Just a note to everyone participating here: Please refrain from "neffing" or posting pointless one-line resonses. It just makes this thread longer than it ought to be, falsely inflating the reply total. We have already generated more meaningful content here than any other truly technical post I can remember in three years on AnandTech.
Fredrick,
<< It's been shown that SCSI has many benefits over IDE, not just the 46% better access times. >>
Actually, the only SCSI benefit significant to the daily usage of the vast majority of people is its higher performance, and we've already seen how that is not high enough to match its proportional price demands. The other "intangible" benefits of SCSI are either not important, or possible with much cheaper IDE solutions: StorageReview already showed CPU utlization to be equal between the two interfaces (and if you trust their opinion on Winbench, then you must accept their even more objective tests on CPU usage). Relability for both interfaces is above 95% and below 100, making it all but irrelevant. A five year warranty on a hard drive is similar to a five year warranty on a Pentium 75: it doesn't mean much when the computer is sitting in the basement reduced to a cheap router. Multiple device support is provided by typical IDE setups, which allow up to eight drives, covering any conceivable consumer or business workstation. IRQ sharing is handled just fine by ACPI and besides, performance hits from transfering data between drives on the same IDE channel are largely mythical (see Adrian's Rojak Pot for tests on this). Hot-swappability using IDE hard drives is now possible with a $35 removable rack that I can actually sell at this moment.
So in light of the continued advancement of cheap IDE solutions, supposedly intangible benefits of SCSI amount to very little these days. Performance is the only department where SCSI can stay on top for most conceivable consumer and business applications.
<< Modus, if you were trying to say that you're not going to respond to my posts any longer, should I do a little victory dance and claim that youare giving up because you're losing ground >>
Does the student jump for joy when the teacher, exasperated with his wiseacre answers, abandons the lesson? Perhaps he does, but it's the student's loss, not the teacher's. (Pompous and arrogant enough for you?
)
<< Actually, I do understand that we're not getting anywhere with this. We obviously have different ideas about what is valuable to us, and this is coming down to an ideological difference, which really has nothing to do with SCSI >>
Not quite. The problem is, you know full well what value means to a sensible purchasing decision. The definition I use is the same one applied by AnandTech in their Value in their Buyers' Guides, the same one used by bargain-hunters in the Hot Deals forum, and the same one designated by the industry at large. Value signifies a good price/performance ratio. I know you know this.
Your ad hoc definition of value purchasing presented in this thread (personally assessed worth) just doesn't apply because it doesn't take into account the cost of obtaining the item. As Skace pointed out, it could be used to justify a $200 floppy cable as a sensible, practical purchase, so long as the floppy cable was particularly valuable to its buyer. The key problem here is that your definition of value refuses to account for cost. Only by using the "industry standard" definition of value -- price/performance -- can we make a sensible, practical purchasing decision.
You know, I don't think we're really that far apart on this. You keep returning to the supposed "intangibles" of the SCSI interface that make it attractive in your eyes. If you would simply state that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts who seek performance above value and practicality, there would be no dispute.
We could all go on with our lives
Modus
Fredrick,
<< It's been shown that SCSI has many benefits over IDE, not just the 46% better access times. >>
Actually, the only SCSI benefit significant to the daily usage of the vast majority of people is its higher performance, and we've already seen how that is not high enough to match its proportional price demands. The other "intangible" benefits of SCSI are either not important, or possible with much cheaper IDE solutions: StorageReview already showed CPU utlization to be equal between the two interfaces (and if you trust their opinion on Winbench, then you must accept their even more objective tests on CPU usage). Relability for both interfaces is above 95% and below 100, making it all but irrelevant. A five year warranty on a hard drive is similar to a five year warranty on a Pentium 75: it doesn't mean much when the computer is sitting in the basement reduced to a cheap router. Multiple device support is provided by typical IDE setups, which allow up to eight drives, covering any conceivable consumer or business workstation. IRQ sharing is handled just fine by ACPI and besides, performance hits from transfering data between drives on the same IDE channel are largely mythical (see Adrian's Rojak Pot for tests on this). Hot-swappability using IDE hard drives is now possible with a $35 removable rack that I can actually sell at this moment.
So in light of the continued advancement of cheap IDE solutions, supposedly intangible benefits of SCSI amount to very little these days. Performance is the only department where SCSI can stay on top for most conceivable consumer and business applications.
<< Modus, if you were trying to say that you're not going to respond to my posts any longer, should I do a little victory dance and claim that youare giving up because you're losing ground >>
Does the student jump for joy when the teacher, exasperated with his wiseacre answers, abandons the lesson? Perhaps he does, but it's the student's loss, not the teacher's. (Pompous and arrogant enough for you?
)<< Actually, I do understand that we're not getting anywhere with this. We obviously have different ideas about what is valuable to us, and this is coming down to an ideological difference, which really has nothing to do with SCSI >>
Not quite. The problem is, you know full well what value means to a sensible purchasing decision. The definition I use is the same one applied by AnandTech in their Value in their Buyers' Guides, the same one used by bargain-hunters in the Hot Deals forum, and the same one designated by the industry at large. Value signifies a good price/performance ratio. I know you know this.
Your ad hoc definition of value purchasing presented in this thread (personally assessed worth) just doesn't apply because it doesn't take into account the cost of obtaining the item. As Skace pointed out, it could be used to justify a $200 floppy cable as a sensible, practical purchase, so long as the floppy cable was particularly valuable to its buyer. The key problem here is that your definition of value refuses to account for cost. Only by using the "industry standard" definition of value -- price/performance -- can we make a sensible, practical purchasing decision.
You know, I don't think we're really that far apart on this. You keep returning to the supposed "intangibles" of the SCSI interface that make it attractive in your eyes. If you would simply state that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts who seek performance above value and practicality, there would be no dispute.
We could all go on with our lives
Modus
So far modus is 415 1/2% behind Sir Frederick...
Things we know
SCSI
Faster, Multitasker, Higher RPM, Lower Seek Time, more reliable...3X more expensive...
IDE
Slower, Poor Multiakser, Lower RPM, Higher Seek Time, less reliable...DIRT Cheap...
"value" is relative term...
Basically - it boils down - if you want performance - you pay for it...
Things we know
SCSI
Faster, Multitasker, Higher RPM, Lower Seek Time, more reliable...3X more expensive...
IDE
Slower, Poor Multiakser, Lower RPM, Higher Seek Time, less reliable...DIRT Cheap...
"value" is relative term...
Basically - it boils down - if you want performance - you pay for it...
People keep bringing this up: "If all you do is surf the web and do email then IDE is suffice". Uhm, Hello? This is a Tech website, want to take a wild guess as to how many people here do more than surf the web and check email. IDE is suffice in every real world application. If you actually believe IDE was the problem when your excel spreadsheet was running slowly or internet explorer took too long to open up (just examples) then you either had a bad hard drive or another problem.
Some say you may be able to notice a difference in response time when opening up applications with SCSI. I can't, but you might. If you're buying SCSI for a small response time increase that could easily be self-fabricated then you're buying SCSI for all the wrong reasons. If you're buying SCSI because you require hot swappability, raid arrays containing 40 hard drives (more or less), or because 100s of people simultaneously hit your server all during the day, then you bought SCSI for all the right reasons. Also note that Modus has explained how IDE can also work in these situations, but I cannot attest to how it would hold up as I've never seen a large array of IDE drives.
If SCSI was truly worth the cost more people would have it, that simple. If people can afford expensive video cards, water cooling, aluminum cases, and 21 monitors then they can afford SCSI. But in the end, they choose other things over SCSI because it just isn't worth it.
<< Things we know
SCSI
Faster, Multitasker, Higher RPM, Lower Seek Time, more reliable...3X more expensive...
IDE
Slower, Poor Multiakser, Lower RPM, Higher Seek Time, less reliable...DIRT Cheap... >>
Santan, when you say "we" do you mean "I"? Because as far as "we" are concerned these points have been addressed and drilled into the ground more times than I can count. From 450+ posts you would hope "we" would know more than random specs. Can you produce any sort of link between what you know and what one would encounter in real world tests? Would you even be willing to admit that these points have been addressed or are you planning to post them again as your reply to this post also?
skace
Some say you may be able to notice a difference in response time when opening up applications with SCSI. I can't, but you might. If you're buying SCSI for a small response time increase that could easily be self-fabricated then you're buying SCSI for all the wrong reasons. If you're buying SCSI because you require hot swappability, raid arrays containing 40 hard drives (more or less), or because 100s of people simultaneously hit your server all during the day, then you bought SCSI for all the right reasons. Also note that Modus has explained how IDE can also work in these situations, but I cannot attest to how it would hold up as I've never seen a large array of IDE drives.
If SCSI was truly worth the cost more people would have it, that simple. If people can afford expensive video cards, water cooling, aluminum cases, and 21 monitors then they can afford SCSI. But in the end, they choose other things over SCSI because it just isn't worth it.
<< Things we know
SCSI
Faster, Multitasker, Higher RPM, Lower Seek Time, more reliable...3X more expensive...
IDE
Slower, Poor Multiakser, Lower RPM, Higher Seek Time, less reliable...DIRT Cheap... >>
Santan, when you say "we" do you mean "I"? Because as far as "we" are concerned these points have been addressed and drilled into the ground more times than I can count. From 450+ posts you would hope "we" would know more than random specs. Can you produce any sort of link between what you know and what one would encounter in real world tests? Would you even be willing to admit that these points have been addressed or are you planning to post them again as your reply to this post also?
skace
Modus, way to ignore my previous rebuttals.
>>>>>
Actually, the only SCSI benefit significant to the daily usage of the vast majority of people is its higher performance, and we've already seen how that is not high enough to match its proportional price demands.
<<<<<
I just showed how the performance of SCSI is much greater than the 46% you had been continually referring to.
>>>>>
The other "intangible" benefits of SCSI are either not important, or possible with much cheaper IDE solutions: StorageReview already showed CPU utlization to be equal between the two interfaces (and if you trust their opinion on Winbench, then you must accept their even more objective tests on CPU usage).
<<<<<<
And Winbench showed IDE with twice the CPU utilization. Don't you want to use winbench?
Storagereview is correct that their tests show no difference in CPU utilization, however the HDTach tests performed by users here at anandtech (who should be more technically adept than your average user) showed that IDE does have a higher CPU utilization.
>>>>>
Relability for both interfaces is above 95% and below 100, making it all but irrelevant.
<<<<<
Where are you getting your numbers?
>>>>>
A five year warranty on a hard drive is similar to a five year warranty on a Pentium 75: it doesn't mean much when the computer is sitting in the basement reduced to a cheap router.
<<<<<
With the performance of SCSI, it's possible, probable even, that you will still be using that SCSI drive 5 years later.
>>>>>
Multiple device support is provided by typical IDE setups, which allow up to eight drives, covering any conceivable consumer or business workstation.
<<<<<
A typical IDE setup supports 4 devices. Only new motherboards are coming with an extra two channels, and even then, only a few are coming with this. Those which do still require more IRQs.
>>>>>
IRQ sharing is handled just fine by ACPI and besides, performance hits from transfering data between drives on the same IDE channel are largely mythical (see Adrian's Rojak Pot for tests on this). Hot-swappability using IDE hard drives is now possible with a $35 removable rack that I can actually sell at this moment.
<<<<<
IRQ sharing reduces system performance. Do you have a link to this? I personally have seen major slowdowns when copying between devices on the same channel.
>>>>>
So in light of the continued advancement of cheap IDE solutions, supposedly intangible benefits of SCSI amount to very little these days. Performance is the only department where SCSI can stay on top for most conceivable consumer and business applications.
<<<<<<
Even so, the SCSI drive does have much greater performance than you would have us believe.
>>>>>
<< Modus, if you were trying to say that you're not going to respond to my posts any longer, should I do a little victory dance and claim that youare giving up because you're losing ground >>
Does the student jump for joy when the teacher, exasperated with his wiseacre answers, abandons the lesson? Perhaps he does, but it's the student's loss, not the teacher's. (Pompous and arrogant enough for you? )
<<<<<
At least you realize that you're being pompus and arrogant
>>>>>
Not quite. The problem is, you know full well what value means to a sensible purchasing decision.
<<<<<
No, I do not agree that price/performance is always the best model for purchasing decisions. It's easy to apply when purchasing devices with the same performance (floppy disks), or for a device which is infrequently used, but if it is a slow device under high demand on your system, this model could easily not apply.
>>>>>
You know, I don't think we're really that far apart on this. You keep returning to the supposed "intangibles" of the SCSI interface that make it attractive in your eyes.
<<<<<
I quantified everything I could and ignored the rest, and SCSI came out way ahead.
>>>>
If you would simply state that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts who seek performance above value and practicality, there would be no dispute.
<<<<<
I agree that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts, or others who seek performance from their computers, and that this performance may be extremely valuable to them.
>>>>>
Actually, the only SCSI benefit significant to the daily usage of the vast majority of people is its higher performance, and we've already seen how that is not high enough to match its proportional price demands.
<<<<<
I just showed how the performance of SCSI is much greater than the 46% you had been continually referring to.
>>>>>
The other "intangible" benefits of SCSI are either not important, or possible with much cheaper IDE solutions: StorageReview already showed CPU utlization to be equal between the two interfaces (and if you trust their opinion on Winbench, then you must accept their even more objective tests on CPU usage).
<<<<<<
And Winbench showed IDE with twice the CPU utilization. Don't you want to use winbench?
Storagereview is correct that their tests show no difference in CPU utilization, however the HDTach tests performed by users here at anandtech (who should be more technically adept than your average user) showed that IDE does have a higher CPU utilization.
>>>>>
Relability for both interfaces is above 95% and below 100, making it all but irrelevant.
<<<<<
Where are you getting your numbers?
>>>>>
A five year warranty on a hard drive is similar to a five year warranty on a Pentium 75: it doesn't mean much when the computer is sitting in the basement reduced to a cheap router.
<<<<<
With the performance of SCSI, it's possible, probable even, that you will still be using that SCSI drive 5 years later.
>>>>>
Multiple device support is provided by typical IDE setups, which allow up to eight drives, covering any conceivable consumer or business workstation.
<<<<<
A typical IDE setup supports 4 devices. Only new motherboards are coming with an extra two channels, and even then, only a few are coming with this. Those which do still require more IRQs.
>>>>>
IRQ sharing is handled just fine by ACPI and besides, performance hits from transfering data between drives on the same IDE channel are largely mythical (see Adrian's Rojak Pot for tests on this). Hot-swappability using IDE hard drives is now possible with a $35 removable rack that I can actually sell at this moment.
<<<<<
IRQ sharing reduces system performance. Do you have a link to this? I personally have seen major slowdowns when copying between devices on the same channel.
>>>>>
So in light of the continued advancement of cheap IDE solutions, supposedly intangible benefits of SCSI amount to very little these days. Performance is the only department where SCSI can stay on top for most conceivable consumer and business applications.
<<<<<<
Even so, the SCSI drive does have much greater performance than you would have us believe.
>>>>>
<< Modus, if you were trying to say that you're not going to respond to my posts any longer, should I do a little victory dance and claim that youare giving up because you're losing ground >>
Does the student jump for joy when the teacher, exasperated with his wiseacre answers, abandons the lesson? Perhaps he does, but it's the student's loss, not the teacher's. (Pompous and arrogant enough for you? )
<<<<<
At least you realize that you're being pompus and arrogant
>>>>>
Not quite. The problem is, you know full well what value means to a sensible purchasing decision.
<<<<<
No, I do not agree that price/performance is always the best model for purchasing decisions. It's easy to apply when purchasing devices with the same performance (floppy disks), or for a device which is infrequently used, but if it is a slow device under high demand on your system, this model could easily not apply.
>>>>>
You know, I don't think we're really that far apart on this. You keep returning to the supposed "intangibles" of the SCSI interface that make it attractive in your eyes.
<<<<<
I quantified everything I could and ignored the rest, and SCSI came out way ahead.
>>>>
If you would simply state that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts who seek performance above value and practicality, there would be no dispute.
<<<<<
I agree that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts, or others who seek performance from their computers, and that this performance may be extremely valuable to them.
Skace:
If SCSI was truly worth the cost more people would have it, that simple.
36.53% of users who voted here are using SCSI in some form or another. Considering it's high price, this is certainly not a small number
If SCSI was truly worth the cost more people would have it, that simple.
36.53% of users who voted here are using SCSI in some form or another. Considering it's high price, this is certainly not a small number
<< I just showed how the performance of SCSI is much greater than the 46% you had been continually referring to. >>
I am guessing that by "just showed" you mean where you concluded that SCSI is 854% better. Ok, you are gonna sit there and tell me that only 36% of the people who polled on this post are using technology that is 854% better? I mean if I went out and bought something 854% better than an IDE hard drive, you think it would at least have the same ammount of storage. 8x better than IDE, that is revolutionary. I am glad you pulled this out of your butt, otherwise I'd be upgrading right now
. Ooohh wait you didn't just make that number up, you used broken math and a misunderstanding of price/performance to get that... I see.<< however the HDTach tests performed by users here at anandtech (who should be more technically adept than your average user) showed that IDE does have a higher CPU utilization. >>
Next time I am in the market for a video card, I am going to find a review site that reviews each video card on a randomly different system and then claims 1 is better.
<< With the performance of SCSI, it's possible, probable even, that you will still be using that SCSI drive 5 years later. >>
I would have agreed with you 5 years ago but not anymore. SCSI may have been able to stay at the same performance for awhile but with IDE catching up and a greater demand for faster hard drives we will most likely be upgrading hard drives a lot sooner.
<< Even so, the SCSI drive does have much greater performance than you would have us believe. >>
And yet a few SCSI posters would like to have us believe that IDE is only acceptable if all you do is email and surf the web. Also, it has been mentioned that upgrading to SCSI will give you a lot more responsiveness, which I assume, could closely resemble that of upgrading to the latest and greatest video card. So don't make it sound like Modus is the only person trying to twist things in his favor because he is doing a lot less twisting then some other people, Mr. 854% Increase
.<< No, I do not agree that price/performance is always the best model for purchasing decisions. >>
Yet you don't remind us what your model of purchasing is, oh wait, that is because it doesn't hold any water. Your model is to buy what you can without running out of money and selling your house.
<< It's easy to apply when purchasing devices with the same performance (floppy disks), or for a device which is infrequently used, but if it is a slow device under high demand on your system, this model could easily not apply. >>
When a slow device requires upgrading this is when price/performance comes into play the most. You will most likely want to upgrade the slow device to its optimal performance without outweighing the price. Which, in this case would be IDE.
<< I agree that the SCSI interface is a premium technology suited to computer enthusiasts, or others who seek performance from their computers, and that this performance may be extremely valuable to them. >>
Once again implying that people with IDE do not seek any performance from their computers. But I agree with you, no longer is the SCSI interface for businesses who require its long list of features but more so for people with too much money to spend and not enough things to spend it on, point taken.
Having dedicated the last five hours to reading through this thread, now at 462 posts, I?ve come to the following conclusions. Undoubtedly the participants would like to know what they are (!):
1. First, matters irrelevant to the IDE vs. SCSI discussion itself: The SCSI camp definitely takes the prize for ?graciouness? in arguing?in all earnestness. Radboy, Sir Frederick, and others usually do not respond with denigratory comments. Generally their humor is well-meant, and designed to reduce the level of hostility, although occasionally they can be harsh. The main proponent for IDE, Modus, although showing infrequent uses of humor, uses a great deal of name-calling, even when this is entirely unprovoked. His style, although rational and very well able to express his feelings and ideas, is condescending and overbearing. Emotional and rhetorical, it is designed to provoke and antagonize his debating partners, and is curious in someone who claims to be, and may in some respects be, interested in being objective and reasonable. Modus is notable too for his constant psychologizing, his suggestions to others concerning their psychological motivations, which are never given a benevolent interpretation.
2. Secondly, the length of this thread, past the time when issues have been resolved, indicates that in some respects the opponents are arguing at cross-purposes. In fact, this has been recently recognized both by Sir Frederick and Modus. The likelihood is great that psychological and/or ideological factors are here coming into play. Most obviously this is in Modus?s case, where he seems incapable of admitting that he is wrong in any respect. And both sides would like to be the last left standing, though this shouldn?t necessarily be called irrational.
3. The SCSI camp clearly wins the argument, not because the performance issue was ever at stake, with SCSI clearly winning here, or because the ?expense? issue was ever at stake, with IDE clearly winning here, but because the SCSI camp partially recognized the moral issues involved. These were:
A) The ?value? issue (value taken as ?the best thing to do?, not ?cheap?). The SCSI camp argued that value was not intrinsic to the hardware, but had to be measured in terms of the needs of the computer user. In other words, value is RELATIVE to the particular user and his needs. This point was repeatedly made by both Radboy and Sir Frederick, among others. And it is a point which Modus entirely failed to understand. His quote which summarizes his position on the value issue is the following, found on page 22:
?Value, then, can be measured by a simple price/performance ratio. If a certain product does its job twice as well as another product, but only costs 20% more money, then that product is a
much better value. If, on the other hand, a certain product performs its duty 46% better than another product while costing 300% more?, then that product has a much lower value."
Of course, the general question is: Of value to whom? Not to Bill Gates. To explicate: If a person has so much money that money could be rationally used as toilet paper if it would save him from getting up, walking across the bathroom, and grabbing a roll of the Scott?s 1000 sheet, then the only practical value is his time. For Bill Gates, SCSI clearly saves his time, and thus clearly has the most value. For me, on the other hand, who had a gross income of less than $6 grand last year, SCSI does not have the most value given that I don?t need that kind of performance at present.
However, value, while relative, is still objective, which the SCSI camp also said. It is entirely objective for Bill Gates to go with SCSI or whatever high-end solution he would go with, and it is entirely objective for me to go with IDE or IDE RAID. What Modus was arguing however, was more than the simple fact that value was objective. He was arguing by and large that value is the same?intrinsic?to all human beings. This is clearly mistaken.
B) Importantly, the SCSI camp seemed to miss a point which would have been crucial in showing Modus et al. wrong: price/performance ratios are actually not ?scientific? in measuring value at all, but only in measuring the amount of raw performance that can be purchased for every dollar spent. The two are not equivalent. Why? Obviously because each dollar is not and should not be of equal value to every person: Gates, again, rationally values each of his dollars much less than the average person, although for both they have the same purchasing power.
C) Another main issue on the table was precisely where the line is to be drawn between SCSI and IDE practicality. In other words, when does SCSI become practical? With an income of $15,000? $30,000? $50,000 $100,000? Again, as the SCSI camp argued, there is no way of precisely deciding this without knowing the particular context of a person?s life: what he uses his computer for, what his ?techie? interests are, and how much money he has, for example. Without knowing these things, and many others, we cannot judge whether a person has made a wise or foolish choice, though we probably can at the extreme. If a person buys an ULTRA160 SCSI system, and is living on welfare, and never uses his computer except for Word and Tetris, then we would have strong grounds for arguing that is was a foolish decision. And if he runs twenty web servers from his home and is a professional Photoshop user working with gigabyte size orthophotos, then it is a prudent decision. And in between, we would have to know a lot about the person. And then the question would be: why is it that important for us to know what?s best for another person? To decide what every single person should do? Why not simply concentrate on our own life and maximizing our own happiness?
In parting, I?d like to thank both camps for the debate. It?s been a great stimulus to thinking about all the issues, both technical and moral, involved. Cheers.
1. First, matters irrelevant to the IDE vs. SCSI discussion itself: The SCSI camp definitely takes the prize for ?graciouness? in arguing?in all earnestness. Radboy, Sir Frederick, and others usually do not respond with denigratory comments. Generally their humor is well-meant, and designed to reduce the level of hostility, although occasionally they can be harsh. The main proponent for IDE, Modus, although showing infrequent uses of humor, uses a great deal of name-calling, even when this is entirely unprovoked. His style, although rational and very well able to express his feelings and ideas, is condescending and overbearing. Emotional and rhetorical, it is designed to provoke and antagonize his debating partners, and is curious in someone who claims to be, and may in some respects be, interested in being objective and reasonable. Modus is notable too for his constant psychologizing, his suggestions to others concerning their psychological motivations, which are never given a benevolent interpretation.
2. Secondly, the length of this thread, past the time when issues have been resolved, indicates that in some respects the opponents are arguing at cross-purposes. In fact, this has been recently recognized both by Sir Frederick and Modus. The likelihood is great that psychological and/or ideological factors are here coming into play. Most obviously this is in Modus?s case, where he seems incapable of admitting that he is wrong in any respect. And both sides would like to be the last left standing, though this shouldn?t necessarily be called irrational.
3. The SCSI camp clearly wins the argument, not because the performance issue was ever at stake, with SCSI clearly winning here, or because the ?expense? issue was ever at stake, with IDE clearly winning here, but because the SCSI camp partially recognized the moral issues involved. These were:
A) The ?value? issue (value taken as ?the best thing to do?, not ?cheap?). The SCSI camp argued that value was not intrinsic to the hardware, but had to be measured in terms of the needs of the computer user. In other words, value is RELATIVE to the particular user and his needs. This point was repeatedly made by both Radboy and Sir Frederick, among others. And it is a point which Modus entirely failed to understand. His quote which summarizes his position on the value issue is the following, found on page 22:
?Value, then, can be measured by a simple price/performance ratio. If a certain product does its job twice as well as another product, but only costs 20% more money, then that product is a
much better value. If, on the other hand, a certain product performs its duty 46% better than another product while costing 300% more?, then that product has a much lower value."
Of course, the general question is: Of value to whom? Not to Bill Gates. To explicate: If a person has so much money that money could be rationally used as toilet paper if it would save him from getting up, walking across the bathroom, and grabbing a roll of the Scott?s 1000 sheet, then the only practical value is his time. For Bill Gates, SCSI clearly saves his time, and thus clearly has the most value. For me, on the other hand, who had a gross income of less than $6 grand last year, SCSI does not have the most value given that I don?t need that kind of performance at present.
However, value, while relative, is still objective, which the SCSI camp also said. It is entirely objective for Bill Gates to go with SCSI or whatever high-end solution he would go with, and it is entirely objective for me to go with IDE or IDE RAID. What Modus was arguing however, was more than the simple fact that value was objective. He was arguing by and large that value is the same?intrinsic?to all human beings. This is clearly mistaken.
B) Importantly, the SCSI camp seemed to miss a point which would have been crucial in showing Modus et al. wrong: price/performance ratios are actually not ?scientific? in measuring value at all, but only in measuring the amount of raw performance that can be purchased for every dollar spent. The two are not equivalent. Why? Obviously because each dollar is not and should not be of equal value to every person: Gates, again, rationally values each of his dollars much less than the average person, although for both they have the same purchasing power.
C) Another main issue on the table was precisely where the line is to be drawn between SCSI and IDE practicality. In other words, when does SCSI become practical? With an income of $15,000? $30,000? $50,000 $100,000? Again, as the SCSI camp argued, there is no way of precisely deciding this without knowing the particular context of a person?s life: what he uses his computer for, what his ?techie? interests are, and how much money he has, for example. Without knowing these things, and many others, we cannot judge whether a person has made a wise or foolish choice, though we probably can at the extreme. If a person buys an ULTRA160 SCSI system, and is living on welfare, and never uses his computer except for Word and Tetris, then we would have strong grounds for arguing that is was a foolish decision. And if he runs twenty web servers from his home and is a professional Photoshop user working with gigabyte size orthophotos, then it is a prudent decision. And in between, we would have to know a lot about the person. And then the question would be: why is it that important for us to know what?s best for another person? To decide what every single person should do? Why not simply concentrate on our own life and maximizing our own happiness?
In parting, I?d like to thank both camps for the debate. It?s been a great stimulus to thinking about all the issues, both technical and moral, involved. Cheers.
ilpadrone,
Very nicely stated! I believe the end of this thread should belong on that thought (although we all know it won't!)
Il,
Good post. You zero'ed in on points I've been working thru-out this entire thread .. that value is objective. I have no qualms w/ Modus (or anyone) saying, "SCSI is not worth it for me, and these are my reasons .." But there's no way he can (indefensibly) say, "SCSI is not worth it for you, Radboy."
For me, he shows his true colors when he says, "SCSI is not worth it for anyone." .. and doesn't even bother to ask what types of things ppl do with their PC. Modus does his credibility a dis-service by refusing to give on any issue. I think you said it this way: he seems incapable of admitting that he is wrong in any respect.
He seems more interested in making his point, than learning or finding truth. We all have things to learn, and this is nothing to be ashamed of. Many ppl simply write him off out of hand, cuz they view his opinions as unbalanced .. concerned only with his own agenda, which is focused on & around value .. with only one agenda -> to defend his point, and attack anyone who questions anything he says. I find this childish. Personally, I'd take more seriously if he seemed capable of admitting error .. but I'd give a snowball in hell better odds.
I think you said about Modus' argument on value not being objective, "This is clearly mistaken". For me, the key word there is clearly. I was surprised Modus' took that (indefensible) position. I guess it shouldn't surprise me too much, tho, cuz that was his position in the great 'Partitioning' thread .. that his way of partitioning (one, single, giant, 45-gig partition) is the best for everyone. Absurd.
Anyone can say, "One, single, giant, 45-gig partition is best for me .. and these are my reasons why." But it's absurd to claim to tell the world what's best for them .. like they don't have a brain enuf to figure out what's best for them. Everyone is different.
Another point tied closely is that, there are many other factors besides performance that need to weighed in .. like reliability & longevity, which mean diff things to diff ppl.
Was interesting to read that you thot the SCSI camp won the prize for graciousness. I guess I've become accustomed to Modus' style. I've tried waxing nasty w/ him, but he seems to enjoy it. Modus is most disturbed by facts, and the thing that really gets his goat is when someone encroaches on his value territory. That seems to set him off most. I find him entertaining, tho not very credible .. cuz, as you say, he seems incapable of admitting he's wrong.
I'd like to discuss the merits of a SCSI drive vs an IDE drive for the purpose of running an OS, aps, & swap/page file .. without the cost of the adapter thrown in, which is a separate issue. I feel that when you compare a SCSI drive to an IDE drive - for a specific purpose - you have a true apples-to-apples comparison.
For example, the IDE drive that Modus uses - 20 gigs for $100 is actually a poor value .. when you can buy a 45-gig (125% more space) IBM 75GXP for $150 (50% more money). That's true value .. when you're looking to buy *storage*.
Lemme conclude by saying we freely admit that SCSI is not for everyone.
Good post. You zero'ed in on points I've been working thru-out this entire thread .. that value is objective. I have no qualms w/ Modus (or anyone) saying, "SCSI is not worth it for me, and these are my reasons .." But there's no way he can (indefensibly) say, "SCSI is not worth it for you, Radboy."
For me, he shows his true colors when he says, "SCSI is not worth it for anyone." .. and doesn't even bother to ask what types of things ppl do with their PC. Modus does his credibility a dis-service by refusing to give on any issue. I think you said it this way: he seems incapable of admitting that he is wrong in any respect.
He seems more interested in making his point, than learning or finding truth. We all have things to learn, and this is nothing to be ashamed of. Many ppl simply write him off out of hand, cuz they view his opinions as unbalanced .. concerned only with his own agenda, which is focused on & around value .. with only one agenda -> to defend his point, and attack anyone who questions anything he says. I find this childish. Personally, I'd take more seriously if he seemed capable of admitting error .. but I'd give a snowball in hell better odds.
I think you said about Modus' argument on value not being objective, "This is clearly mistaken". For me, the key word there is clearly. I was surprised Modus' took that (indefensible) position. I guess it shouldn't surprise me too much, tho, cuz that was his position in the great 'Partitioning' thread .. that his way of partitioning (one, single, giant, 45-gig partition) is the best for everyone. Absurd.
Anyone can say, "One, single, giant, 45-gig partition is best for me .. and these are my reasons why." But it's absurd to claim to tell the world what's best for them .. like they don't have a brain enuf to figure out what's best for them. Everyone is different.
Another point tied closely is that, there are many other factors besides performance that need to weighed in .. like reliability & longevity, which mean diff things to diff ppl.
Was interesting to read that you thot the SCSI camp won the prize for graciousness. I guess I've become accustomed to Modus' style. I've tried waxing nasty w/ him, but he seems to enjoy it. Modus is most disturbed by facts, and the thing that really gets his goat is when someone encroaches on his value territory. That seems to set him off most. I find him entertaining, tho not very credible .. cuz, as you say, he seems incapable of admitting he's wrong.
I'd like to discuss the merits of a SCSI drive vs an IDE drive for the purpose of running an OS, aps, & swap/page file .. without the cost of the adapter thrown in, which is a separate issue. I feel that when you compare a SCSI drive to an IDE drive - for a specific purpose - you have a true apples-to-apples comparison.
For example, the IDE drive that Modus uses - 20 gigs for $100 is actually a poor value .. when you can buy a 45-gig (125% more space) IBM 75GXP for $150 (50% more money). That's true value .. when you're looking to buy *storage*.
Lemme conclude by saying we freely admit that SCSI is not for everyone.
ilpadrone, thanyou!
I never looked at this thread until now and I jumped from the first right to the last page. your precis is valued and welcome! you are too wise to only be earning "cat-pimping" rates! (got this idea from a ROBOTECH post).
yep: time is money. right now, my time's not worth much money, so SCSI would be simply extravagant. if you care to take a look at my rig you'd see that a SCSU card and drive could cost more than the rest put together! if I however earned $150,000+ a year then all those SCSI saved time will be worth paying for. QED.
and yep, your comment about certain members here looks familiar. I've been on the internet long enough to recognize types. when someone is boring and absurd why waste your time on them? life is too short! i don't even read their mails...
I never looked at this thread until now and I jumped from the first right to the last page. your precis is valued and welcome! you are too wise to only be earning "cat-pimping" rates! (got this idea from a ROBOTECH post).
yep: time is money. right now, my time's not worth much money, so SCSI would be simply extravagant. if you care to take a look at my rig you'd see that a SCSU card and drive could cost more than the rest put together! if I however earned $150,000+ a year then all those SCSI saved time will be worth paying for. QED.
and yep, your comment about certain members here looks familiar. I've been on the internet long enough to recognize types. when someone is boring and absurd why waste your time on them? life is too short! i don't even read their mails...
ilpadrone, very well said
Also, I am doing something right now which reminded me of this thread. I would like to point out that I do actually use the multitasking abilities of SCSI I have 3 CDs I want in MP3 format on my hard drive. I'm currently ripping one CD, while running two encoders (to take advantage of my SMP system)...not only does ripping require disk access, but both encoders are continually reading and writing data to the hard disk. Has my system slowed down at all? No, I'm still running a bunch of other apps with absolutely no problem. Sure, I don't NEED scsi to do this, but it's nice. It's worth it for me.
edit:
How interesting, a friend asked me to copy a CD for her. Do I have to wait? No, I'm doing it right now
Also, I am doing something right now which reminded me of this thread. I would like to point out that I do actually use the multitasking abilities of SCSI
I have 3 CDs I want in MP3 format on my hard drive. I'm currently ripping one CD, while running two encoders (to take advantage of my SMP system)...not only does ripping require disk access, but both encoders are continually reading and writing data to the hard disk. Has my system slowed down at all? No, I'm still running a bunch of other apps with absolutely no problem. Sure, I don't NEED scsi to do this, but it's nice. It's worth it for me. edit:
How interesting, a friend asked me to copy a CD for her. Do I have to wait? No, I'm doing it right now
Damn I replied to this from work but I guess it didn't make it through. Sigh, time for my differing opinion. Since it seems everyone has already given you your praise ilpadrone, I will spare you mine. Good post nonetheless.
When I first began reading your post it seemed that you were taking the nuetral stance but as you continued I notice you were just reinforcing everything SCSI people have been saying from post 1. Which makes you no more nuetral then Fredrick, not that you claimed to be, but when summarizing an entire thread you think you would try to be. Why is your post biased to SCSI? Well lets look at the points you brought up:
First, you commended the SCSI camp as a whole for being much more gracious while centering all your criticism on Modus. The only thing I could think of while reading this was all the posts from people like Santan blatently hammering IDE in the most immature manners. Yes Modus has had his fair share of name calling, but so have people like Radboy and Fredrick. Everyone has a fair chip on their shoulder and their is no need to point fingers this deeply into the thread.
Second, I agree with your second point on cross-purpose as I have posted at least 2 times myself on the very same subject. I proposed reasons and things that needed to be concluded, but it was inevitably side-stepped by those who knew it detrimental to their reasoning.
Third, This is where your argument leads right into the dilemna that has been a huge misunderstanding since the beggining. Right here in the third point you yourself are comitting to what you pointed out in your second point.
<< In other words, value is RELATIVE to the particular user and his needs. >>
A) You bring up this definition but fail to summarize that it has been recognized that value has many definitions. Instead of pasting definitions, I will paste something right from the front of Anandtech's webpage to make my point.
<< Providing excellent value with extreme speed, it is not surprising that VIA's KT133A chipset has become an instant hit. >>
Now this comes right from the small description of the IWill KK266 article. Notice how Anandtech says just value and not "Value to me". So what does he mean here? Is he actually saying that it is an excellent value to EVERYONE?! Oh my, that would conflict with the SCSI sides' rubber definition of value. Yes folks, value has many definitions but the only one that applies to forums like these is the one Anandtech is using here and the one Modus has been using all along.
<< wrong: price/performance ratios are actually not ?scientific? in measuring value at all, but only in measuring the amount of raw performance that can be purchased for every dollar spent. The two are not equivalent. Why? Obviously because each dollar is not and should not be of equal value to every person: Gates, again, rationally values each of his dollars much less than the average person, although for both they have the same purchasing power. >>
B) I agree that some people may begin to quantify their money differently the more they accumulate but that does not mean price/performance loses any face, in fact your whole example is flawed. Well, price/performance may not be "scientific", but it is simple mathematics. When comparing Bill Gates to a homeless man where both are considering the same item (lets say Hard Drives) they both will get the same price/performance ratio. They will both make a decision on whether they want the item and then weigh its price against its performance. The ratio will be the same for both but the only difference is Bill Gates could easily disregard price/performance. Yes, that is right, Mr. Gates did not use his money efficiently. Yet, can you blaim him? I am sure he knows he didn't use his money efficiently but he really doesn't care. The fact is, Gates could have bought the IDE drive and spent his money way more efficiently but he chose not to. This does not mean price/performance loses importance, it means Gates disregarded it. I can recall at least a dozen posts Modus has made where he agreed this is perfectly acceptable. He called it buying for purely emotional reasons, but I guess that was too "condescending" so people disregarded it.
In most forums price/performance is used very often and is regarded quite highly. Most people find items they want that all meet the specs they are looking for, then find the best buy (price/performance) and then use this as a base. An example: If I was looking for a new video card I would first write down the features I wanted, maybe 32bit color and tv-out. Then I would take all the video cards I could find meeting these specs and find the best buy and use it as a base. By base I mean other things can influence your decision after the base has been found. Although, Most of those things are usually included in the performance (very buggy drivers, etc). There is a slight exception, and I have stated this in prior posts, with SCSI vs IDE. They do not have EXACT feature listings, so say you required hot swappability, in effect you could side step price/performance due to the fact that IDE doesn't truly apply. Nobody is saying you HAVE to use this model and as I stated above Modus has accepted people who disregard price/performance.
<< Another main issue on the table was precisely where the line is to be drawn between SCSI and IDE practicality. In other words, when does SCSI become practical? >>
I may be wrong here, but I don't think Modus or I ever considered SCSI practical. It may become a necesity, but never practical. Why would it become a necesity? Well refer back to my explanation of price/performance, it would become a necesity if you needed a feature IDE didn't have such as hot swappability.
<< And then the question would be: why is it that important for us to know what?s best for another person? To decide what every single person should do? Why not simply concentrate on our own life and maximizing our own happiness? >>
People come to forums mainly for 4 reasons: They want to socialize, they want the latest news, they have a problem, or they are looking to upgrade and want to know what the best buy is for a certain item. The 4th reason is the one that explains your question here. When we are arguing for something, it is not only for our own sake but also for every other person who is reading the thread and basing some of their opinions on the outcome.
I think that perhaps Modus and I arn't conveying our similar points very well, but I don't know any other way to explain them. 90% of the points have been simply dodged or combatted by reposting hard drive specs. Also, Value keeps coming up and SCSI people keep using a rubber definition of it. By now anyone reading these posts could have formed their own conclusion I hope...
Cya
skace
When I first began reading your post it seemed that you were taking the nuetral stance but as you continued I notice you were just reinforcing everything SCSI people have been saying from post 1. Which makes you no more nuetral then Fredrick, not that you claimed to be, but when summarizing an entire thread you think you would try to be. Why is your post biased to SCSI? Well lets look at the points you brought up:
First, you commended the SCSI camp as a whole for being much more gracious while centering all your criticism on Modus. The only thing I could think of while reading this was all the posts from people like Santan blatently hammering IDE in the most immature manners. Yes Modus has had his fair share of name calling, but so have people like Radboy and Fredrick. Everyone has a fair chip on their shoulder and their is no need to point fingers this deeply into the thread.
Second, I agree with your second point on cross-purpose as I have posted at least 2 times myself on the very same subject. I proposed reasons and things that needed to be concluded, but it was inevitably side-stepped by those who knew it detrimental to their reasoning.
Third, This is where your argument leads right into the dilemna that has been a huge misunderstanding since the beggining. Right here in the third point you yourself are comitting to what you pointed out in your second point.
<< In other words, value is RELATIVE to the particular user and his needs. >>
A) You bring up this definition but fail to summarize that it has been recognized that value has many definitions. Instead of pasting definitions, I will paste something right from the front of Anandtech's webpage to make my point.
<< Providing excellent value with extreme speed, it is not surprising that VIA's KT133A chipset has become an instant hit. >>
Now this comes right from the small description of the IWill KK266 article. Notice how Anandtech says just value and not "Value to me". So what does he mean here? Is he actually saying that it is an excellent value to EVERYONE?! Oh my, that would conflict with the SCSI sides' rubber definition of value. Yes folks, value has many definitions but the only one that applies to forums like these is the one Anandtech is using here and the one Modus has been using all along.
<< wrong: price/performance ratios are actually not ?scientific? in measuring value at all, but only in measuring the amount of raw performance that can be purchased for every dollar spent. The two are not equivalent. Why? Obviously because each dollar is not and should not be of equal value to every person: Gates, again, rationally values each of his dollars much less than the average person, although for both they have the same purchasing power. >>
B) I agree that some people may begin to quantify their money differently the more they accumulate but that does not mean price/performance loses any face, in fact your whole example is flawed. Well, price/performance may not be "scientific", but it is simple mathematics. When comparing Bill Gates to a homeless man where both are considering the same item (lets say Hard Drives) they both will get the same price/performance ratio. They will both make a decision on whether they want the item and then weigh its price against its performance. The ratio will be the same for both but the only difference is Bill Gates could easily disregard price/performance. Yes, that is right, Mr. Gates did not use his money efficiently. Yet, can you blaim him? I am sure he knows he didn't use his money efficiently but he really doesn't care. The fact is, Gates could have bought the IDE drive and spent his money way more efficiently but he chose not to. This does not mean price/performance loses importance, it means Gates disregarded it. I can recall at least a dozen posts Modus has made where he agreed this is perfectly acceptable. He called it buying for purely emotional reasons, but I guess that was too "condescending" so people disregarded it.
In most forums price/performance is used very often and is regarded quite highly. Most people find items they want that all meet the specs they are looking for, then find the best buy (price/performance) and then use this as a base. An example: If I was looking for a new video card I would first write down the features I wanted, maybe 32bit color and tv-out. Then I would take all the video cards I could find meeting these specs and find the best buy and use it as a base. By base I mean other things can influence your decision after the base has been found. Although, Most of those things are usually included in the performance (very buggy drivers, etc). There is a slight exception, and I have stated this in prior posts, with SCSI vs IDE. They do not have EXACT feature listings, so say you required hot swappability, in effect you could side step price/performance due to the fact that IDE doesn't truly apply. Nobody is saying you HAVE to use this model and as I stated above Modus has accepted people who disregard price/performance.
<< Another main issue on the table was precisely where the line is to be drawn between SCSI and IDE practicality. In other words, when does SCSI become practical? >>
I may be wrong here, but I don't think Modus or I ever considered SCSI practical. It may become a necesity, but never practical. Why would it become a necesity? Well refer back to my explanation of price/performance, it would become a necesity if you needed a feature IDE didn't have such as hot swappability.
<< And then the question would be: why is it that important for us to know what?s best for another person? To decide what every single person should do? Why not simply concentrate on our own life and maximizing our own happiness? >>
People come to forums mainly for 4 reasons: They want to socialize, they want the latest news, they have a problem, or they are looking to upgrade and want to know what the best buy is for a certain item. The 4th reason is the one that explains your question here. When we are arguing for something, it is not only for our own sake but also for every other person who is reading the thread and basing some of their opinions on the outcome.
I think that perhaps Modus and I arn't conveying our similar points very well, but I don't know any other way to explain them. 90% of the points have been simply dodged or combatted by reposting hard drive specs. Also, Value keeps coming up and SCSI people keep using a rubber definition of it. By now anyone reading these posts could have formed their own conclusion I hope...
Cya
skace
My comment on the expense of SCSI.
You can see it mirrored almost exactly in car market.
Specifically the speed of cars (IE; acceleration)
Take a car like a Hyundai.
9 seconds to get to 60mph.
$10k new
Let's say this is our average IDE drive.
Now let's get ourselves a nice Camaro
5.5 seconds to get to 60mph.
$30k new
High end IDE drive/mid end SCSI drive
Finally we get a McLaren F1
3 seconds to get to 60mph (roughly)
$500k new
Top O' the line SCSI drive.
See my point?
The more speed, the more exponentially the cost of the drive rises.
You can see it mirrored almost exactly in car market.
Specifically the speed of cars (IE; acceleration)
Take a car like a Hyundai.
9 seconds to get to 60mph.
$10k new
Let's say this is our average IDE drive.
Now let's get ourselves a nice Camaro
5.5 seconds to get to 60mph.
$30k new
High end IDE drive/mid end SCSI drive
Finally we get a McLaren F1
3 seconds to get to 60mph (roughly)
$500k new
Top O' the line SCSI drive.
See my point?
The more speed, the more exponentially the cost of the drive rises.
And like some completely irrational home spenders, if you buy the McLaren F1 to drive around the block it is a complete waste of money.
Skace wrote:
<< Once again implying that people with IDE do not seek any performance from their computers. But I agree with you, no longer is the SCSI interface for businesses who require its long list of features but more so for people with too much money to spend and not enough things to spend it on, point taken. >>
Computer is one of the cheap hobby that people can have, i.e., compared to photography, audio and car.
I drive a 1992 Honda Civic, which is a wonderfully reliable transportation. If I have too much money, I will love to spend it on a BMW 318i. Since, I don't have that too much money, I spent an extra $400 to get myself an all SCSI computer which I enjoy using every day.
<< Once again implying that people with IDE do not seek any performance from their computers. But I agree with you, no longer is the SCSI interface for businesses who require its long list of features but more so for people with too much money to spend and not enough things to spend it on, point taken. >>
Computer is one of the cheap hobby that people can have, i.e., compared to photography, audio and car.
I drive a 1992 Honda Civic, which is a wonderfully reliable transportation. If I have too much money, I will love to spend it on a BMW 318i. Since, I don't have that too much money, I spent an extra $400 to get myself an all SCSI computer which I enjoy using every day.
skace, what are you talking about? what could be more appropriate than me going round the block to the corner shop in my tobacco-sponsored F1 car to pick up my ciggies?
thermite88,
<< Computer is one of the cheap hobby that people can have, i.e., compared to photography, audio and car. >>
It is a hobby to you, which to me, means that if you had more important things to spend your money on you wouldn't have been wasting it on SCSI. Nothing wrong with hobbies but if you had been making the system with price in mind and not just for a hobby you could have cut a lot off and still have come out with close to similar performance.
Travis, lol
<< Computer is one of the cheap hobby that people can have, i.e., compared to photography, audio and car. >>
It is a hobby to you, which to me, means that if you had more important things to spend your money on you wouldn't have been wasting it on SCSI. Nothing wrong with hobbies but if you had been making the system with price in mind and not just for a hobby you could have cut a lot off and still have come out with close to similar performance.
Travis, lol
Skaze, some points in reply:
First, neutrality and objectivity (or ?being correct?) are not necessarily the same thing. Neutrality is simple the middle of two positions?and if one of those positions is right, then neutrality is automatically half-wrong. Of course, from this it doesn?t follow that I was right in what I was arguing?but it does mean that there isn?t any particular virtue in neutrality.
Secondly, with regard to the name calling, I?ll concede this point for the moment since adequately verifying it would require going through the whole twenty-four pages and documenting all the exchanges between the parties in depth, and evaluating virtually every sentence written. Not a job that I would relish. (But anyone who has a good word-analysis program can do just this in tabulating all the taboo words, if they still have any energy. I would suggest using a SCSI based system for the job.)
Thirdly, the SCSI camp generally is arguing that value does NOT have many conceptual definitions, but only one: value is relative to the individual?s needs. Now when Anand says that a particular piece of hardware has ?value?, what he is saying is that, for the average reader of Anandtech, he judges that, assuming the reader values performance and fits within a certain income bracket, than the buyer would find that piece a hardware a good purchase. You would agree with me up to here. But that is not what Modus?s definition of value is: Modus specifically states that value can be determined WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL?you can ignore him. All you have to do is figure out the price/performance ratio. This is clearly wrong. And, in answer to your general point, Anand, Tom, and many other well-known reviewers generally qualify many of their hardware recommendations by stating that, if you have the money, or enough money to splurge, or if you are a hard-core gamer, or whatever, the latest piece of hardware, although perhaps only possessing a minimal performance ?delta? increase, would be worth buying. And they mention this precisely because they understand that what is of value to one person may not be of value to the next person.
Fourthly, with regard to efficiency: Efficiency has nothing ultimately to do with your money per se, but how you use all the resources at your disposal. A miser is a typical example of someone who uses his monetary resources very efficiently. And yet, a miser is pathological because he doesn?t recognize that there are other values besides money, and that not being efficient with regard to these values--such as time--is also counterproductive. And so the same applies to the Gates example: Gates is acting perfectly rationally and efficiently when we look at his decision to buy the highest of the high-end (perhaps a one terabyte RAM virtual hard disk?)
Fifthly, it?s true, price/performance is just mathematics, but that?s why its has nothing to do with value, which is not quantifiable. And this is something that Modus and yourself don?t see. For example, you say that, with regard to your example of Gates and a homeless man, ?this does not mean price/performance loses importance, it means Gates disregarded it.? Of course, that?s precisely why Gates disregarded it: because it wasn?t, and shouldn?t have been, important TO HIM! But for you, and for me, and for most people, it still does have some importance, at least to some degree (which is what the SCSI folks have admitted by admitting they?d use IDE for backup purposes). And you show again that you don?t understand this by saying that ?I can recall at least a dozen posts Modus has made where he agreed this is perfectly acceptable. He called it buying for purely emotional reasons...? But this is completely wrong. The point is not ?emotional reasons?, but entirely logical and prudential ones, for which Gates is perfectly justified in buying this way. And for you to claim that other SCSI enthusiasts with lesser incomes are not similarly justified, you have to show that their time isn?t worth the increased speed. And have you put put a value on their time? Do you know how much their time is, or should be, worth? Can this be quantified, especially for another person whom you know nothing about?
The same argument is advanced in the next paragraph: ?In most forums price/performance is used very often and is regarded quite highly.? Well, of course. The SCSI camp never argued that price/performance isn?t important, only that the value found in the ratio there is relative to EACH individual who does the valuing. I myself am an avid price/performance seeker. But I would never presume that the value judgements that I?ve made for myself can necessarily be applied to unknown others with unknown needs and unknown capacities. That would be quite arrogant. And this is what Modus has argued: that his values are intrinsic to everyone. And where the IDE camp hasn?t argued this, it has argued such reasons as ?computer-penis-envy,? ?bragging-rights,? or ?emotional reasons.? That is, the IDE camp has tried to imply, not that these decisions are never made, but that these decisions, when made, could not be rational. And that is one reason why I justly labelled Modus? style of argumentation condescending.
Sixthly, I never maintained that you regarded SCSI as practical?which you obviously don?t, since you believe that anyone with a SCSI drive is doing it merely for ?emotional? reasons. What I stated was that it was an issue ?on the table,? which it was, since the SCSI camp argued the pro, and the IDE camp argued the con. And further, I fail to see how you can regard something as necessary, but not practical. If you need it, that?s a pretty practical reason to get it.
Seventhly, and finally: Of course, going to forums partly to help people out in learning about hardware is a perfectly honorable motive. But there are also many people in the world who help other people without knowing their motives. As I had implied, these people are often motivated because they gain satisfaction in the belief that they know exactly what is good for everyone, while they may not.
First, neutrality and objectivity (or ?being correct?) are not necessarily the same thing. Neutrality is simple the middle of two positions?and if one of those positions is right, then neutrality is automatically half-wrong. Of course, from this it doesn?t follow that I was right in what I was arguing?but it does mean that there isn?t any particular virtue in neutrality.
Secondly, with regard to the name calling, I?ll concede this point for the moment since adequately verifying it would require going through the whole twenty-four pages and documenting all the exchanges between the parties in depth, and evaluating virtually every sentence written. Not a job that I would relish. (But anyone who has a good word-analysis program can do just this in tabulating all the taboo words, if they still have any energy. I would suggest using a SCSI based system for the job.)
Thirdly, the SCSI camp generally is arguing that value does NOT have many conceptual definitions, but only one: value is relative to the individual?s needs. Now when Anand says that a particular piece of hardware has ?value?, what he is saying is that, for the average reader of Anandtech, he judges that, assuming the reader values performance and fits within a certain income bracket, than the buyer would find that piece a hardware a good purchase. You would agree with me up to here. But that is not what Modus?s definition of value is: Modus specifically states that value can be determined WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL?you can ignore him. All you have to do is figure out the price/performance ratio. This is clearly wrong. And, in answer to your general point, Anand, Tom, and many other well-known reviewers generally qualify many of their hardware recommendations by stating that, if you have the money, or enough money to splurge, or if you are a hard-core gamer, or whatever, the latest piece of hardware, although perhaps only possessing a minimal performance ?delta? increase, would be worth buying. And they mention this precisely because they understand that what is of value to one person may not be of value to the next person.
Fourthly, with regard to efficiency: Efficiency has nothing ultimately to do with your money per se, but how you use all the resources at your disposal. A miser is a typical example of someone who uses his monetary resources very efficiently. And yet, a miser is pathological because he doesn?t recognize that there are other values besides money, and that not being efficient with regard to these values--such as time--is also counterproductive. And so the same applies to the Gates example: Gates is acting perfectly rationally and efficiently when we look at his decision to buy the highest of the high-end (perhaps a one terabyte RAM virtual hard disk?)
Fifthly, it?s true, price/performance is just mathematics, but that?s why its has nothing to do with value, which is not quantifiable. And this is something that Modus and yourself don?t see. For example, you say that, with regard to your example of Gates and a homeless man, ?this does not mean price/performance loses importance, it means Gates disregarded it.? Of course, that?s precisely why Gates disregarded it: because it wasn?t, and shouldn?t have been, important TO HIM! But for you, and for me, and for most people, it still does have some importance, at least to some degree (which is what the SCSI folks have admitted by admitting they?d use IDE for backup purposes). And you show again that you don?t understand this by saying that ?I can recall at least a dozen posts Modus has made where he agreed this is perfectly acceptable. He called it buying for purely emotional reasons...? But this is completely wrong. The point is not ?emotional reasons?, but entirely logical and prudential ones, for which Gates is perfectly justified in buying this way. And for you to claim that other SCSI enthusiasts with lesser incomes are not similarly justified, you have to show that their time isn?t worth the increased speed. And have you put put a value on their time? Do you know how much their time is, or should be, worth? Can this be quantified, especially for another person whom you know nothing about?
The same argument is advanced in the next paragraph: ?In most forums price/performance is used very often and is regarded quite highly.? Well, of course. The SCSI camp never argued that price/performance isn?t important, only that the value found in the ratio there is relative to EACH individual who does the valuing. I myself am an avid price/performance seeker. But I would never presume that the value judgements that I?ve made for myself can necessarily be applied to unknown others with unknown needs and unknown capacities. That would be quite arrogant. And this is what Modus has argued: that his values are intrinsic to everyone. And where the IDE camp hasn?t argued this, it has argued such reasons as ?computer-penis-envy,? ?bragging-rights,? or ?emotional reasons.? That is, the IDE camp has tried to imply, not that these decisions are never made, but that these decisions, when made, could not be rational. And that is one reason why I justly labelled Modus? style of argumentation condescending.
Sixthly, I never maintained that you regarded SCSI as practical?which you obviously don?t, since you believe that anyone with a SCSI drive is doing it merely for ?emotional? reasons. What I stated was that it was an issue ?on the table,? which it was, since the SCSI camp argued the pro, and the IDE camp argued the con. And further, I fail to see how you can regard something as necessary, but not practical. If you need it, that?s a pretty practical reason to get it.
Seventhly, and finally: Of course, going to forums partly to help people out in learning about hardware is a perfectly honorable motive. But there are also many people in the world who help other people without knowing their motives. As I had implied, these people are often motivated because they gain satisfaction in the belief that they know exactly what is good for everyone, while they may not.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter