🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 05:33:12, "Alaeth's_Thorn" <ask@me.now> wrote:

> >The point is that most people cannot keep a client (better word
> >than Workstation IMO) busy enough to take advantage of the
> >advantages of SCSI.  The only real advantage being a somewhat
> >faster rotation (important for a few client applications as I've
> >pointed out) and the multiple pending requests that SCSI allows
> >and IDE doesn't.  THe simple fact is that SCSI is a wast of money
> >on the vast majority of client systems.  It just doesn't make
> >sense.
> 
> 
>     I write my own CD's using a 4x write SCSI drive... my system is PLENTY
> busy running that.  I tried an EIDE version but brought it back after losing
> so much time/money on CD's that didn't burn due to "buffer underrun" errors.
> All due to the fact that the IDE bus can only send one signal at one time.
> I have since gone completly SCSI on my home PC, never had a CD burn fail and
> gain some awesome gaming advantages due to the faster drive transfers.

Was your IDE CDROM writer on the same channel as the CDROM you 
were copying.  This would explain a *lot*.  CDROMS are so slow 
it's not your CPU having problems.  It's not IDE bandwidth.  It 
couls easily be latency if both devices are on the same channel. 
As I've said before this is the biggest advantage of IDE.  One 
can have multiple outstanding requests with SCSI, where one 
cannot with IDE.  For what you payed for the SCSI gear you could 
easily do better with IDE, if this is you're only beef.  Well 
there is the IRQ problem with IDE.

I don't believe your game improvemsnt BTW.  Show me the numbers 
on a controlled test.  Games are not set up for SCSI and don't 
care about multi-tasking and such.

I'll never say that SCSI is useless.  I have one single-user 
application that demands SCSI UW.  I cannot fathom another.  It 
may be there, but turtle slow CDROM writing and games are not 
among them.

-----
  Keith R. Williams
  krw@ibm.net