controllers also tend to have fairly
> large amounts of cache (or memory) on them. Most standard controllers today have
> between 32 to 64 megs of ram, with the big boys have as much as a gig of ram., of
> course, the cost for a 64 meg SCSI RAID controller is around $1000-3000, depending on
> the technology it deploys.
> 
> SCSI is ideal in environments that needs fast large disks, performing heavy read and
> write request. For more home users, there is very little reason to go to SCSI because
> the cost is so much more than the gain, especially running in the Win9x world. But if
> you wanted to create a 400 Gig disks volume at the hardware level, then SCSI would be
> the perfect technology.
> 
> Again, this is just kinda of skimming the surface, and their are plenty of variables
> to this. If you really want to know more, I would start at www.Adaptec.com and do a
> few searches on SCSI vs. IDE and RAID. Plenty of reading.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
> "Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> > Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> > disadvantage?
> > what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> > know enough of ide)
> >
> > X-Post?
> >
> >
> 
> 

-- 
J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
[kullstam@ne.mediaone.net]
sysengr

"Dale \"Mad_Murdock\" White" <whiteda@home.com> wrote in message news:<__6k7.51177$hT4.12683632@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>...
> I agree 100% with this in the context of the average home user.
> 
> There are several companies that does have External storage towers, the Digital BA356
> and the Compaq Universal Enclosure would be examples, of a simple way to had 7-14
> SCSI drives to a standard PC (which is what I am doing). I'm fortunate enough to work
> where we have a few spares of these and that's and so I don't have to buy the drives.
> Though if someone wanted, they can get refurbish and such off of E-bay fairly cheap.
> (at least compared to buying new)
> 
> But with 80-100 gig 7200 rpm drives out and fairly cheap, having a SCSI tower isn't
> so important. I have 6 bay tower and even with 36 gig drives that's just over 216
> gig, but for around $520 I can get (2) 100 Gig 7200 rpm drives and have pretty much
> the same storage. Now if only those 40/80 gig DLT tape units would come down in
> price.
> 
> Just my thoughts
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
> "Lane Lewis" <lanjlewis1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8R4k7.5397$ld2.231777@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > With advent of firewire and IDE raid, scsi on the desktop doesn't make any
> > sense unless you like lots of  Cdroms, DVDroms, CDRWs. Servers still should
> > use SCSI drives and SCSI raid for the better support and speed.
> >
> > Lane
> >
> > "Holy Smoke" <kissme@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cNYj7.37727$Iq4.18664937@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> > > Can you tell me the difference between them? what is their advantage, and
> > > disadvantage?
> > > what can scsi do that ide cant? (sorry, hehe, i need more info about scsi,
> > > know enough of ide)
> > >
> > > X-Post?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

I couldn't decided eaither, between EIDE or SCSI, 
so I bought a Dell that has both built-in.

Corey