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

[SniperWulf]

I have all IDE right now. I was using all SCSI, but I got caught in a tight spot and needed some quick cash so there went 95% of my SCSI stuff. SCSI has many benifits, like better systems response, better multi-talking and its just the bomb when transfering large ammounts of data from drive to drive.

If I had the cash to spend, I'd go all SCSI again and wouldn't think nothing of it.

 

[Sohcan]

<< Yeah over at storagereview you can see the 12/10/32A which TOTALLY outperforms the SCSI version in EVERY category...EVERY >>

??? I just went over the Storagereview and used to database to compare the 12/10/32A (PX-W1210TA IDE) to the 12/10/32 (PX-W1210TS SCSI). Most the CD reading tests were within 1% of the each other (I'd hardly call that TOTALLY outperforming), and the SCSI model won the CD burning tests, which can probably be attributed to the larger buffer.

 

[bonkers325]

we are still going at it arent we

well i still say scsi over ide anyday

 

[ahfung]

Now 49.41% for all IDE.

A few more votes the tide will be turned.

 

[RobSan]

Poll preaching to converts; buy what the heck you want and move on. I moved to SCSI five years ago and don't care what you think of my motives.

Rob

 

[Hanpan]

Rob's got the right attitude.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

I have all IDE right now, simply because of cost restraints. However, upgrading my OS drive to SCSI will definetly be a consideration when I come around to upgrading.

 

[Informant X]

Sohcan what are you talking about? The IDE version beats the SCSI version in all benchmarks but 1. I just went back and looked. Go look at the Review of the IDE version which was compared to directly to the SCSI version.

 

[Hanpan]

Informant X i may be wrong but it seems to me you are comparing the plextor 12/10/32 ide to the 12/4/32 scsi in which case yes teh scsi was released earlier however you should compare the 12/10/32 ide to the 12/10/32 scsi in which case the scsi was released later.

 

[Sohcan]

Storagereview Database: Go down to &quot;Compare Optical Drive Performance of up to Six Drives,&quot; and select Plextor PX-W1210TA (12/10/32 DMA-2) and Plextor PX-W1210TS (12/10/32 U-SCSI). Apart from the margin of error and tests where the larger buffer of the SCSI drive matters, the results are identical.

The Plextor PX-W1210TA (12/10/32 DMA-2) review was compared with the older generation Plextor PX-W124TSi (12/4/32 SCSI) that has a slower access time. Storagereview hasn't done a full review of the PX-W1210TS (12/10/32 U-SCSI) yet, but they have the benchmarks in the database.

 

[jimmygates]

All SCSI since I'm a spoiled little child...muahaah








-Jimbo

 

[Crovakiet]

Ok, concerning the sci 12/10/32A and the 12/10/32S, the IDE one performs better according to storagereview.com. Now, we must ask ourselves, when burning a cdr is burnproof really making IDE up to scsi standards? Now I am no expert, probably an amateur at scsi and talking about it too . What I can understand from the burnproof technology is that it prevents buffer underruns from happening by stopping the laser and filling the buffer back up thus preventing a buffer underrun. Now, if the system was under some sort of medium to moderately high load wouldnt the scsi version of the Plextor 12/10/32 perform much better? Consider this, the 12/10/32A has a smaller buffer, and thus when system is doing some disk usage activity like playing a game, or transferring other files, or copying or whatever, wouldnt the buffer run out a lot and thus keep stopping the laser, making the write time longer? Now consider the scsi version of the plextor 12/10/32, it has a larger buffer and putting it under equal load like its IDE counterpart, would it be safe to say that the scsi version would write a cdr disk FASTER? since the buffer is not running out of data as much as the ide because of the larger buffer, and since its scsi, the I/O processes, disk read/write are simultaneous? Just a thought(I have not tried this test out so someone test this out )

I myself am planning to get an adaptec 29160 for my kt7Raid, ATlas 10k II 9 gig, and plextor 12/10/32S or hopefully plextor 16/10/40S(not announced yet but hopefully will )

 

[vi edit]

SCSI for my CDROM and CDR
IDE for my storage

I paid $160 for my Plextor 8x20(Imation) w/ adaptec 2130 adapter, and $60 for my UltraPlex 40x.
Not bad for $220 eh?

 

[Sengar]

I use both. 2 Cheetah X15s, 2 Cheetah 18XLs, SCSI CDRW and CD-ROM. My DVD-ROM is a 16x Toshiba IDE (mainly because it's difficult to find a high-end SCSI DVD drive), and I have a 45GB 75GXP for general storage, because the idea of storing MP3s on an X15 makes my skin crawl.

There is no comparison between the computing experience, IMO. I recently upgraded to a 1.2GHz Athlon, and migrated all of my SCSI drives onto that system (although the X15s are new to the T-Bird), leaving my older PC with only an ATA100 IBM 75GXP. It's amazing how much more sluggish that system is now. I won't even mention multitasking on it. It reminds me exactly why I have been using SCSI drives on every system I've put together since I upgraded from a 386 in the early '90s.

With the difference in average capacity, it does make sense these days to use an IDE drive to shovel MP3s, images and infrequently accessed data onto, IMO, and for the average user there is no real reason to go SCSI. But for me, more than the increased productivity, SCSI is an aesthetic choice. I would take less pleasure in using my PC if it were all IDE.

Of course, my first all SCSI system (a 486/66) was also a major reason why I couldn't afford a car back then.

 

[Muerto]

All IDE. For the same reasons NFS4 gave.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

CPU speeds are increasing dramatically, and almost nobody would say they'd rather have a processor running at 700MHz as opposed to 1.2GHz, though they may complain that they can't afford the 1.2GHz variety.
People say that the RAM and FSB speeds are bottlenecks because the processor is so fast it often sits around waiting for information from memory or other components. Ok, so we increase FSB speeds, up the transfer rates of RAM. Great. What's left? The HD. The hard drive is one of the slowest components in the system. You think it's bad when your processor has to wait for data from RAM, how about when it's waiting for something from your HD? Pretty bad.

There's also more to performance than transfer rates. Seek times hold more signifigance than they are usually given credit for. As was previously mentioned, disk access is often random in nature.

SCSI has great performance. Is it worth the cost? For me it is. I don't need drives larger than 18GB, and I love the performance.

BTW, this poll does not help to show which interface is superior at all, it just helps to show what most people are able to afford. Many people running all IDE systems said they would love to own all SCSI if they could afford it.

 

[Toolman]

Let me start off by saying I'm all SCSI and proud of it! And what isn't SCSI on system #2 will soon be.

The harddrive is the slowest part of a system and therefore 10K &amp; 7200K SCSI hdds are a good bang for the buck, especially when you consider the 5 year warranties, multi tasking abilities and low cpu usage. I luv having files explode onto the screen like no other hardware or cpu upgrade can make a system do. Also, my SCSI devices are gonna be around thru many mobo, memory and cpu upgrades just as my 24&quot; Sony monitor will be too.

Just because you may be a student on a tight budget or you're tighter than bark on a stump with your money, don't condemn SCSI or write it off as a waste. I believe most, not all, but most of the negativity toward SCSI spanks of sour grapes, or never having experienced SCSI, pure and simple! We all have our eccentricities, some more than others. What is important to one is not necessarily a priority to another.

You car enthusiasts, if you had the bucks what kind of car would you buy?? A BMW Z8? A Vette? A Viper? A McLaren F1? What the hell do ya need a car like that for? The speed limit is 70 mph. Speeding is against the law! Speed kills!

In my computer SCSI equates to speed and durability where it isn't against the law and does not take lives! I use to be into hot rodding cars, now I hop up the pc and my finger nails are much cleaner because of it.

You do a good job reporting the news NFS4, and stir the pot nicely when between stories!

 

[NFS4]

<< NSF, you are a car enthusiast as many of us here are, if you had the bucks what kind of car would you buy?? A BMW Z8? A Vette? A Viper? A McLaren F1? What the hell do ya need a car like that for? The speed limit is 70 mph. Speeding is against the law! Speed kills! >>


Neither, I'd rather have a Porsche Boxster

 

[Viperoni]

Another downside that SCSI *usually* has is that the HD's are loud as hell.
This barracuda is driving me INSANE!

 

[CrimsonWolf]

IDE - I'm only a poor high school student. SCSI is a good technology, I simply have to watch my spending.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

My Atlas 10k, IBM 18ES DNES and Atlas II are all quiet running drives. The 10k is noisy when defragging, but otherwise is plenty quiet enough for me...

 

[OS]

<< I currently have both in my rig. I know that IDE has come along way when it comes to CD-RWs, but I can be burning CD to CD-RW and be playing a DVD and playing games and surfing the Web without having to worry about CPU utlizations. >>



So can I. On my all IDE system. Burn directly cd to cd, play quake 3 or UT, have Office/IE/ICQ open, etc. Cool stuff. Except that in my situation, it's made possible by SMP and not SCSI

But with the advent of 10x+ burners, this is really kind of a pointless exercise in computer muscle flexing.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

How about SMP + SCSI? That's what I'm running. Yay!

 

[Jgtdragon]

Sir Fredrick,
Got a quick question. I got a Quatum II 10k coming my way. Do I need a HDD cooler for it? It has a big heatsink on the drive it seems.
Since you have the drive, I just want to know.

Thanks

 

[Rankor]

IDE

--Cheap
--&quot;It's there&quot; (on the motherboard)

Recently upgraded a 5400 rpm drive to a 7200 rpm drive; noticeable difference in speed and seek time due to increased rpm.