• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This will never be settled! Do you use an all SCSI or all IDE based sytem and why?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
winamp, explorer, eudora, icq, netmeeting, excel, rc5, blackice, mcafee vshield, microsoft visual c++ are all running as we speak. I'm also getting into video editing, and I enjoy being able to burn a CD whenever the hell I feel like it without interrupting my other stuff. 🙂 apps load faster, and drive access is quick. Multiple simultaneous accesses are handled flawlessly and quickly.

I disagree with Modus's price/performance ratio because there are many instances where it does not apply. Perhaps a better model would be the increase in overall system performance as compared to the percentage increase in overall cost of the system. Yes, we're always happy to find good deals...guess what, you can get good deals on SCSI stuff too. 🙂 Sure we don't *need* scsi, but do you *need* everything you have in your computer? Probably not.
 
Oh, I always lend my spare processor power to RC5 and burn cds on the fly, same as you. Do you think your programs would run noticeably worse on an EIDE system?

Just 1 other question and please don't take it the wrong way as I am just trying to prove a point: Are all those applications you are running truly multitasking? As in, every single app must be taxing the hard drives even while you're only working in 1 window at a time. Such as: Compiling C Code while burning a cd, doing a thorough scan, playing back a video, saving email, opening a spreadsheet, playing an mp3, and just opening up a directory in explorer.

What I am trying to get at with this question is that the only way your computer should really be benefiting from SCSI multitasking is if its a company file server or something to that affect, where people are constantly accessing data on multiple drives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to explain the reason why EIDE users are able to "multitask" just as well. This deduction came from my own experiences of course, which could be flawed and jaded.

Cya,
skace
 
Win2k uses the swap file whether you've got a ton of RAM or not, so yes there is a lot of multitasking going on in that case. Not to mention that the swap file is not entirely continuous, and even when it is, data being written to or accessed from it is not likely to be in order, so seek times come into play. And yes, my computer is acting as a file server part time. If I copy a file from my friend's computer to mine, his system slows down, same happens if he copies from me. My system does not see a performance hit either way.

My apps may not *always* be multitasking as in accessing the hard drive simultaneously, but it's nice that the system doesn't struggle when it is happening. I've used "fast" systems with SCSI drives (mine, for example), and I've used ones with IDE drives, in fact I've used computers with faster processors and all IDE, adn the performance just doesn't compare...my computer is more responsive doing anything that requires disk access.
 
Nobody begrudges Modus the oppotunity to post his opinion. We merely object to the way he tries to assert his OPINIONS as fact .. that his method of appraising (something as subject as) VALUE is somehow superior to everybody else's.

He does the same thing when it comes to partitioning. It's his modus operandi. He tries to peddle his (mere) OPINIONS as "fundamental, objective & absolute" .. like they're somehow undisputable .. on par with the law of gravity. I enjoy reading Modus' posts, and find them entertaining, but they represent nothing more than his OPINIONS.

I don't know Modus personally. I only know what he posts. But I know he tries to peddle his OPINIONS as gospel truth .. which paints of a picture of someone ego-centric & immature .. with no room for anyone else's opinion but his own .. which he likes to characterize as "smart & sensible".

Red Dawn used the word POMPOUS to describe Modus .. which is defined as "Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious". You don't find the way he tries to define the word VALUE for everybody else a wee bit PRETENTIOUS? ("Claiming a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified&quot😉

Again, these are not my words.

Observe how Modus says:

"The trick to OPTIMAL buying is to buy the product that sits just at the base of this curve. Usually, you end up with computer hardware that is targetted at "entry level" or "mid range" consumers, but these are really just manufacturers' euphemisms for "poor cheapskates" or "customers TOO SMART for us to fool"."

Notice the words, TOO SMART & OPTIMAL. The implication here is that his purchasing model is somehow superior to anybody else's .. and that if you don't subscribe to his "absolute" model, you're not as "smart" as he is .. (to which I say, 'bunk'.)

Modus' "absolute" model is nothing more than Modus' absolute OPINION .. based on his particular financial circumstances, and his particular needs .. which are based on his (particular) usage patterns. It's a valid and 'optimal' model ONLY if VALUE is your most important purchasing criteria.

But not everyone places VALUE at the top of their purchasing hierarchy. The point I'm trying to make is that Modus errs by (childishly) failing to into take into account anyone else's needs but his own.

Let me give an example.

Matrox, the Canadian company who manufactures the DigiSuite video-editing system, recommends HERE the following hard drive config for max performance:

If you plan to use your system primarily with lossless video streams and you also want to add a lot of heavily animated graphics to your projects, we recommend that you configure your system as follows:

* For the video streams, set up an NT stripe set consisting of 3 Ultra-Wide SCSI drives such as the latest Seagate Barracuda and Cheetah.
* Add an additional wide-SCSI drive at a rating of 7,200 RPM or higher to store your graphics and audio data.

This configuration will guarantee your system performance even with the most demanding video streams.

Look at the very top of that page .. where it says, "Different applications mean different needs .. Because your storage needs may be different depending on how you plan to use your DigiSuite system, we've come up with some recommendations for the kind of A/V (SCSI) drive configurations you should use for different applications."

Note that Matrox does not sell hard drives. They make no profit from the sale of hard drives.

But Modus never considers the needs of others. He never asks anyone what they do with their PC. He never says, Now, if you're editing video, then ... " No, he considers only his OWN needs .. which he (egotistically) projects onto everyone else.

Worst of all is when he waxes hypocritical .. where, in one breath he says:

"SCSI cannot hope to position itself as a smart, practical purchase. It's only market is the nerd-man who must have the biggest and most impressive computer penis to impress his nerd-friends."

and in the next, he says that he's purchased & owns (owned?) a SCSI system for himself ..

.. something I have a hard time picturing. I guess he'd rather appear hypocritical, than as debating the merits of a technology he's never used (inexperienced) .. which would attack his credibility.

What's the record number of posts in a thread?
 
One more to add.

The LEGIONS of the stupid are invincible... but let's set the record straight.

Modus may come across as arrogant but he should be commended for standing up for the general masses.

The <unnamed> legions should be ashamed for bashing anyone who dares to compete without paying the price of admission into the ranks of the elite.
 


<< Modus may come across as arrogant but he should be commended for standing up for the general masses. >>


And he does speak for the masses. IDE is what most people use. Wherever you go you see IDE. You walk into a computer store and all you see is IDE. You go to CompUSA or Best Buy, all IDE. You want to order a computer, most likely it's gonna come with an IDE drive. You order a computer from Dell or Gateway and you're gonna get an IDE drive unless you opt for one of those server systems.

IDE is for the masses. SCSI is for the high-end market and for people that feel that they MUST have it and that they will DIE by having to wait a few extra seconds for an IDE drive.

My WD Expert 27.3 may not be the fastest hard drive on the market, but it does everything I ask of it.

 
i have no money =(

right now i have 2 WD expert 18GBs in raid 0.

that'll do for now...

i do want to go partially scsi... you know scsi booting and some programs... ide for storage. ;-)

but then, i think i'll stick with this RAID0 setup for now =)
 
A vast majority of the people here do not need SCSI, and we by no means represent the average PC user. But value, especially Modus' definition of value, cannot always be the overriding factor in your buying decisions. There comes a time when value is not the most important aspect, but productivity is. If the added performance offered by SCSI can increase your productivity in the applications you use, the added cost may be worth it. Again, most people here, who surf the web/play games/etc, will not see the added benefit of the low seek times of SCSI. But serious productivity applications, such as video editing, 3D rendering, etc, can demand it.

In every buyer's guide, Anand says (with good reason):

&quot;Hard drive performance has always been one of the biggest bottlenecks in the speed of a computer. After all, the only component whose speed is measured in milliseconds is the hard drive ? everything else is nanoseconds or microseconds.&quot;

 
No one is saying that IDE is bad, or that IDE users are somehow inferior. No, no .. a thousand times, no. I'm a *huge* fan of IDE drives .. currently have 3 in my system .. with a 4th on the kitchen table, waiting to go in. If you go by the number of IDE drives a person has, I'd be its biggest fan.

So don't get the idea that we're bashing IDE .. cuz we're not .. (which can't be said for Modus, who bashes not only SCSI drives &amp; the SCSI interface, but also SCSI users. I don't call that 'standing up for the general masses'). We're merely saying that SCSI drives &amp; the SCSI interface offers advantages that IDE drives &amp; the IDE interface doesn't have.

The only negative of SCSI is its cost .. which is why we recommend (for those wanting to upgrade, (&amp; who can afford it) a *small* SCSI drive boot drive .. to run the OS, apps, &amp; swap/page file ..and keeping your IDE drive(s) for cheap mass storage .. thereby getting the best of *both* worlds .. at the most attractive price point .. something Modus, more than anyone, should appreciate. 9GB's is more than enuf space to run both W2K &amp; WinME, all your apps, and prolly even a distro of Linux.

Two years ago, SCSI was expensive. But now you can have enterprise-class performance for less than the price of a gfx card. I'd call that a bargain .. especially compared to the cost of an iPAQ H3630. 🙂

If someone doesn't want SCSI in their system, we have no problem with that .. nobody's calling you names. We freely admit that SCSI is not for everyone .. it's for the person who can afford it, and who esteems performance over value, and who does things with their PC that will take advantage of the benefits it has to offer. Not everyone meets those criteria, which is why we say SCSI is not for everyone.
 
Think of IDE as your average car.
Say a Chevy Malibu, or a Ford Taurus.
Now think of SCSI as the Malibu or the Taurus with a Corvette 350ci engine.
Not everyone will want it, or can afford it.
Simple as that.
Modus is trying to make us think that a Corvette engined Malibu/Taurus is bad...which it isn't.
 
&quot;Modus may come across as arrogant but he should be commended for standing up for the general masses.&quot;

Huh? What is he standing up for exactly? I don't think any of the SCSI advocates here including myself have said that IDE is bad or shouldn't be used by anyone for any reason whatsoever. All he is doing is stating what we already know about IDE, it is cheaper and a better bang for the buck. No one questions that, that isn't the debate here, or at least what it has ended up being. The issue at hand here is that Modus seems to think that his opinion is the only one that counts. He thinks that just because he doesn't view SCSI as a good value and it's not worth buying to him, that no one else should regardless of what their needs are. I myself prefer SCSI for most tasks and use it myself, that said, I do not think that everyone who goes with an all IDE system made a bad buying decision or shouldn't have done that. I certainly see the price advantage of IDE, and I don't think anyone using IDE is a cheapskate or inferior as someone stated. On the otherhand, Modus thinks that no one should be using SCSI, regardless of their budget, unless they need an ego trip which is a close minded stance and false.

If you don't understand the benefits of SCSI, they don't apply to you, or you don't want to pay for them, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't try to sit there and claim that just because you don't, that no one else should either. Let people make their own buying decisions.

As for the elite comment. There are some people on this board who shouldn't be elite who somehow are.
 


<< Modus is trying to make us think that a Corvette engined Malibu/Taurus is bad...which it isn't. >>


Excuse me, but anyone that puts a Corvette engine in a Malibu or a Taurus is a fricken retard!
 
Sorry for the hiatus. I've been a little busy lately, and frankly my enthusiasm for this thread is decreasing in direct porportion to the number of objective participants. I'll forgoe the blow by blow deconstruction of Radboy's posts as they've become too and juvenile and personal to bother with.

So. What have we learned since this thread started? Not much, but what we did know has at least been brought into sharper focus:

SCSI drives are faster than IDE drives. How much faster? Well, comparing the fastest SCSI drive to the fastest IDE drive (Seagate X15 vs IBM 75GXP), we find that the performance difference under a host of benchmarks varies from about 5% to 100%. That's significant. Unfortunately, the price difference between the fastest SCSI setup and the fastest IDE setup is an astronomical 400%, and the IDE drive gets almost twice the storage: Thirty gigs instead of 18. Obviously, then, IDE technology is a far better value. Its performance/dollar and storage/dollar ratios are so phenomenal that SCSI can't even begin to compete.

The benefits and validity of value purchasing are well established and not really open to debate. The strategy? Simply identify your minimum requirements, then evaluate all suitable products, settling on the one with the highest price/performance ratio. Performance is, of course, the relative ability of each product to perform its task, while price is the monetary cost of the item, taking into account necessary supporting purchases.

The question is, what do you do with this information? That depends what kind of buyer you are. There are basically two archetypes for buyers of computer technology: those who see it as a means to an end, and those who see it as the end.

Now, those in the latter group are not really concerned with value or price/performance ratios. They simply want something they can enjoy on its own terms -- something powerful that they can tinker with and brag about. They don't mind paying extra; in fact they like paying extra. It makes them feel refined and special, like a member of a select club. There is a definite sense of community because they know that the vast majority of people have not invested as much money into their computers. They feel that they have worked hard and can now enjoy a premium product in all its glory.

There is nothing at all wrong with this; I cannot and have not criticized it. That's because it's a purely emotional act. The purchase was not based on an extensive cost/benefit analysis. There was little or no consideration of price/performance ratios. And there was probably even a concious realization that a much cheaper product could have performed quite well. But that's irrelevant. They wanted it, so they bought it. End of story.

Now, the former group took a more common approach. They had a rough idea what level of performance would satisfy their requirements, and they compared many products to see which one offered the most performance for the least money. They knew that would probably mean making do with less than the very best available, but they also knew that they had no real need for the very best available. Certainly they desired it, but rationally they understood that the large price premium would be better spent elsewhere. They are not cheap, or poor, or tight-fisted. They simply would rather use that money for something more productive.

This debate is very clearly divided between these two groups. Those who view computer hardware as a means to an end aren't concerned with owning the very best there is, they simply want something that will meet their needs and present a good value proposition. Naturally, they choose IDE. Those who view computer hardware as an end unto itself want the most advanced technology available. Naturally, they choose SCSI.

The real debate comes when the IDE camp challenges the SCSI camp to justify its benefits in light of its added cost. Most answer simply and honestly, &quot;I can't, I just like it.&quot; Some, though, attempt to provide a semi-rational explanation for what is essentially an irrational decision. They point to various little-used capabilities of SCSI, to its enterprise flavour, to its cutting edge nature. They claim to have examined the evidence and found that &quot;it was worth it for me.&quot;

This is what adds fuel to the fire. Instead of simply acknowledging that their SCSI setup was a personal reward and not the most practical use of their money, these people try to argue that their situation invited or required SCSI. Certainly, there are places where SCSI makes sense: enormous enterprise servers, life critical systems, and so on. But the progression of IDE technology has brought it past the level SCSI was at two years ago.

What do the following applications have in common -- 3D rendering and design, small to medium sized network and web servers, digital video processing, and team software development. The answer? None of them require SCSI technology to achieve excellent productivity. Why?

Although the hard drive is definitely the slowest component in the modern PC, it is rarely called upon for an extended period of time. Productivity and entertainment software today is not limitted by hard disk performance. That is a crucial point to understand. Every other major PC component can be tested under real world benchmarks that very clearly highlight its performance in tasks where it forms the major bottleneck: games for video cards, 3D rendering, video processing, and program compliation for CPU's, etc. But hard drives have no such &quot;kiler app&quot;.

Therefore, it is very difficult to hold up SCSI technology as a performance necessity or major productivity boost under most applications. We can only fall back on the tried and true price/performance ratios that tell us to avoid it if we want the best value for our dollar.

And for those who still choose SCSI? Let them eat cake.

Modus
 


<< Excuse me, but anyone that puts a Corvette engine in a Malibu or a Taurus is a fricken retard! >>



Then obviously you've never seen the Hot Rod magazine issue with a Caddy 500ci engined Chevette.
THe point is that it smoked the 2000 Corvette in any acceleration test. Only acceleration though.

Speaking of practical uses of money, when's the last time you made an didnt use money practically? I'll always be a split SCSI/IDE user.
 


<< Then obviously you've never seen the Hot Rod magazine issue with a Caddy 500ci engined Chevette.
The point is that it smoked the 2000 Corvette in any acceleration test. Only acceleration though. >>


So what if it was in Hot Rod...it's still STUPID. What a waste of time and energy. The person that did that needs to have his head examined.

I once saw in Car and Driver a Cadillac Eldorado with an engine up front as usual and also one in the trunk effectively powering all wheels. Can it be done?? Yes!! Is it f*&amp;kin' ridiculous?? You damn skippy!!
 
Hot rod'ing and computers are not comparable. Hot rod'ing is strictly a hobby based activity which has no basis in logical thinking. The whole premise behind hot rods is an ego thing, not always in a bad sense mind you. To have the best looking / most outrageous setup. Hot rods are style over substance where as computers are mostly substance over style, there is no practical reason for hot rod'ing. I want my computer to do what it is supposed to do, if it looks good in the process, that's a bonus, but I never buy based on looks or with the intention of impressing someone else.

&quot;So what if it was Hot Rod...it's still STUPID. What a waste of time and energy. The person that did that needs to have his head examined.&quot;

The more you add to this thread NFS4, the more close minded you sound, like modus. Just because you don't like something doesn't make someone who does stupid or in need of a head examination. Hot rods are a hobby, what hobby is a constructive use of time that is money well spent from the viewpoint of someone you doesn't enjoy it?
 
My System is all SCSI
30 (votes) 14.35 (%)
My System is all IDE
126 (votes) 60.29 (%)
I have one or more SCSI devices
53 (votes) 25.36 (%)
 
I meant to say &quot;in&quot; Hot Rod as in the magazine...either way, it's rather pointless to put that engine into a Malibu.

I feel the same way about Corvette engines in Malibus as I do about coffee can exhausts, ground effects, and hopped up 4-cylinders on Honda Civics. It just ain't natural. Just like fake boobs.
 


<< But the progression of IDE technology has brought it past the level SCSI was at two years ago >>

case in point.

//edit
last post. these novels are getting hard to read.
 
Modus,

Good to hear from you. I especially enjoyed your closing line, &quot;Let them eat cake.&quot; Clever use of innuendo &amp; historical imagery.

But aren't you also one of the cake eaters? Haven't you also abandoned the 'masses' for SCSI? .. oh, Modus Robespierre? 🙂

I was disappointed by the omission of your alleged &amp; mysterious SCSI rig.

Again, it appears to be a contradiction .. that, on one hand, you say, &quot;I have carefully evaluated the price/perf ratio of SCSI and deem it sucketh .. (for not only my loyal subjects, but for everyone in the entire kingdom),&quot; but on the other hand, you claim, &quot;Yes, I have purchsed &amp; own (owned?) my own SCSI rig.&quot;

Can't you see how this might pose an awkward contradiction in the eyes of some? .. perhaps even hypocritical?

Since you claim to be a SCSI owner/user, I'm curious to hear your evaluation (synthetic benchmarks aside) of the performance increase you experienced when upgrading from IDE to SCSI. Personally, I was both surprised &amp; impressed by the real-world perf increase I experience after upgrading to a 10Krpm SCSI boot drive (from 7200rpm IDE). I saw terrific 'wow factor' .. second only to that experienced when I upgraded to a Cable modem. Again, my recent CPU upgrade, from C300 @464, to P3-700 @938, left me comparatively disapointed (even tho it represents a real-life MHz increase of over 100%).

Re: &quot;They don't mind paying extra; in fact they like paying extra.&quot;.

I can't help but disagree. If this were the case, we wouldn't be using IDE drives for cheap mass storage.

Re: &quot;I cannot and have not criticized it.&quot;

Uh, what do you call this?:

&quot;SCSI cannot hope to position itself as a smart, practical purchase. It's only market is the nerd-man who must have the biggest and most impressive computer penis to impress his nerd-friends.&quot;

Re: &quot;But the progression of IDE technology has brought it past the level SCSI was at two years ago.&quot;

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the progression of SCSI technology .. but I happen to have/own a SCSI drive that I purchased *over* two years ago. It has a seek time of 5.3ms. In case you haven't noticed, there's *still* no IDE drive that comes anywhere CLOSE to a 5.3ms seek.

If you'd rather prefer we use ACCESS times, it only get worse .. cuz SCSI drives spinning at 10Krpm (or faster) have lower latencies than IDE drives (which max out at 7200rpm) .. which only increases their advantage over IDE drives.

How long do you think it'll be before an IDE drive sees a 5.3ms seek? No time soon, I can assure you. How much progress have IDE drives made in the area of seek/access times in the last two years .. almost none. Why do you think that is, Modus? Could it be cuz it's *expensive* to construct a drive with a low seek/access time?

Need I remind you that the Storagerview says HERE that SEEK is the single most important metric in appraising hard drive performance? A short quote in case you're still in denial:

STR had relatively little effect upon overall drive performance. Today, it should be clear that steadily-increasing transfer rates have in effect &quot;written themselves out&quot; of the performance equation ... it should be clear that random access time is vastly more important than sequential transfer rate when it comes to typical disk performance.

Again, we have no problem with IDE drives. We *love* them for their vaunted storage/price ratios .. which is why so many SCSI users compliment our storage solutions with them. But we simply find them less-suited for tasks such as running an OS, apps &amp; swap/page file .. especially when compared to the performance advanatges offered by SCSI drives &amp; the SCSI interface.

For the person who (already) knows they want to upgrade to enterprise-class performance .. or, at least, would like to try it out .. and see for themselves what all the hubbub is about .. do you disagree that a combination of a small SCSI boot drive, and a large IDE drive, for general mass storage, is the most (cost) effective solution? .. the best of both worlds?

I'm also curious to hear your evaluation Matrox's recommended drive configurations posted HERE. It sounds like you claim to know more about the requirements of editing video than Matrox.

Have you ever edited video?

Are we at 300 posts yet?
 


<< But we simply find them less-suited for tasks such as running an OS, apps &amp; swap/page file >>


Then why is it that I'm perfectly satisfied with an IDE setup in Windows 2000? It's perfect for my usage (email, IE5.5, ICQ, AIM, Word, Excel, Napster, CD burning, DVD playback, and the only game I play is Tribes).

I'm not knocking you SCSI guys, but what are you doing that makes the extra cost of SCSI not matter to you? I just don't get it. I've messed around with SCSI systems, and I wasn't really THAT impressed with the speed for normal desktop usage.

Faster seek times really don't mean anything to me when Word pops up in an instant and I open up an IE window at the blink of an eye? As for bootup speeds...fooey. I rarely reboot my machine, and most of the time I'll just logoff and log right back in.
 
Who here has said that NFS4 should be using SCSI and not IDE? Somewhere in the mess that is this thread I missed that statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top