How come scsi never really took over?

jfall

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2000
5,975
2
0
For as long as I can remember, the SCSI interface was fast and highly reliable. Scsi has been out for years yet not many people seem to use it for desktop computers and motherboards don't come with build in scsi controllers. If scsi is faster / more reliable than ATA why was so much money put into developing SATA which is still an inferior technology?

I understand that the price of scsi equipment is one of the big reasons, but my question is why are the prices still so high? After all these years you'd think scsi components would be cheap to manufacturer like every other computer technology.
 

jfall

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2000
5,975
2
0
Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Its expensive, loud, and hard to implement.

Why is it still expensive though? Every other technology drops in price after a few years like DVD media etc.

I don't think modern scsi drives are really that much louder than a rapotor would be and as far as I know windows and linux have great support for almost all scsi controllers on the market.
 

Crusty

Lifer
Sep 30, 2001
12,684
2
81
I've got more SCSI drives then I have PATA/SATA

In fact, in this machine i've got 4x18gb drives... 1 is 15k and the other three are 10k rpms.
 

jfall

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2000
5,975
2
0
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t see many servers with PATA or SATA drives.

I'm talking about desktops. But yeah, most servers do use scsi. Which is why I've always wondered why it hasn't taken over the desktop market. IDE hard drives have always been and are still one of the major bottlenecks in desktop computing.


Are the hardware components of SCSI drives really that different than IDE drives? What makes them more expensive to produce? I can't imagine that the controllers cost a whole lot to make.
 

scorpmatt

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
7,040
97
91
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I don?t see many servers with PATA or SATA drives.

qft

scsi is still just too damn expensive. the prices have dropped considerably, but alot of people dont see the justification of spending more for the speed of scsi. the average computer owner out there can't tell the difference between ide and sata, let alone sata and scsi. they might see something between ide scsi though.
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
I thought scisi was older than IDE?

I had SCSI in 1989 and didnt have IDE until 1997
 
Jun 19, 2004
10,860
1
81
Oh you best believe SCSI's runnin' sh1t. PATA and SATA are just his ho's. SCSI's in the background holdin steady wit da pimp hand!
 

Jzero

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
18,834
1
0
It's all marketing. People don't want prunes, they want sun-dried plums. The average joe sixpack isn't going to buy anything that is "scuzzy."
 

scorpmatt

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
7,040
97
91
Originally posted by: MisterJackson
Oh you best believe SCSI's runnin' sh1t. PATA and SATA are just his ho's. SCSI's in the background holdin steady wit da pimp hand!

daisy chain 300MBtrans SATA FTW
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Take over is exactly what it does - to the non enterprise user that wants a faster desktop.
 

tranceport

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2000
4,168
1
81
www.thesystemsengineer.com
There have been lots of improvements to scsi speeds as well. The most recent being ultra 320.. 320 Megabytes Per Second. Before that was u160, Ultra2 Ultra, Wide, Ultra Wide etc etc. Just like IDE got DMA33, DMA66, 100, 133. Now SATA and SATA2.

There are even other buses you can have for drives... Fibre Channel has a large portion of the Extremely High end market. I have a Clariion CX700 at work with 36 Fibre Channel 146GB drives.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: Jzero
It's all marketing. People don't want prunes, they want sun-dried plums. The average joe sixpack isn't going to buy anything that is "scuzzy."

Uh. Right. Like the "average joe sixpack" knows what interface the "hard drives" and "cd-rom drives" in his computer use...
 

scorpmatt

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
7,040
97
91
Originally posted by: jfall
How close do sata drives actually come to that level though

supposedly they come very close in the benchmarks, not sure for sure