🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:55:25 GMT, bob@lintilla.demon.co.uk (Bob Cousins)
wrote:

>It's funny how people with SCSI systems often seek to put down EIDE, 
>and at the same time make ridiculous performance claims for SCSI. 

It is funny how _some_ people with SCSI systems do this. It's also funny
how _some_ people with non-SCSI systems claim that performance is
equivalent to SCSI. 

>Maybe its because they have paid twice as much for their disk storage, 
>and feel a need to justify its cost, even if by inventing performance 
>figures?

That is certainly a possible reason. 

>If the Seagate Cheetah can do 14-21 MB/sec, I doubt you are seeing continuous
>40MB/sec. The fact is in a typical workstation, SCSI offers little or no benefit
>to the overall performance of the system. If you don't believe me, see
>http://www8.zdnet.com/pcmag/pclabs/report/r960702a.htm.

If one were to pay twice as much for a SCSI system you certainly 
would not get components that were roughly equivalent to their IDE
counterparts. PC-Mag, however, purposely sought out drives that had
physically similar data transfer rates. It seems clear to me that SCSI
cannot compete with IDE on a cost/performance evaluation, but typically
SCSI purchasers have performance as the primary consideration. 

I also have reservations about their definition of what a typical
workstation user might be doing for multitasking. Two Autocad windows?
That's it? I have a network in my house, and the NT machine is generally
used as the file server and CD-Rom server, as well as my programming
machine. I think they need to re-examine how someone who decides to buy
a SCSI system actually uses it.