re ide vs scsi wlsmith valve heart rri uwo ca wayne smith write in article qpu uinnbt dns nmsu edu bgrubb dante nmsu edu grubb writes wlsmith valve heart rri uwo ca wayne smith writes since the mac uses only scsi for hard drives yes the figure includes a hundred for scsi drivers this is sloppy people and dumb what group is this this is not a mac group nice of you to delete both your responce and the item that prompted it to whit i just bought at quantum for my mac at home i paid for it i haven t seen ide drives cheaper to which you responded a friend of mine just got a maxtor meg ide drive for that s million bytes or mega bytes with the basic interface he gets close to meg sec transfer on his does your figure include a few hundred for scsi drivers to which i correctly pointed out the following since the mac uses only scsi for hard drives yes the figure includes a hundred for scsi drivers this is sloppy people and dumb as i said this is sloppy and dumb you should resounded by discounting the mac not giving maxtor meg ide drive for example by giving an example you give the implied consent that for mac info to be included in the scsi discusion ok once again with the scsi spec list why the spec list again we are talking scsi on a pc not on a mac or a unix box and we are talking isa bus or possibly eisa or vlb ok i will do this v e r y s l o w l y so you can understand reguardless of whether it is a mac or a pc scsi and scsi are different from each other as is asynchronous and synchronous scsi all of these have different speeds and costs lumping them all together as scsi is dumb and sloppy take again the quote later on as an example of the problem in the pc world the spec list was so that you knew where the numbers were coming from in the article it shows the article is correct in it staments about scsi but not consitant this isin t comp periphs scsi with the way this thread has gone how do you tell tell me what the performance figures are with a single scsi drive on a pc with an isa or eisa or vlb bus already gave them you keep deleting them so here are the specs on everybody again with some added info scsi scsi controler chip asynchronous range mb s synchronous range mb s both common to the pc world difference is mainly in software not hardware scsi scsi controller chip also called scsi bit mb s with mb s burst this is advertised as scsi in byte for the pc and at these speeds not the mac the pc i have not seen the following for either the mac or the pc scsi bit wide or fast mode mb s with mb s burst scsi bit wide and fast mb s with mb s burst on the other interfaces let dxb psuvm psu edu speak ide ranges from mb s asynchronous range mb s infered from byte synchronous range mb s esdi is always mb s although there are some non standard versions wlsmith valve heart rri uwo ca wayne smith writes theoretical performance figures are not relevant to this group or this debate i m sure that there are some platforms out there that can handle the megs sec of scsi xyz wide n fast but the pc isin t one of them note that i also give the average through put for scsi which holds true a mac or ibm pc clone with the correct hardware and software and since pc adversizements are using theoretical performance figures why cannot we if we are to continue this thread state clearly which scsi you are talking about scsi or scsi or scsi over all scsi and scsi it does make a difference well maybe if the scsi design people had their act together than maybe all pc s would have built in scsi ports by now with pc articles like the following it is obvious that the problem is not with scsi but with the people who report it like you look at the inconsitant use of scsi in the below quote my comments in although scsi is twice as fast as esdi this is asynchronous scsi with a scsi chip faster than ide this is both asynchronous scsi with a scsi chip and bit scsi pc magazine april the article is confused not scsi the term is a mess from inconsitant use not because the interface itself is a mess scsi means the set of scsi interfaces composed of scsi and scsi not scsi as some people want to use it to read consitantly the quote should read asynchronous scsi with a scsi chip although asynchronous scsi is twice as fast as esdi one third the speed of ide or asynchronous scsi with a scsi chip or bit scsi although scsi with a scsi chip and bit scsi are eight times as fast as esdi faster than ide note the nonuse of scsi by itself this eliminates ambaguity if we are to continue this thread state clearly which scsi you are talking about scsi or scsi or scsi over all scsi and scsi lumping everything into scsi as scsi is sloppy wrong and dumb inconsitant scsi and scsi usage is also a problem clean it up now or have a mess like svga was several years ago because everybody and his uncle slapped scsa an their own monitor inteface scsi is standarized unlike svga was years ago except in terminaology
