SCSI-less Macs leave Mac advocates eating crow.
EdWIN
but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
better SCSI is than IDE?
SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
--
Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
the Wrath of the Swarm!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
paiute
Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
EdWIN
So Mac advocates bragged about SCSI because it was the equivelant of an
eight track player?
> Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
By doing what PC owners did in the past?
Chris Pott
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
No. The new Ultra ATA drives are plenty fast, unlike IDE drives of
yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed by IDE
(vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now it
doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
Peter Ammon
EdWIN wrote:
>
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
For a while it was.
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
No. They contain faster drives than the ones I expressed contempt for.
>
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
Now we have Firewire.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
-Peter
Rob Barris
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
Apple could have chosen to stick with integrated SCSI, or to move away
from it. Which choice would you make, given market conditions and
technologies as they are today, not thirteen years ago?
You completely overlook the explosion in USB devices, which offer a lot
of what SCSI had going for it - external devices, plug and play; and hot
plugging which SCSI could not do at all. For all but the highest speed
devices USB covers many of the bases that SCSI did, and the new USB
devices are tons cheaper.
Rob
EdWIN
<097C0DB8D74DD574.AEC07B02...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> >
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
>
> yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed by
IDE
> (vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
>
> At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now it
> doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
You make some good points, and I accept them. But it means that Apple
is following the PC instead of leading it with innovation, as Mac
advocates claim.
Do you like it fried or baked?
> --
> Chris Pott
> cp...@excite.com
EdWIN
rba...@quicksilver.com (Rob Barris) wrote:
> In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> away from it. Which choice would you make, given market conditions
>and technologies as they are today, not thirteen years ago?
It hasn't been thirteen years since Apple sold Macs with SCSI. Now
buyers of new Macs need to spend more to use their existing SCSI
devices.
> You completely overlook the explosion in USB devices, which offer
>a lot of what SCSI had going for it - external devices, plug and play;
> and hot plugging which SCSI could not do at all. For all but the
>highest speed devices USB covers many of the bases that SCSI did, and
> the new USB devices are tons cheaper.
USB drives aren't even as fast as IDE drives. USB is only suitable for
backup storage, IMHO. But thanks for acknowledging that the Mac is
following the PC by using USB.
> Rob
paiute
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> > > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
> price
> > > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
> add
> > > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> > >
> > > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't
bother
> > > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain
the
> > > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> > >
more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI
> > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> > >
> > > Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
> > > the Wrath of the Swarm!
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > >
>
> So Mac advocates bragged about SCSI because it was the equivelant of
an
> eight track player?
>
> > Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
>
> By doing what PC owners did in the past?
>
This isn't an argument.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Is too.
etc.
EdWIN
That isn't what's been happening here. You can't counter what I've
said, so you're misstating the argument and running from it instead.
Chris Pott
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article
> <097C0DB8D74DD574.AEC07B02...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> > > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
> price
> > > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
> add
> > > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> > >
> > > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> > >
> > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI
> > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
> > No. The new Ultra ATA drives are plenty fast, unlike IDE drives of
> > yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed by
> IDE
> > (vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
> >
> > At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now it
> > doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
>
> You make some good points, and I accept them. But it means that Apple
> is following the PC instead of leading it with innovation, as Mac
> advocates claim.
Sigh. No one said Apple innovates *everything*. Sometimes leadership
involves recognizing standards *that make sense* and adopting them.
Apple invented FireWire. Apple *adopted* 3.5" floppies. Apple
invented an overlapping windows based GUI. Apple *adopted* PCI and
USB. And SCSI for that matter.
> Do you like it fried or baked?
Still not applicable.
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
Jim Polaski
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
=======
Have you ever heard of a "transition", edLOSE? Would you like to still be
using 8" "floppies" and six-level tape too?
Adaptec has a $69(list) USB--SCSI card that gives backward compatibility
and the FIREWIRE drives are out...hot swappable....all those good
things...
Bill Altenberger
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
>
> --
> Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
> the Wrath of the Swarm!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DnD (Drag and Drop) system folders are still alive and well..
Bill
CatBus
>You make some good points, and I accept them. But it
>means that Apple is following the PC instead of leading
>it with innovation, as Mac advocates claim.
If Apple leads the way even 10% of the time, it's doing
an *incredible* job, because it's only 3-4% of the market.
How much leadership do you expect the minority to do?
James Davis
Josh Lewis
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> >
> > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
> > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
> No. The new Ultra ATA drives are plenty fast, unlike IDE drives of
> yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed by IDE
> (vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
>
The new IDE drives are actually really good for most day to day use. The
kick butt over even two years ago... I still love SCSI though and don't
know if I could owen a computer without it. SCSI drives are usually more
easily recovered, and handle sustained throughput much better.
THe question facing computerdom now is weather we will all ly down and let
Adaptec move in to become the AOL of SCSI. It's not like they don't have
great people working for them ist's just that the product sucks and has
soo much name reconition.
> At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now it
> doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
Well we still have SCSI manager 4.3 imbedded in the OS. We can still boot
from almost anything SCSI, despite the open firmware restrictions.
Eric Bennett
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> Huh ? SCSI basically has 3 advantages over IDE:
> 1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write re-ordering.
> 2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus - better
> for RAID.
> 3. You can have more devices.
There are two additional pseudo-advantages, those being higher burst
transfer rates and the tendency of manufacturers to release higher-RPM
drives with larger caches for SCSI first.
There's a third pseudo-advantage, which is that in my experience software
utilities tend to have better SCSI support than IDE support... of course,
that could be because of the platforms I use.
> Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that are
> usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster sequential
> throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
> platters.
I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that IDE drives "usually"
have higher data density. Where are you getting this?
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
ZnU
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire. Firewire is in every respect superior
to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs. There aren't many devices for
it, yet, but with Apple putting it in hundreds of thousands of homes,
that'll change soon, and even you Wintel people will reap the benefits.
As for the iMac, much of the iMac's target audience doesn't need to hook
up high speed external devices. My mother sure doesn't. The iMac is great
for it's target audience. I'm not in that audience, but I know two people
who have recently bought iMacs, and they¹re both quite happy.
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
serial bus.
--
This space intentionally left blank to conserve pixels.
--ZnU <tita...@psn.net>
Eric Bennett
tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> Firewire is in every respect superior
> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
Mac Man
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
Yeah, nevermind that whole FireWire thing. Not to mention that USB didn't
take off until Apple put it on the iMac. Don't you have something better
to do?
--
Microsoft's slogan -should- read: "Where do you want to go today?
It doesn't matter, you're coming with us."
ZnU
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
>
> > Firewire is in every respect superior
> > to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>
> Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
I didn't say Firewire was "in every respect superior to SCSI". I said it
was "in every respect superior to the SCSI **that Apple used to ship in
Macs.**". It is. It's self-configuring, hot-pluggable, supports more
devices, and is *5 times as fast*.
Fact is, 50MB/s is fast enough for almost every user out there, even for
most digital video work. Sure, there are SCSI interfaces out there that
are faster than your system bus, but for most peope, even most power
users, there's no point.
Christopher Smith
Josh Lewis <jsl...@nomoredamspam.erols.com> wrote in message
news:jslewis-2106...@207-172-86-95.s95.tnt6.rcm.va.dialup.rcn.c
om...
> In article
> <097C0DB8D74DD574.AEC07B02...@lp.airnews.net>,
Chris
> Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> The new IDE drives are actually really good for most day to day use.
The
> kick butt over even two years ago... I still love SCSI though and
don't
> know if I could owen a computer without it. SCSI drives are usually
more
> easily recovered, and handle sustained throughput much better.
Huh ? SCSI basically has 3 advantages over IDE:
1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write re-ordering.
2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus - better
for RAID.
3. You can have more devices.
Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that are
usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster sequential
throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
platters.
If you have a very specific need, SCSI is good. However, SCSI device
are ridiculously overpriced for the advantages they offer most people.
In fact, the advantages SCSI offer most people hovers slightly below
zero.
Christopher Smith
Eric Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ericb-21069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu...
> > 1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write
re-ordering.
> > 2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus -
better
> > for RAID.
> > 3. You can have more devices.
>
> transfer rates and the tendency of manufacturers to release higher-RPM
> drives with larger caches for SCSI first.
I'd call the first very much a pseudo-advantage. The second is a bit
more relevant, but again you're *really* going to be paying through the
nose for it because it is pretty much only true at the very top end.
> There's a third pseudo-advantage, which is that in my experience
software
> utilities tend to have better SCSI support than IDE support... of
course,
> that could be because of the platforms I use.
I'm not sure what you mean by better SCSI support. It's a disk drive .
. . .
Unless you're talking about scanners and things ?
> > Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that
are
> > usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster
sequential
> > throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
> > platters.
>
> I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that IDE drives "usually"
> have higher data density. Where are you getting this?
Look at the specs on mose IDE vs SCSI drives - the IDE drives are almost
always much higher capacities in the same form factor or same number of
platters. This is changing nowadays, however, as more companies are
using identical mechanisms for their SCSI and IDE drives and simply
changing the controller boards. The still charge 2x as much for the
SCSI drive, however, and it is obviously not true in the case of
10,000rpm drives. Almost every manufacturers 7200 and 5400rpm SCSI and
IDE drives are identical except for the controller board, though.
This last little factoid is what blows away the common "SCSI is more
reliable" myth - they're *exactly the same drives* in almost every case.
Eric Bennett
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by better SCSI support. It's a disk drive .
No, it's a device interface. Some utilties have much better support for
advanced operations on SCSI buses and not on EIDE buses. The Mac version
of Norton Utilities can do more on SCSI drives than IDE drives,
particularly if you're having trouble getting the disk to show up or
mount.
> Unless you're talking about scanners and things ?
Utilities, mostly, and on platforms (like the Mac) that have traditionally
had a SCSI bias.
> > I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that IDE drives "usually"
> > have higher data density. Where are you getting this?
>
> Look at the specs on mose IDE vs SCSI drives - the IDE drives are almost
> always much higher capacities in the same form factor or same number of
> platters.
What IDE drive can I compare to the 50 gig Barracuda? :-)
(Okay, that's sort of a cheap shot, since that's a 1.6" high drive, nobody
seems to make 1.6" IDE disks, and IBM's smaller-capacity 1" IDE drives of
the same period are probably similar in data density. But 'similar'
doesn't give IDE disks an advantage.)
> This is changing nowadays, however, as more companies are
> using identical mechanisms for their SCSI and IDE drives and simply
> changing the controller boards.
Quantum was doing this for awhile. They sold EIDE and SCSI versions of
the Fireball with the only noticeable difference being that they put more
cache on the SCSI version.
> The still charge 2x as much for the
Not *that* much more in most cases, and often the SCSI version has more
cache, so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
> SCSI drive, however, and it is obviously not true in the case of
> 10,000rpm drives. Almost every manufacturers 7200 and 5400rpm SCSI and
> IDE drives are identical except for the controller board, though.
Does anybody even make 5400 RPM SCSI disks anymore? I see a few listed
for sale in catalogs but they are all old 4 gig or smaller models.
And few vendors actually seem to be using the same mechanisms in their IDE
and SCSI drives. SCSI drives tend to come in sizes that are multiples of
9 gigs (9, 18, 36, 54), whereas most IDE drives I've seen on the market
are not (for example, the Deskstar comes in sizes like 10, 12, 14, 22,
25).
Who *currently* sells drives that are identical except for the controller
board? As I said above, Quantum used to do this, but the SCSI models of
the Fireball seem to be disappearing. All their new SCSI drives are 7200
RPM or faster, and none of their IDE drives are this fast. IBM's SCSI and
IDE drives have completely different capacities.
> This last little factoid is what blows away the common "SCSI is more
> reliable" myth - they're *exactly the same drives* in almost every case.
Well, I never really heard of very many people who believe that in the
first place. If anything I would expect SCSI disks to fail more because
they tend to be higher RPM drives that run hotter.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true.
- Robert Wilensky, University of California
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-21069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
> > In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> > tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> >
> > > Firewire is in every respect superior
> > > to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
> >
> > Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
>
> I didn't say Firewire was "in every respect superior to SCSI". I said it
> was "in every respect superior to the SCSI **that Apple used to ship in
> Macs.**".
Didn't Apple offer U2W cards via build-to-order?
Christopher Smith
> In article <7kn1tk$k20$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
> <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by better SCSI support. It's a disk
drive .
>
> No, it's a device interface.
I was referring to the things you're likely to have plugged into it.
> Some utilties have much better support for
> advanced operations on SCSI buses and not on EIDE buses. The Mac
version
> of Norton Utilities can do more on SCSI drives than IDE drives,
> particularly if you're having trouble getting the disk to show up or
> mount.
In that case I'd say it's definitely a platform thing then.
> > Look at the specs on mose IDE vs SCSI drives - the IDE drives are
almost
> > always much higher capacities in the same form factor or same number
of
> > platters.
>
> What IDE drive can I compare to the 50 gig Barracuda? :-)
>
> (Okay, that's sort of a cheap shot, since that's a 1.6" high drive,
nobody
> seems to make 1.6" IDE disks, and IBM's smaller-capacity 1" IDE drives
of
> the same period are probably similar in data density. But 'similar'
> doesn't give IDE disks an advantage.)
For what you paid for that 50GB barracuda you could probably get 100GB
of IDE on a cached RAID controller that would be faster :). However,
your SCSI has a much higher top end - if you foresee the need to be
having 100s of GB of obscenely fast online storage then SCSI is pretty
much your only option.
> > This is changing nowadays, however, as more companies are
> > using identical mechanisms for their SCSI and IDE drives and simply
> > changing the controller boards.
>
> Quantum was doing this for awhile. They sold EIDE and SCSI versions
of
> the Fireball with the only noticeable difference being that they put
more
> cache on the SCSI version.
I have a sneaky suspicion they still do with the Vikings and current
7200rpm Fireballs. Fireballs have all had 512k cache on them for a
while now though - easily a year.
> > The still charge 2x as much for the
>
> Not *that* much more in most cases, and often the SCSI version has
more
> cache, so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
I've never seen an identical SCSI model that wasn't within 10% of twice
as much (usually on the high side). I refuse to believe a new
controller board and slightly more cache cost anything even remotely
approaching as much as an entire drive.
> > SCSI drive, however, and it is obviously not true in the case of
> > 10,000rpm drives. Almost every manufacturers 7200 and 5400rpm SCSI
and
> > IDE drives are identical except for the controller board, though.
>
> Does anybody even make 5400 RPM SCSI disks anymore? I see a few
listed
> for sale in catalogs but they are all old 4 gig or smaller models.
>
> And few vendors actually seem to be using the same mechanisms in their
IDE
> and SCSI drives. SCSI drives tend to come in sizes that are multiples
of
> 9 gigs (9, 18, 36, 54), whereas most IDE drives I've seen on the
market
> are not (for example, the Deskstar comes in sizes like 10, 12, 14, 22,
> 25).
>
> Who *currently* sells drives that are identical except for the
controller
> board? As I said above, Quantum used to do this, but the SCSI models
of
> the Fireball seem to be disappearing. All their new SCSI drives are
7200
> RPM or faster, and none of their IDE drives are this fast. IBM's SCSI
and
> IDE drives have completely different capacities.
I'm almost sure Quantum and Seagate still do (to a degree). I'll admit
I haven't really looked at hard disks for a few months though, so its
quite possible I'm currently out of data.
Quantum do sell 7200rpm drives now, as well - not that they really
needed to since their 5400s were just as fast.
> > This last little factoid is what blows away the common "SCSI is more
> > reliable" myth - they're *exactly the same drives* in almost every
case.
>
> Well, I never really heard of very many people who believe that in the
> first place. If anything I would expect SCSI disks to fail more
because
> they tend to be higher RPM drives that run hotter.
It used to be true a long time ago and that is where the myth
originated. Hasn't been true for quite some time, however.
Rick
> Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> better SCSI is than IDE?
>
SCSI is better than IDE.
> SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
You did.
> Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
Actually it does bother many Mac people. And Most of dont hold IDE in
contempt, we just wish SCSI drives were able to match the price points
of IDE.
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
Actually I havent seem any price/performace info to convice me that Macs
really cost more these days. As for the converters costingmore... well
thats true... but I see those same converters being advertised for the
wintel boxes with the exact same blurb.
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
Go away and dont bother us with your drivel. And when you come back,
leave your old bird at home.
Eric Bennett
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> In that case I'd say it's definitely a platform thing then.
That's what I said in my original post IIRC.
> For what you paid for that 50GB barracuda you could probably get 100GB
> of IDE on a cached RAID controller that would be faster :).
And get a bigger tangled mess of wires and hot drives. Great. Plus, with
more drives and cables and cards, there are more potential sources of
failure.
> However,
> your SCSI has a much higher top end - if you foresee the need to be
> having 100s of GB of obscenely fast online storage then SCSI is pretty
> much your only option.
Not when "my SCSI" includes Compaq Unix workstations that ship with no
external SCSI connector. :-(
> I refuse to believe a new
> controller board and slightly more cache cost anything even remotely
> approaching as much as an entire drive.
So do I, but the point stands... you are getting something for that cost
in addition to the SCSI interface. You're paying a lot more than you
should, but at least you're getting *something*, so it's not as bad as
some foes of SCSI make it out to be.
> I'm almost sure Quantum and Seagate still do (to a degree). I'll admit
> I haven't really looked at hard disks for a few months though, so its
> quite possible I'm currently out of data.
> Quantum do sell 7200rpm drives now, as well - not that they really
> needed to since their 5400s were just as fast.
The fanaticism with revolution speed has me baffled, since data density
seems to be increasing the speed of drives at a much higher rate... yet
most people still seem to rate drives by their RPM.
>I have a sneaky suspicion they still do with the Vikings and current
>7200rpm Fireballs.
The Fireball+KX, which is their 7200 RPM model, is not available in any of
the same sizes as the Viking or Atlas models as far as I can tell. The
Fireball+KA is available in a 9.1 gig version, as is the Viking, but the
number of recording surfaces is different.
See:
http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/fireball_plus_kx/specs.html
http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/fireball_plus_ka/specs.html
http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/viking_II/specs.html
Anders.Sundin
>Huh ? SCSI basically has 3 advantages over IDE:
>1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write re-ordering.
>2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus - better
>for RAID.
>3. You can have more devices.
You forgot an important one,
4. With SCSI you can connect external devices.
-Anders
--
Anders Sundin, Org. Chem. 2, Lund University, Box 124, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
e-mail: Anders...@orgk2.lth.se voice: +46 462224185 fax: +46 462228209
Alan Baker
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
>but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
>better SCSI is than IDE?
>
>SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
>of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
>SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
>
>Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
>the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
>IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
>In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
>with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
>peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
>Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
And in your current incarnation, if Apple sold Macs with integrated SCSI,
you'd be castigating them for "forcing" everyone to pay for it who was
buying a Mac for the first time and didn't have legacy peripherals.
Since Apple first started selling Macs with SCSI, IDE has changed quite a
bit and a newer more flexible interface called Firewire has been invented
(which BTW was invented by Apple; at least in part).
It's called progress. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Alan Baker
>In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
>tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
>
>> Firewire is in every respect superior
>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>
>Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
Christopher Smith
Anders.Sundin <Anders...@orgk2.lth.se> wrote in message
news:Anders.Sundin-2...@aps.orgk2.lth.se...
> "Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Huh ? SCSI basically has 3 advantages over IDE:
> >1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write
re-ordering.
> >2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus -
better
> >for RAID.
> >3. You can have more devices.
>
> You forgot an important one,
> 4. With SCSI you can connect external devices.
That was actually meant to be part of #3.
Christopher Smith
> <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
> > In that case I'd say it's definitely a platform thing then.
>
> That's what I said in my original post IIRC.
>
> > For what you paid for that 50GB barracuda you could probably get
100GB
> > of IDE on a cached RAID controller that would be faster :).
>
> And get a bigger tangled mess of wires and hot drives. Great. Plus,
with
> more drives and cables and cards, there are more potential sources of
> failure.
Crikey. Calm down, I was just making a (minor) point :).
> > However,
> > your SCSI has a much higher top end - if you foresee the need to be
> > having 100s of GB of obscenely fast online storage then SCSI is
pretty
> > much your only option.
>
> Not when "my SCSI" includes Compaq Unix workstations that ship with no
> external SCSI connector. :-(
Ugh. Although you could always run an internal cable out through the
case (if you had no qualms about that sort of thing).
> > I refuse to believe a new
> > controller board and slightly more cache cost anything even remotely
> > approaching as much as an entire drive.
>
> So do I, but the point stands... you are getting something for that
cost
> in addition to the SCSI interface. You're paying a lot more than you
> should, but at least you're getting *something*, so it's not as bad as
> some foes of SCSI make it out to be.
I'm only a "foe" of SCSI when people try to say it't better than IDE at
_everything_. It's not. The price/performance, for example, is
horrific compared to IDE (unless you're in the small percentage of the
consumer base who need and/or can afford the top end drives).
SCSI is *technically* better, no doubt about it. However SCSI
peripherals are grossly and artificially overpriced.
> > I'm almost sure Quantum and Seagate still do (to a degree). I'll
admit
> > I haven't really looked at hard disks for a few months though, so
its
> > quite possible I'm currently out of data.
> > Quantum do sell 7200rpm drives now, as well - not that they really
> > needed to since their 5400s were just as fast.
>
> The fanaticism with revolution speed has me baffled, since data
density
> seems to be increasing the speed of drives at a much higher rate...
yet
> most people still seem to rate drives by their RPM.
Higher rpm speeds generally seem to go hand in hand with bigger buffers
and other niceties - I think that might be why people centre on them.
Personally, I wouldn't say no to a 10 disk RAID0 array of Seagate
Cheetahs :). Although I'd need to aircondition my case . . . .
> >I have a sneaky suspicion they still do with the Vikings and current
> >7200rpm Fireballs.
>
> The Fireball+KX, which is their 7200 RPM model, is not available in
any of
> the same sizes as the Viking or Atlas models as far as I can tell.
The
> Fireball+KA is available in a 9.1 gig version, as is the Viking, but
the
> number of recording surfaces is different.
>
> See:
> http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/fireball_plus_kx/specs.html
> http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/fireball_plus_ka/specs.html
> http://www.quantum.com/products/hdd/viking_II/specs.html
Hmm ok my bad. It seems my information has become out of date :\.
paiute
EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7km9d3$lm6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7klv4t$h5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
> > > > > the Wrath of the Swarm!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > So Mac advocates bragged about SCSI because it was the equivelant
of
> > an
> > > eight track player?
> > >
> > > > Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
> > >
> > > By doing what PC owners did in the past?
> > >
> >
> > This isn't an argument.
> > Yes it is.
> > No it isn't.
> > Is too.
> > etc.
>
> That isn't what's been happening here. You can't counter what I've
> said, so you're misstating the argument and running from it instead.
>
intended to establish a proposition.
Rick
> In article
> <097C0DB8D74DD574.AEC07B02...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Chris Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> > > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
> price
> > > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
> add
> > > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> > >
> > > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> > >
> > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI
> > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
> > No. The new Ultra ATA drives are plenty fast, unlike IDE drives of
> > yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed by
> IDE
> > (vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
> >
> > At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now it
> > doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
>
> You make some good points, and I accept them. But it means that Apple
> is following the PC instead of leading it with innovation, as Mac
> advocates claim.
>
Really? What other computer on the market uses USB and/or Firewire as
its only expansion bus? It doesnt look like Apple is following anyone..
at least to anyone with any kind of open mind.
Sascha Bohnenkamp
and u2w does not mean that you get real throughput
Sascha Bohnenkamp
>>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>>
>>Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
>
>Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
>available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
Joe Ragosta
tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire. Firewire is in every respect superior
> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs. There aren't many devices for
True. However, Firewire falls short of the best available SCSI
implementation in terms of raw,. theoretical performance. I don't know how
a top end FireWire system would stack up against a top end SCSI system in
real life, though.
> it, yet, but with Apple putting it in hundreds of thousands of homes,
> that'll change soon, and even you Wintel people will reap the benefits.
>
> As for the iMac, much of the iMac's target audience doesn't need to hook
> up high speed external devices. My mother sure doesn't. The iMac is great
> for it's target audience. I'm not in that audience, but I know two people
> who have recently bought iMacs, and they¹re both quite happy.
>
> > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
> > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
> No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
> serial bus.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Joe Ragosta
> In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
>
> > Firewire is in every respect superior
> > to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>
> Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
Actually, he said "the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs". Since Apple
shipped relatively slow versions of SCSI, his statement is correct.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Alan Baker
Bohnenkamp" <bohne...@mevis.de> wrote:
>>>> Firewire is in every respect superior
>>>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>>>
>>>Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
>>
>>Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
>>available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
>a single-drive computer makes very nice servers ... very nice
>well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
That was less coherent than I'm capable of parsing.
EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
>
> The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
That must really please Apple customers who have large investments in
SCSI devices.
>Firewire is in every respect superior to the SCSI that Apple used to
>ship in Macs. There aren't many devices for it, yet, but with Apple
>putting it in hundreds of thousands of homes, that'll change soon, and
Hundreds of thosands of homes will have G3 towers soon? I doubt that,
and the iMac doesn't have Firewire. Firewire will become popular
because of the millions of PCs that will contain it, not because of the
Mac, much to the chagrin of Mac advocates.
>even you Wintel people will reap the benefits.
Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the benefits" of
Firewire, BTW.
> As for the iMac, much of the iMac's target audience doesn't need to
hook
> up high speed external devices. My mother sure doesn't. The iMac is
great
> for it's target audience. I'm not in that audience, but I know two
people
> who have recently bought iMacs, and they¹re both quite happy.
I'm glad Apple learned from the PC what makes for a good disk system.
> > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
> > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
> No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
> serial bus.
Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
> --
> This space intentionally left blank to conserve pixels.
>
> --ZnU <tita...@psn.net>
>
--
EdWIN
nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
>
Now we know why Apple switched to IDE, eh?
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
>
> You did.
And I admitted the error of my ways.
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> >
>
> Actually it does bother many Mac people. And Most of dont hold IDE in
> contempt, we just wish SCSI drives were able to match the price points
> of IDE.
So you were cruelly betrayed by Apple. How sad.
> > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
>
> Actually I havent seem any price/performace info to convice me that
Macs
> really cost more these days.
I have. If you spend for both, you'll see how much less you have in
your pocket after you've shelled out for a Mac.
> As for the converters costingmore... well
> thats true... but I see those same converters being advertised for the
> wintel boxes with the exact same blurb.
But you can buy PC motherboards that have built-in SCSI.
> > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
>
> Go away and dont bother us with your drivel.
Don't you mean "BONK?"
>And when you come back,
> leave your old bird at home.
You want to come to my house for your crow dinner?
EdWIN
paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7km9p6$lro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <7km9d3$lm6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7klvkj$hd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > In article <7klv4t$h5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built
> into
> > > > Macs,
> > > > > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments
about
> > how
> > > > much
> > > > > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > > > > >
> higher
> > > > price
> > > > > > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay
> more
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> > > > > >
doesn't
> > > bother
> > > > > > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they
> contain
> > > the
> > > > > > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> > > > > >
cost
> > > more,
> > > > > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your
old
> > Mac
> > > > SCSI
> > > > > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
> > > > > > the Wrath of the Swarm!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > > > > >
too.
> > > >
> > > > So Mac advocates bragged about SCSI because it was the
equivelant
> of
> > > an
> > > > eight track player?
> > > >
> > > > > Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
> > > >
> > > > By doing what PC owners did in the past?
> > > >
> > >
> > > This isn't an argument.
> > > Yes it is.
> > > No it isn't.
> > > Is too.
> > > etc.
> >
> > That isn't what's been happening here. You can't counter what I've
> > said, so you're misstating the argument and running from it instead.
> >
> This isn't an argument. An argument is a connected series of
statements
> intended to establish a proposition.
Any failure to participate in a proper argument is yours alone. My
statements have been coherent and to the point. Yours have not.
EdWIN
cat...@aol.com (CatBus) wrote:
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >You make some good points, and I accept them. But it
> >means that Apple is following the PC instead of leading
> >it with innovation, as Mac advocates claim.
>
> an *incredible* job, because it's only 3-4% of the market.
> How much leadership do you expect the minority to do?
I entirely agree. But many Mac advocates posting to this news group
talk as if everything in the personal computer market is an Apple
innovation. They also claim that everything in the PC was copied from
the Mac.
> James Davis
Eric Bennett
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> Ugh. Although you could always run an internal cable out through the
> case (if you had no qualms about that sort of thing).
Not practical. We purchased additional SCSI cards.
EdWIN
of
> > > yore. Additionally, the extra overhead on the processor imposed
by
> > IDE
> > > (vs. SCSI) is now acceptable with today's high-speed processors.
> > >
> > > At the time of the "SCSI advantage," it DID make more sense. Now
it
> > > doesn't. No crow mastication applies.
> >
Apple
> > is following the PC instead of leading it with innovation, as Mac
> > advocates claim.
> >
>
> its only expansion bus? It doesnt look like Apple is following
anyone..
Apple is using IDE and USB from PCs, but it doesn't look like they're
following anyone? Are you sure this is what you want to say?
Making customers pay extra to add in other busses or to buy adaptors
counts as leading the market? It used to be you got people to follow
your standard by putting things in. In the new Mac advocates view, you
lead by chopping things out, and forcing your users to buy all new
devices.
> at least to anyone with any kind of open mind.
Sure, only someone who agrees with you has an "open mind."
Earl Malmrose
news:titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net...
> The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire. Firewire is in every respect superior
> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
You mean the old SCSI Apple shipped years ago? Nice comparison between old
technology and new technology. Duh, of course Firewire is better than
several years old SCSI. Try using todays SCSI.
EdWIN
mac...@NOSPAMMhome.msen.com (Mac Man) wrote:
> In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
price
> > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
add
> > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> >
> > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> >
> > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
SCSI
> > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> >
> > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
Because it went into PCs first?
> Not to mention that USB didn't
> take off until Apple put it on the iMac.
USB devices were on the PC first. They "took off" on the iMac because
they were the only expansion option available for that computer.
> Don't you have something better to do?
Sure, but I'm glad to fit you into my busy schedule. You're welcome.
> --
>
> Microsoft's slogan -should- read: "Where do you want to go today?
[snip]
It does.
EdWIN
158.ce.mediaone.net>,
jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski) wrote:
> In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
> Have you ever heard of a "transition", edLOSE?
To me "transition" means a gradual change, not an abrupt one.
My remarks must be right on the money to cause you to resort to turning
my name into a childish insult. I expect that kind of thing from Joe
Ragosta, but for some reason I thought more of you. Oh well.
> Would you like to still be
> using 8" "floppies" and six-level tape too?
Do those things equate to SCSI drives? Are IDE drives that much
better? If so, why did Apple force the inferior SCSI devices on Mac
buyers for so long?
> Adaptec has a $69(list) USB--SCSI card that gives backward
>compatibility
So $1600 isn't enough to pay for a computer, I have to spend $69 more?
Please don't forget the installation costs, as you'd never forget that
for adding stuff to a PC.
How do I add one of those to an iMac?
> and the FIREWIRE drives are out...hot swappable....all those good
> things...
Who can afford one after they buy a Mac?
Peter Ammon
EdWIN wrote:
>
> In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
>
> That must really please Apple customers who have large investments in
> SCSI devices.
It greatly benefits those who don't large investments, because Firewire
is superior to SCSI. Those who do have investments can drop $49 on an
Ultra-SCSI card. Big deal.
>
> Hundreds of thosands of homes will have G3 towers soon? I doubt that,
> and the iMac doesn't have Firewire. Firewire will become popular
> because of the millions of PCs that will contain it, not because of the
> Mac, much to the chagrin of Mac advocates.
Just like USB, right?
>
> Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
> with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the benefits" of
> Firewire, BTW.
See above.
>
> > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI
> > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
> > No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
> > serial bus.
>
> Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
I'd bet that there are more Macs with Firewire than PCs.
-Peter
EdWIN
Peter...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>
> EdWIN wrote:
> >
> > In article <titanium-2106992309350001@cust-106-
144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> > tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
> >
> > That must really please Apple customers who have large investments
in
> > SCSI devices.
>
> It greatly benefits those who don't large investments, because
Firewire
> is superior to SCSI. Those who do have investments can drop $49 on an
> Ultra-SCSI card. Big deal.
The price dropped from $69? When did that happen? And we should
forget installation cost too? Neat.
I'd say it's a big deal when I have to spend even more for a computer
that already costs over $2,000 at least with the monitor, and I have to
use up one of only two available slots.
Which old clunker Mac do you have, BTW? Quadra? Performa? Mac II? It
seems that those who advocate the new Macs the loudest don't have them.
> >
> > Hundreds of thosands of homes will have G3 towers soon? I doubt
that,
> > and the iMac doesn't have Firewire. Firewire will become popular
> > because of the millions of PCs that will contain it, not because of
the
> > Mac, much to the chagrin of Mac advocates.
>
> Just like USB, right?
Right. There are USB modems in PC catalogs that self configure
without a reboot. Got anything like that for the Mac?
> >
> > Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
> > with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the
benefits" of
> > Firewire, BTW.
>
> See above.
For the acknowledgement that Apple is following the PC by using USB?
> >
> > > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost
more,
> > > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old
Mac
> > SCSI
> > > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > > >
> > > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> > >
> > > No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-
configuring
> > > serial bus.
> >
> > Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
>
> I'd bet that there are more Macs with Firewire than PCs.
I'll bet you have no way of proving it one way or another.
> -Peter
Peter Ammon
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
> a single-drive computer makes very nice servers ... very nice
> well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
This thread is not about servers, Sashca.
-Peter
Josiah Fizer
> EdWIN wrote:
> >
> > In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> > tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
> >
> > That must really please Apple customers who have large investments in
> > SCSI devices.
>
> It greatly benefits those who don't large investments, because Firewire
> is superior to SCSI. Those who do have investments can drop $49 on an
> Ultra-SCSI card. Big deal.
>
> >
> > Hundreds of thosands of homes will have G3 towers soon? I doubt that,
> > and the iMac doesn't have Firewire. Firewire will become popular
> > because of the millions of PCs that will contain it, not because of the
> > Mac, much to the chagrin of Mac advocates.
>
> Just like USB, right?
>
> >
> > Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
> > with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the benefits" of
> > Firewire, BTW.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> > SCSI
> > > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > > >
> > > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> > >
> > > No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
> > > serial bus.
> >
> > Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
>
> I'd bet that there are more Macs with Firewire than PCs.
>
> -Peter
To bad you'd be wrong. Seeing as every Sony notebook has Firewire pluss a lot
of workstations such as the SGI Visual PC. Apple has one type of computer with
Firewire, when are we gona get the firewire power books? I want one o' them.
Peter
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Do those things equate to SCSI drives? Are IDE drives that much
> better? If so, why did Apple force the inferior SCSI devices on Mac
> buyers for so long?
Ide drives today are not that bad. But years ago, they sucked and could
not hold a candle to SCSI. Adapters exist today to keep the legacy
devices alive if you wish( scsi---> USB) and SCSI cards for PCI Macs.
You starting this whole thread is dumb and proves to me that you are a
small minded person that is not all that bright (david wang you ain't).
It is simply you getting your jollys by saying something provocative and
seeing who bites. The topic that you brought up is not very difficult to
grasp and solutions for the dillema are all over the place. All you want
to do is nitpick with some poor unsuspecting soul who bothers to comment.
Now for the personal insults:
YOU ARE A MORON AND WILL FOREVER BE A MORON. I have not forgotten that as
a mac advocate you were rude bastard and as a PC user (NOT ADVOCATE) you
are still a bastard. and those personal insults are ones that I will
stand by. I would even venture to guess that others (many others) would
agree.
If you want to be an advocate then go to the appropriate group and
advocate. If you want to show the world that you have shit for brains
then please continue to start "troll" threads like this one. But please
stop bitching when peaple call you nasty names and attack you personnally
becuase with threads like this , you are asking to be insulted.
regards,
--
Peter
_____________________________________________________________________
" Some of you might not agree
'Cause you probably likes a lot of misery
But think a while and you will see...
Broken hearts are for assholes"
FZ
K. Sebring
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
>
>That must really please Apple customers who have large investments in
>SCSI devices.
If a customer has such "large investments in SCSI devices", a $40 SCSI
card isn't going to hurt them that much.
--
-----------------------
k...@ncounty.net
kmsmac on AIM
ICQ #9251405
George Graves
>Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into Macs,
>but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how much
>better SCSI is than IDE?
You ought to remember. You're one of them!
--
George Graves
Eric Bennett
> In article <jpolaski-2106991805200001@el03-24-131-174-
> 158.ce.mediaone.net>,
> jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski) wrote:
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> > =======
> > Have you ever heard of a "transition", edLOSE?
>
> To me "transition" means a gradual change, not an abrupt one.
What is abrupt about it? Apple had been making machines with both IDE and
SCSI for quite some time.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true.
- Robert Wilensky, University of California
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <1999062208...@ts2-36.aug.com>,
> nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
[snip]
> > Really? What other computer on the market uses USB and/or Firewire as
> > its only expansion bus? It doesnt look like Apple is following
> anyone..
>
> Apple is using IDE and USB from PCs, but it doesn't look like they're
> following anyone? Are you sure this is what you want to say?
>
> Making customers pay extra to add in other busses or to buy adaptors
> counts as leading the market? It used to be you got people to follow
> your standard by putting things in. In the new Mac advocates view, you
> lead by chopping things out, and forcing your users to buy all new
> devices.
If you add a new interface to a computer and leave the old one, the new
one is usually almost totally ignored. This was demonstrated by USB on the
PC. Adding new interfaces that don't get used wastes people's money.
Profit margins are tight, and peripheral makers don't like to use new
interfaces until they are *forced* to. Apple forced PCI on Mac users,
really screwing over people with old NuBus cards, and the Mac is better
now as a result. Nothing similar happened on the PC side. PC users still
occasionally need to put up with an ISA card (or else theyąre wasting
money getting a PC with ISA slots, which most still have), and how many
years has it been? (I won't even go into ISA vs. NuBus; that's a different
topic.)
I'm willing to pay extra to use my old stuff if it means that in 2 years
I'll never have to deal with the old interfaces again. Somebody has to pay
the price for progress, and I think it's worth it.
> > at least to anyone with any kind of open mind.
>
> Sure, only someone who agrees with you has an "open mind."
--
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> > > SCSI was one of the ways that Mac advocates justified the higher
> price
> > > of the Mac. They claimed that PC owners would have to pay more to
> add
> > > SCSI to match the Mac's disk performance.
> > >
> > > Neither the iMac nor the G3 tower have SCSI, yet this doesn't bother
> > > the Mac advocates at all, in spite of the fact that they contain the
> > > IDE drives they expressed such contempt for.
> >
> > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
>
> That must really please Apple customers who have large investments in
> SCSI devices.
I'm and Apple customer with a large investment in SCSI devices. It doesn't
bother me. I can just buy a cheap SCSI card that's faster than the SCSI
Apple would have likely included anyway.
> >Firewire is in every respect superior to the SCSI that Apple used to
> >ship in Macs. There aren't many devices for it, yet, but with Apple
> >putting it in hundreds of thousands of homes, that'll change soon, and
>
> Hundreds of thosands of homes will have G3 towers soon? I doubt that,
> and the iMac doesn't have Firewire.
Apple shipped over one million of the beige G3 machines between November
of '97 and January of '99. I'd expect the blue and white is selling even
faster. It's quite likely hundreds of thousands of G3's have already
shipped.
> Firewire will become popular
> because of the millions of PCs that will contain it, not because of the
> Mac, much to the chagrin of Mac advocates.
Firewire won't even be popular in PC's until the Mac causes more
peripherals to be built. But that's largely irrelevant. You say this like
it's a *bad* thing for the Mac. Having lots of Firewire devices is good
for *everyone*. That's why Apple and friends are licensing Firewire like
crazy.
> >even you Wintel people will reap the benefits.
>
> Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
> with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the benefits" of
> Firewire, BTW.
Good. You guys just create a nice big market for 'em so I can get 'em
cheap. That's all I want.
> > As for the iMac, much of the iMac's target audience doesn't need to
> hook
> > up high speed external devices. My mother sure doesn't. The iMac is
> great
> > for it's target audience. I'm not in that audience, but I know two
> people
> > who have recently bought iMacs, and they¹re both quite happy.
>
> I'm glad Apple learned from the PC what makes for a good disk system.
IDE used to really suck. It's not so bad anymore, and it's cheap, so Apple
has started using it. I'm glad Microsoft learned from Apple what makes for
a good user interface. Really, I am, I think it would be a bad thing if
one company owned the GUI as we know it.
> > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI
> > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
> > No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-configuring
> > serial bus.
>
> Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
Like the one that like USB was almost totally unused until it ended up in
the Mac? (Although it still isn't used much, but that's beginning to
change fast.)
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <376F6D6A...@rocketmail.com>,
> Peter...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > EdWIN wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <titanium-2106992309350001@cust-106-
> 144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> > > tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > > > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire.
> > >
> > > That must really please Apple customers who have large investments
> in
> > > SCSI devices.
> >
> > It greatly benefits those who don't large investments, because
> Firewire
> > is superior to SCSI. Those who do have investments can drop $49 on an
> > Ultra-SCSI card. Big deal.
>
> The price dropped from $69? When did that happen? And we should
> forget installation cost too? Neat.
Installation? Are you on something illegal? You can install a PCI card in
a G3 in under a minute. It's easier to get open than most bottled drinks.
> I'd say it's a big deal when I have to spend even more for a computer
> that already costs over $2,000 at least with the monitor, and I have to
> use up one of only two available slots.
Informed as usual. There are *three* available PCI slots before you drop
the card in.
[snip]
> > Just like USB, right?
>
> Right. There are USB modems in PC catalogs that self configure
> without a reboot. Got anything like that for the Mac?
Oh no! A reboot! Actually, I'm not sure if the USB modems to Mac require a
reboot. But even if they do, I'm sure we still come out ahead when you
figure in all those years PC users had to reboot to change bit depths.
> > > Ahhh... another round of embrace and conquer. I look forward to it
> > > with hungry anticipation. ;) PCs are already "reaping the
> benefits" of
> > > Firewire, BTW.
> >
> > See above.
>
> For the acknowledgement that Apple is following the PC by using USB?
Adding an unused USB port to a computer isn't that useful. Forcing
peripheral makers to actually make stuff for it is.
> > > > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost
> more,
> > > > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old
> Mac
> > > SCSI
> > > > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> > > >
> > > > No thanks. I'll just take a high-speed, hot-plugable, self-
> configuring
> > > > serial bus.
> > >
> > > Like the one that shipped with PCs first?
> >
> > I'd bet that there are more Macs with Firewire than PCs.
>
> I'll bet you have no way of proving it one way or another.
I'll bet if you're honest with yourself you'll admit it's likely true.
ZnU
<earl.malmrose@.com> wrote:
> ZnU <tita...@psn.net> wrote in message
> news:titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net...
> > The G3 replaces SCSI with Firewire. Firewire is in every respect superior
> > to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>
> You mean the old SCSI Apple shipped years ago? Nice comparison between old
> technology and new technology. Duh, of course Firewire is better than
> several years old SCSI. Try using todays SCSI.
I mean the SCSI that Apple shipped in the beige G3's that were shipping up
to the day the new G3 was introduced.
Todd
news:Alan_Baker-22...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net...
> In article <7ko4kt$jka$1...@kohl.informatik.uni-bremen.de>, "Sascha
> Bohnenkamp" <bohne...@mevis.de> wrote:
>
> >>>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
> >>available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
> >well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
>
Alan, critiquing someone's coherence? Anyone else see the hypocrisy?
--
Todd
ZnU
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
>
> > In article <ericb-21069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> > er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <titanium-210...@cust-106-144.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> > > tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Firewire is in every respect superior
> > > > to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
> > >
> > > Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
> >
> > I didn't say Firewire was "in every respect superior to SCSI". I said it
> > was "in every respect superior to the SCSI **that Apple used to ship in
> > Macs.**".
>
> Didn't Apple offer U2W cards via build-to-order?
Yes, but that's not really relevant, since they still do.
Mac Man
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac
> SCSI peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > >
> > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> >
> > Yeah, nevermind that whole FireWire thing.
>
> Because it went into PCs first?
No, beacuse it comes standard on the G3 towers.
>
> > Not to mention that USB didn't
> > take off until Apple put it on the iMac.
>
> USB devices were on the PC first. They "took off" on the iMac because
> they were the only expansion option available for that computer.
Yeah, but that wouldn't have been a factor if the iMac hadn't proved to be
as extremely popular as it is.
>
> > Don't you have something better to do?
>
> Sure, but I'm glad to fit you into my busy schedule. You're welcome.
>
> > --
> >
> > Microsoft's slogan -should- read: "Where do you want to go today?
> [snip]
> It does.
Wow, that was clever... try not snipping it next time.
--
Microsoft's slogan -should- read: "Where do you want to go today?
It doesn't matter, you're coming with us."
Alan Baker
<noe...@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:Alan_Baker-22...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net...
>> In article <7ko4kt$jka$1...@kohl.informatik.uni-bremen.de>, "Sascha
>> Bohnenkamp" <bohne...@mevis.de> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Firewire is in every respect superior
>> >>>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
>> >>>
>> >>>Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
>> >>
>> >>Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
>> >>available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
>> >a single-drive computer makes very nice servers ... very nice
>> >well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
>>
>> That was less coherent than I'm capable of parsing.
>
>Alan, critiquing someone's coherence? Anyone else see the hypocrisy?
Actually, Todd, what I said could be read as a critique of my
comprehension skills. Maybe I should have been able to parse it, but I was
not. That's all I said.
Not surprising to find out you needed it explained.
Josh Lewis
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <097C0DB8D74DD574.AEC07B02...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Chris
> > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > The new IDE drives are actually really good for most day to day use.
> The
> > kick butt over even two years ago... I still love SCSI though and
> don't
> > know if I could owen a computer without it. SCSI drives are usually
> more
> > easily recovered, and handle sustained throughput much better.
>
> Huh ? SCSI basically has 3 advantages over IDE:
> 1. Much faster *random* operations because of read/write re-ordering.
This may be theoretically the case but the actuality of my experences are
exactly the opposite. IDE drives usually seem to have really great seek
time. Using IDE for say an os/applications drive feels great and and fast
because the seek latency seems down. However if you are doing something
that requires "Sustained" throughput like multi channel audio mixing or
video capture and editing I don't quite think the latest greatest IDE
drives are really up for it despite their specks and despite the fact that
7200RPM SCSI Atlas drives from two years ago can handel this well. By the
same token a 7200 RPM SCSI Atlas drive my be a reliable system drive but
the feel of it would suck.
> 2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus - better
> for RAID.
With only having for a max of 4 IDE devices in an avrage PC mini tower and
stuff usually getting a little funky before then I don't see why you guys
call PC's expandable. So I can have a CD, a CDR, a zip, and a big cheap
drive that I have to partition if I want to get the most out of it? That
sucks.
I have three SCSI buses in my mac and 11 devices currently, all but three
of those are internal. And I like partitioning so that a volume contains
more than one drive not the other way around!
> 3. You can have more devices.
>
> Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that are
> usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster sequential
> throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
> platters.
>
> If you have a very specific need, SCSI is good. However, SCSI device
> are ridiculously overpriced for the advantages they offer most people.
> In fact, the advantages SCSI offer most people hovers slightly below
> zero.
"most people" never upgrade their computers.... for those who do SCSI
Kicks IDE's butt!
Christopher Smith
Josh Lewis <jsl...@nomoredamspam.erols.com> wrote in message
news:jslewis-2306...@207-172-244-168.s168.tnt4.rcm.va.dialup.rc
n.com...
> In article <7kmku3$kaa$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
> <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > 2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus -
better
> > for RAID.
>
> With only having for a max of 4 IDE devices in an avrage PC mini tower
and
> stuff usually getting a little funky before then I don't see why you
guys
> call PC's expandable.
"A little funky" ? I haven't had a PC with *less* than 4 IDE drives
since about 1994 and I can't recall ever having anything "a little
funky" happen.
> So I can have a CD, a CDR, a zip, and a big cheap
> drive that I have to partition if I want to get the most out of it?
That
> sucks.
And another drive. For most people, that's heaps. These days USB Zips
are getting pretty popular as well, I'd imagine.
> I have three SCSI buses in my mac and 11 devices currently, all but
three
> of those are internal. And I like partitioning so that a volume
contains
> more than one drive not the other way around!
Thats a lot of busses. What are you doing ?
> > 3. You can have more devices.
> >
> > Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that
are
> > usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster
sequential
> > throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
> > platters.
> >
> > If you have a very specific need, SCSI is good. However, SCSI
device
> > are ridiculously overpriced for the advantages they offer most
people.
> > In fact, the advantages SCSI offer most people hovers slightly below
> > zero.
>
> "most people" never upgrade their computers.... for those who do SCSI
> Kicks IDE's butt!
Past a point. That point being (usually) an additional two hard disks.
Today in IDE that can buy you another 54GB of storage (give or take).
For the same amount of money _if you were lucky_, you'd pick up 18GB of
SCSI storage.
Like I said, if you have a specific need (usually 100s of GB of fast,
online storage, the possibility of needing it in the future or a
plethora of external peripherals) then SCSI is pretty much your best
option. For *most people* SCSI isn't even close to being worth it.
Eric Bennett
<jslewis-2306...@207-172-244-168.s168.tnt4.rcm.va.dialup.rcn.com>,
jsl...@nomoredamspam.erols.com (Josh Lewis) wrote:
> This may be theoretically the case but the actuality of my experences are
> exactly the opposite. IDE drives usually seem to have really great seek
> time. Using IDE for say an os/applications drive feels great and and fast
> because the seek latency seems down. However if you are doing something
> that requires "Sustained" throughput like multi channel audio mixing or
> video capture and editing I don't quite think the latest greatest IDE
> drives are really up for it despite their specks and despite the fact that
> 7200RPM SCSI Atlas drives from two years ago can handel this well. By the
> same token a 7200 RPM SCSI Atlas drive my be a reliable system drive but
> the feel of it would suck.
Funny you should mention the Atlas II. I have the 9 gig version of that
drive, and my IBM Deskstar clobbers it all around, including sustained
throughput (it's also a *lot* quieter, but that's neither here nor
there). Of course, the Atlas II is an older drive, but I would challenge
your claim that the Atlas can handle things that require high throughput
while IDE drives cannot.
Sascha Bohnenkamp
>> well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
>
because servers are no option with macs?
with pc you could build a server without problems
Ralph Vose
>
> In spite of using the same IDE drives as PCs, Macs STILL cost more,
> with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your old Mac SCSI
> peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
>
> Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
>
Yup,
Itraded my scsi for firewire and USB! Glad I did! It's time to move on.
Now, what was your point?
Joe Ragosta
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> I'm only a "foe" of SCSI when people try to say it't better than IDE at
> _everything_. It's not. The price/performance, for example, is
> horrific compared to IDE (unless you're in the small percentage of the
> consumer base who need and/or can afford the top end drives).
Nice straw man argument.
Who was claiming that SCSI was better at _everything_?
Perhaps you should consider sticking to arguments that people actually make.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
win...@my-deja.com
cat...@aol.com (CatBus) wrote:
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >You make some good points, and I accept them. But it
> >means that Apple is following the PC instead of leading
> >it with innovation, as Mac advocates claim.
>
> If Apple leads the way even 10% of the time, it's doing
> an *incredible* job, because it's only 3-4% of the market.
> How much leadership do you expect the minority to do?
>
> James Davis
James,
I know where you got the 3-4% from, but where did you get the 10% from?
It could be more around .5 to 1%... we have no idea unless facts are
posted. Saying that (if) Apple leads the way with 10% of all computer
innovation is saying a heck of a lot. Thats way up there with Jobsian
math. I would assume IBM would be at about 7%, but without facts, who
knows.
Regards,
WinGuy
paiute
EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7ko2em$8ib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <7km9p6$lro$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <7km9d3$lm6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <7klvkj$hd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <7klv4t$h5p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> cost
> > > > more,
> > > > > > > with the added disadvantage of not being able to use your
> old
> > > Mac
> > > > > SCSI
> > > > > > > peripherals on your new Mac without paying EVEN MORE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Want some salt for your crow, Mac advocates?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
> > > > > > > the Wrath of the Swarm!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> > > > > > >
> too.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Mac advocates bragged about SCSI because it was the
> equivelant
> > of
> > > > an
> > > > > eight track player?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Excuse me for trying to live ten minutes into the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > By doing what PC owners did in the past?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This isn't an argument.
> > > > Yes it is.
> > > > No it isn't.
> > > > Is too.
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > That isn't what's been happening here. You can't counter what
I've
> > > said, so you're misstating the argument and running from it
instead.
> > >
> > This isn't an argument. An argument is a connected series of
> statements
> > intended to establish a proposition.
>
> Any failure to participate in a proper argument is yours alone. My
> statements have been coherent and to the point. Yours have not.
>
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
EdWIN
Thank you for the definitions. When do you feel like you'll be ready
to address the points I raised in my argument?
EdWIN
pxp...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Peter) wrote:
> In article <7koqe9$iol$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > better? If so, why did Apple force the inferior SCSI devices on Mac
> > buyers for so long?
>
> Ide drives today are not that bad.
They weren't that bad in the past either. Performas have been coming
with them for years, it's not a new thing for Apple to use IDE.
> But years ago, they sucked and could
> not hold a candle to SCSI.
You're full of B.S. See above.
> Adapters exist today to keep the legacy
> devices alive if you wish( scsi---> USB) and SCSI cards for PCI
>Macs.
Adapters exist today because Mac owners have investments in SCSI
devices. Adapters add more to the price of an already too expensive
computer.
> You starting this whole thread is dumb and proves to me that you are a
> small minded person that is not all that bright (david wang you
>ain't).
That's funny coming from you.
> It is simply you getting your jollys by saying something provocative
and
> seeing who bites.
I hooked a minnow this time. Gonna have to throw you back.
> The topic that you brought up is not very difficult to
> grasp and solutions for the dillema are all over the place.
Yet it eludes your grasp.
> All you want
> to do is nitpick with some poor unsuspecting soul who bothers to
comment.
Or a poor confused soul such as yourself.
> Now for the personal insults:
[snip]
Yawn.
>
> If you want to be an advocate then go to the appropriate group and
> advocate.
This is it.
> If you want to show the world that you have shit for brains
> then please continue to start "troll" threads like this one.
Or just say the same things you do.
> But please
> stop bitching when peaple call you nasty names and attack you
personnally
> becuase with threads like this , you are asking to be insulted.
I'm asking for personal insults and attacks by posting comments and
opinions about machines? You poor, sad, silly little man. You'd need
a step stool to hit me on the knee cap.
> regards,
>
> --
> Peter
>
[snip]
EdWIN
tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> In article <7komvf$h9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1999062208...@ts2-36.aug.com>,
> > nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Really? What other computer on the market uses USB and/or
Firewire as
> > > its only expansion bus? It doesnt look like Apple is following
> > anyone..
> >
> > Apple is using IDE and USB from PCs, but it doesn't look like
they're
> > following anyone? Are you sure this is what you want to say?
> >
> > Making customers pay extra to add in other busses or to buy adaptors
> > counts as leading the market? It used to be you got people to
follow
> > your standard by putting things in. In the new Mac advocates view,
you
> > lead by chopping things out, and forcing your users to buy all new
> > devices.
>
> If you add a new interface to a computer and leave the old one, the
new
> one is usually almost totally ignored. This was demonstrated by USB
on the
> PC.
Untrue. The wealth of PC USB devices belie your opinion. USB
cameras and modems, among other things, are taking off on the PC.
> Adding new interfaces that don't get used wastes people's money.
The cost of a connector that taps into a chipset on the motherboard is
not that great. My $900 Gateway (with monitor) has more connectors
and busses than a $1600 G3 tower (without monitor). Ironically I have
more choices in my PC than the platform that allegedly embodies free
choice.
> Profit margins are tight, and peripheral makers don't like to use new
> interfaces until they are *forced* to.
Then why did Wintel vendors start doing it without being forced?
>Apple forced PCI on Mac users,
> really screwing over people with old NuBus cards, and the Mac is
better
> now as a result.
I don't accept getting screwed as part of the process of producing good
results.
> Nothing similar happened on the PC side. PC users still
> occasionally need to put up with an ISA card (or else theyąre wasting
> money getting a PC with ISA slots, which most still have), and how
many
> years has it been? (I won't even go into ISA vs. NuBus; that's a
different
> topic.)
You can get all PCI PC motherboards, or PCI/ISA motherboards for legacy
devices, or to take advantage of low cost ISA cards. Unlike the Mac,
the PC gives you REAL choice, not the imagined freedom of the Mac
community.
> I'm willing to pay extra to use my old stuff if it means that in 2
years
> I'll never have to deal with the old interfaces again. Somebody has
to pay
> the price for progress, and I think it's worth it.
So in two years you'll have to scrap perfectly good, working devices,
and buy new ones, and you think this is a Good Thing? Your opinion
flies in the face of the myth of Macintosh longevity. Mac devices are
supposed to get six to eight years of useful life, at least. You've
reduced them to the lifespan that Mac advocates claim PC devices have,
and you're actually *happy* about it. Amazing!
> > > at least to anyone with any kind of open mind.
> >
> > Sure, only someone who agrees with you has an "open mind."
>
> --
> This space intentionally left blank to conserve pixels.
>
> --ZnU <tita...@psn.net>
>
--
Peter
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> In article <7kqonh$7dk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <7kol3f$gh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >
> > > Any failure to participate in a proper argument is yours alone. My
> > > statements have been coherent and to the point. Yours have not.
> > >
> > Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
> > gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
>
> It is not.
>
It is too.
Eric Bennett
> In article <7kol3f$gh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> > Any failure to participate in a proper argument is yours alone. My
> > statements have been coherent and to the point. Yours have not.
> >
> Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
> gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
It is not.
--
EdWIN
er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> In article <7koqe9$iol$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jpolaski-2106991805200001@el03-24-131-174-
> > 158.ce.mediaone.net>,
> > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> > Macs,
> > > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about
how
> > much
> > > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > > >
> > > Have you ever heard of a "transition", edLOSE?
> >
> > To me "transition" means a gradual change, not an abrupt one.
>
> What is abrupt about it? Apple had been making machines with both
IDE and
> SCSI for quite some time.
Only their low end machines had IDE. All of their high end models were
all SCSI. This is an abrupt change for those who have paid the most
for the dubious privilege of Mac ownership. This hits those who
inhabit the Mac's stronghold niche markets (like publishing and film
making) square between the eyes.
> --
> Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
>
> We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
> produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know this is not true.
> - Robert Wilensky, University of California
>
--
EdWIN
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
> In article <7knj68$mi$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
> <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm only a "foe" of SCSI when people try to say it't better than
IDE at
> > _everything_. It's not. The price/performance, for example, is
> > horrific compared to IDE (unless you're in the small percentage of
the
> > consumer base who need and/or can afford the top end drives).
>
> Nice straw man argument.
Incorrect.
> Who was claiming that SCSI was better at _everything_?
Mac advocates posting here.
> Perhaps you should consider sticking to arguments that people
actually make.
He did.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta
Peter
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Ide drives today are not that bad.
>
> They weren't that bad in the past either. Performas have been coming
> with them for years, it's not a new thing for Apple to use IDE.
Well I have messed with performas in the past( never owned one though) and
havd found the drives were not fast enough for me. In the last 2-3
yeaars, they have come a long way but the throughput of SCSI was what made
them so nice.
Peter
> > Adapters exist today to keep the legacy
> > devices alive if you wish( scsi---> USB) and SCSI cards for PCI
> >Macs.
>
> Adapters exist today because Mac owners have investments in SCSI
> devices. Adapters add more to the price of an already too expensive
> computer.
So if I had the money to buy those expensive SCSI drives, I do not have
the Money(65 dollars) to buy a adapter.
You are soch an idiot.
Peter
> > You starting this whole thread is dumb and proves to me that you are a
> > small minded person that is not all that bright (david wang you
> >ain't).
>
> That's funny coming from you.
Glad I could make you laugh. See it does not take much to excite all two
of your neurons.
>
>
> > It is simply you getting your jollys by saying something provocative
> and
> > seeing who bites.
>
> I hooked a minnow this time. Gonna have to throw you back.
>
> > The topic that you brought up is not very difficult to
> > grasp and solutions for the dillema are all over the place.
>
> Yet it eludes your grasp.
Yes and it eludes your's as well. You see the problem is that those two
nearons that I eluded to ealier are not good at inerpreting information
and this thread nails that point home.
>
> > All you want
> > to do is nitpick with some poor unsuspecting soul who bothers to
> comment.
>
> Or a poor confused soul such as yourself.
I am neither poor nor confused. What makes those two neurons think that?
>
> > Now for the personal insults:
> [snip]
>
> Yawn.
>
> >
> > If you want to be an advocate then go to the appropriate group and
> > advocate.
>
> This is it.
This is more proof that your two neurons are not very capable. How is
this advocacy? What are you advocating?
>
> > If you want to show the world that you have shit for brains
> > then please continue to start "troll" threads like this one.
>
> Or just say the same things you do.
Wow. You are really origional. Furthert proof that you do indeed have
shit for brains
>
> > But please
> > stop bitching when peaple call you nasty names and attack you
> personnally
> > becuase with threads like this , you are asking to be insulted.
>
> I'm asking for personal insults and attacks by posting comments and
> opinions about machines?
You were insulting all Mac advocates sumarily. Look at what you decided
to call the theread. Jeez you are really stupid.
> You poor, sad, silly little man. You'd need
> a step stool to hit me on the knee cap.
I am not poor.
I am indeed sometimes silly.
As for being little. I am not all that little either.
As for hitting you on the knee caps. Why the hell do I want to do that?
win...@my-deja.com
EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
> > What is abrupt about it? Apple had been making machines with both
> IDE and
> > SCSI for quite some time.
>
> Only their low end machines had IDE. All of their high end models
were
> all SCSI. This is an abrupt change for those who have paid the most
> for the dubious privilege of Mac ownership. This hits those who
> inhabit the Mac's stronghold niche markets (like publishing and film
> making) square between the eyes.
>
Not really. Any publishing firm worth their dirt will add the best SCSI
card in that they can. Money would not be an object. Now what DOES hit
them smack in the middle of the eyes the abrubt change from not having 5
PCI slots anymore. Now that was the knockout punch.
Regards,
WinGuy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
win...@my-deja.com
nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
>
Sorry. Wrong.
http://www.maximumpcmag.com search harddrives 10 score:
'The IBM DeskStar 14GXP delivers Ultra Wide SCSI performance at a
fraction of the price.' Reviewed: November 1998.
But thanks for playing.
>
> Go away and dont bother us with your drivel. And when you come back,
> leave your old bird at home.
>
Sounds like you are the one that needs to be a reader and not a poster.
win...@my-deja.com
nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
Macs,
> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
much
> > better SCSI is than IDE?
> >
>
> SCSI is better than IDE.
Sorry, no.
http://www.maximumpcmag.com search harddrives 10 score:
'The IBM DeskStar 14GXP delivers Ultra Wide SCSI performance at a
fraction of the price.' Reviewed: November 1998.
But thanks for playing.
Regards,
Alan Baker
>In article <1999062201...@ts2-36.aug.com>,
> nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
>> EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
>Macs,
>> > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
>much
>> > better SCSI is than IDE?
>> >
>>
>> SCSI is better than IDE.
>
>Sorry. Wrong.
>
>http://www.maximumpcmag.com search harddrives 10 score:
>
>'The IBM DeskStar 14GXP delivers Ultra Wide SCSI performance at a
>fraction of the price.' Reviewed: November 1998.
>
>But thanks for playing.
>
>>
>> Go away and dont bother us with your drivel. And when you come back,
>> leave your old bird at home.
>>
>
>Sounds like you are the one that needs to be a reader and not a poster.
Since this thread was started by Edwin to try and "prove" that Apple has
abandoned SCSI and now uses the "inferior" IDE interface in many of its
models, you have nicely proved the point that most were trying to make.
Which is that Apple has changed with the times to use what makes the most
sense.
Back when IDE was not what it has become today and SCSI offered superior
performance for hard drives, Apple used SCSI because it allowed them to
have a single interface for use with both internal and external
peripherals, helping them to keep down (the admittedly) high price of
Macs.
Now, when IDE has improved vastly and Firewire offers a more flexible
solution for adding internal and external peripherals (and when Apple has
been more able to compete on price), Apple offers machines with IDE and
Firewire built-in and SCSI (of various types) as an option.
So if IDE is better than SCSI for some things: Apple's got it.
If Firewire is the better choice: Apple's got it.
If SCSI is better: Apple offers it.
But thanks for playing.
John Nagle
>It greatly benefits those who don't large investments, because Firewire
>is superior to SCSI. Those who do have investments can drop $49 on an
>Ultra-SCSI card. Big deal.
Will Apple support Drive Bay (the mounting standard for plug-in
FireWire devices) or are we going to have little boxes all over the
desktop again?
John Nagle
Peter
<Alan_Baker-23...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net>,
Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> Since this thread was started by Edwin to try and "prove" that Apple has
> abandoned SCSI and now uses the "inferior" IDE interface in many of its
> models, you have nicely proved the point that most were trying to make.
> Which is that Apple has changed with the times to use what makes the most
> sense.
>
> Back when IDE was not what it has become today and SCSI offered superior
> performance for hard drives, Apple used SCSI because it allowed them to
> have a single interface for use with both internal and external
> peripherals, helping them to keep down (the admittedly) high price of
> Macs.
>
> Now, when IDE has improved vastly and Firewire offers a more flexible
> solution for adding internal and external peripherals (and when Apple has
> been more able to compete on price), Apple offers machines with IDE and
> Firewire built-in and SCSI (of various types) as an option.
>
> So if IDE is better than SCSI for some things: Apple's got it.
>
> If Firewire is the better choice: Apple's got it.
>
> If SCSI is better: Apple offers it.
>
> But thanks for playing.
But will Edwin listen to what you have to say? No
Will dwin want to bicker with you about semantics? Yes
regards,
Josiah Fizer
> In article <1999062201...@ts2-36.aug.com>,
> nospam...@aug.com (Rick) wrote:
> > EdWIN <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
> Macs,
> > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about how
> much
> > > better SCSI is than IDE?
> > >
> >
> > SCSI is better than IDE.
>
> Sorry, no.
>
> http://www.maximumpcmag.com search harddrives 10 score:
>
> 'The IBM DeskStar 14GXP delivers Ultra Wide SCSI performance at a
> fraction of the price.' Reviewed: November 1998.
>
> But thanks for playing.
>
> Regards,
>
> WinGuy
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
So you're saying that an IBM Deskstar with a seak time of 9.5 ms running
at 7300 RPM is faster then a Seagate Cheetah running at 10000 RPM with a
seak time of 5 ms?
George Graves
>In article <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>> In article <7koqe9$iol$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
>> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jpolaski-2106991805200001@el03-24-131-174-
>> > 158.ce.mediaone.net>,
>> > jpol...@wwa.com (Jim Polaski) wrote:
>> > > In article <7klpce$eke$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
>> > > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Remember how Mac advocates used to brag that SCSI was built into
>> > Macs,
>> > > > but an extra cost for PCs? Remember all the arguments about
>how
>> > much
>> > > > better SCSI is than IDE?
>> > > >
>> > > =======
>> > > Have you ever heard of a "transition", edLOSE?
>> >
>> > To me "transition" means a gradual change, not an abrupt one.
>>
>> What is abrupt about it? Apple had been making machines with both
>IDE and
>> SCSI for quite some time.
>
>Only their low end machines had IDE. All of their high end models were
>all SCSI. This is an abrupt change for those who have paid the most
>for the dubious privilege of Mac ownership. This hits those who
>inhabit the Mac's stronghold niche markets (like publishing and film
>making) square between the eyes.
No it doesn't. The high-end Macs can still be bought from Apple with SCSI
instead of IDE drives fitted. Frankly, I still don't particularly like
IDE. I have seen too many IDE dcrives fail.This tells me that they aren't
as robust as SCSI drives (Don't know why). I've been using SCSI drives for
about 15 years, I've never seen one fail (not say that they don't, you
understand).
--
George Graves
EdWIN
pxp...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Peter) wrote:
> In article <7kqrjd$8j5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > devices alive if you wish( scsi---> USB) and SCSI cards for PCI
> > >Macs.
> >
> > Adapters exist today because Mac owners have investments in SCSI
> > devices. Adapters add more to the price of an already too
expensive
> > computer.
>
> So if I had the money to buy those expensive SCSI drives, I do not
have
> the Money(65 dollars) to buy a adapter.
Anyone who buys SCSI drives has so much money you can gouge as much
more out of them as you want? You're joking, right?
What if I already have SCSI devices (not just HDs)? What about
installation costs? What about using up a slot in a machine that only
has two available slots?
> You are soch an idiot.
Thanks. And you're a great speller.
> --
> Peter
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> " Some of you might not agree
> 'Cause you probably likes a lot of misery
> But think a while and you will see...
> Broken hearts are for assholes"
> FZ
>
--
Let all who oppose the Will of the OverMind face
the Wrath of the Swarm!
Todd
news:Alan_Baker-22...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net...
> In article <7kpai9$imm$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Todd"
> <noe...@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
> >Alan Baker <Alan_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:Alan_Baker-22...@a3a31538.sympatico.bconnected.net...
> >> In article <7ko4kt$jka$1...@kohl.informatik.uni-bremen.de>, "Sascha
> >> Bohnenkamp" <bohne...@mevis.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> Firewire is in every respect superior
> >> >>>> to the SCSI that Apple used to ship in Macs.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Firewire is slower than SCSI. Does that make it better?
> >> >>
> >> >>Firewire is slower than the fastest, most expensive variety of SCSI
> >> >>available and they are both faster than any individual hard drive.
> >> >a single-drive computer makes very nice servers ... very nice
> >> >well macosx crashes anyway ... so what
> >>
> >
> >Alan, critiquing someone's coherence? Anyone else see the hypocrisy?
>
> Actually, Todd, what I said could be read as a critique of my
> comprehension skills.
True, true.
>Maybe I should have been able to parse it, but I was
> not. That's all I said.
>
> Not surprising to find out you needed it explained.
I needed nothing explained, Alan.
--
Todd
Eric Bennett
pxp...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
> In article <ericb-23069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
> > In article <7kqonh$7dk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <7kol3f$gh5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > >
> > > > Any failure to participate in a proper argument is yours alone. My
> > > > statements have been coherent and to the point. Yours have not.
> > > >
> > > Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
> > > gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
> >
> > It is not.
> >
>
> It is too.
Not at all.
Eric Bennett
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7kqonh$7dk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic
> > gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
>
> Thank you for the definitions. When do you feel like you'll be ready
> to address the points I raised in my argument?
Thank you for playing and demonstrating your lack of knowledge of famous
humor. The correct response to the above line is "It is not".
Eric Remy
No it isn't.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"But simply by putting my hair into a ponytail I transform into the
coolest guy in the office"- Wally, _Dilbert_
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <pxpst2-2306...@pelli.pathology.pitt.edu>,
> pxp...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Peter) wrote:
> > In article <7kqrjd$8j5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> > <edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Adapters exist today to keep the legacy
> > > > devices alive if you wish( scsi---> USB) and SCSI cards for PCI
> > > >Macs.
> > >
> > > Adapters exist today because Mac owners have investments in SCSI
> > > devices. Adapters add more to the price of an already too
> expensive
> > > computer.
> >
> > So if I had the money to buy those expensive SCSI drives, I do not
> have
> > the Money(65 dollars) to buy a adapter.
>
> Anyone who buys SCSI drives has so much money you can gouge as much
> more out of them as you want? You're joking, right?
If Apple had SCSI on the logic board, you'd be complaining about that as
well. You get a _choice_. If you want SCSI, you get SCSI. If you don't
need it, don't get it. I really don't see the problem.
> What if I already have SCSI devices (not just HDs)? What about
> installation costs?
Ever worked inside a G3 tower? The machine is a dream to work in. I'd be
surprised if it took someone 5 minutes to install a SCSI card *and* an
internal SCSI drive. Additionally, SCSI cards and drives are available BTO
from the Apple Store.
> What about using up a slot in a machine that only
> has two available slots?
I've already corrected you on this. The G3 has *three* free PCI slots.
*Three*. The Rage 128 card does *not* use one of these. It has it's own
double-speed PCI slot.
> > You are soch an idiot.
>
> Thanks. And you're a great speller.
--
ZnU
<edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <titanium-220...@cust-106-188.as02.nycm.eli.net>,
> tita...@psn.net (ZnU) wrote:
> > In article <7komvf$h9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
And what computer brought about that explosion?
> > Adding new interfaces that don't get used wastes people's money.
>
> The cost of a connector that taps into a chipset on the motherboard is
> not that great. My $900 Gateway (with monitor) has more connectors
> and busses than a $1600 G3 tower (without monitor). Ironically I have
> more choices in my PC than the platform that allegedly embodies free
> choice.
Typical Wintel mentality. Makers of consumer electronics have figured this
out. More buttons = better to most people.
More ports and busses isn't better. It's *worse*. Wouldn't you rather just
have *one* port on you computer that you plug everything into? Isn't that
a much more elegant solution? Of course nobody this there yet, but I bet
down the road, if this happens, Apple will be first.
> > Profit margins are tight, and peripheral makers don't like to use new
> > interfaces until they are *forced* to.
>
> Then why did Wintel vendors start doing it without being forced?
See above reference to a certain bondi computer model.
> >Apple forced PCI on Mac users,
> > really screwing over people with old NuBus cards, and the Mac is
> better
> > now as a result.
>
> I don't accept getting screwed as part of the process of producing good
> results.
Good thing everyone doesn't think like you then, as we'd never make any
progress at all.
> > Nothing similar happened on the PC side. PC users still
> > occasionally need to put up with an ISA card (or else theyąre wasting
> > money getting a PC with ISA slots, which most still have), and how
> many
> > years has it been? (I won't even go into ISA vs. NuBus; that's a
> different
> > topic.)
>
> You can get all PCI PC motherboards, or PCI/ISA motherboards for legacy
> devices, or to take advantage of low cost ISA cards. Unlike the Mac,
> the PC gives you REAL choice, not the imagined freedom of the Mac
> community.
This is the meaningless choice argument again. I *choose* the Mac. I could
also *choose* a PC if I wanted to. I don't see the problem.
> > I'm willing to pay extra to use my old stuff if it means that in 2
> years
> > I'll never have to deal with the old interfaces again. Somebody has
> to pay
> > the price for progress, and I think it's worth it.
>
> So in two years you'll have to scrap perfectly good, working devices,
> and buy new ones, and you think this is a Good Thing? Your opinion
> flies in the face of the myth of Macintosh longevity. Mac devices are
> supposed to get six to eight years of useful life, at least. You've
> reduced them to the lifespan that Mac advocates claim PC devices have,
> and you're actually *happy* about it. Amazing!
Actually, I'll keep all the old devices connected to my old Mac. Is there
a problem with this? Furthermore, Apple very rarely makes transitions like
this. You talk like Apple totally changes around the I/O ports every 2
years. This simply is not the case.
I like my transitions to be quick and relatively painless, not long,
drawn-out transitions that require me to still put up with old interface
even on new computers.
Peter
> What if I already have SCSI devices (not just HDs)?
I do have more than HDs. I have scanners and cameras. And for grins and
giggles, I have another video card as well. I found it easy to plop down
69 bucks for the low end SCSI card for the scanner. The UltraSCSI is
reserved for my HDs which are faster than your IDE drives. OH yeah I
forgot to tell you that my G3/400 also has internal SCSI to add more of my
extra HDs.
> What about
> installation costs?
Even someone with two functioning neurons could put a SCSI card in the new
G3 enclosures. A flip of a switch and the box is open with easy access to
all internals. Another words, even edwin could do it.
> What about using up a slot in a machine that only
> has two available slots?
For my uses, I have one free slot and that suite me fine. I use what I
need and there are enough slots for that. If I did need more slots, I
could buy an expansion slot but I do not. remeber that one of the strong
suites of SCSI is the ability to daisy chain devices and *guess what* most
of my devices are SCSI.
Listen Edwin, I use my computer to do work and I have lots of legacy SCSI
devices and over the next several years, I am sure most will be replaced
with firewire devices, but until that time, all my LEGACY stuff will
remain working. I, in the real world doing real work, have found that the
new G3s are not at all constraining. The move forward is nowhere near as
difficult as you are trying to make it out to be.
Eric Bennett
edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu (Eric Remy) wrote:
> In article <ericb-23069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
> >In article <7kqqor$896$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, EdWIN
> ><edwin_e...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <7kqonh$7dk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> paiute <pai...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> >> automatic
> >> > gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
> >>
> >> Thank you for the definitions. When do you feel like you'll be ready
> >> to address the points I raised in my argument?
> >
> >Thank you for playing and demonstrating your lack of knowledge of famous
> >humor. The correct response to the above line is "It is not".
>
> No it isn't.
Not in the version I have.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
Josh Lewis
<drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> > In article <7kmku3$kaa$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <drsm...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 2. You can have more than one device active at once on the bus -
> better
> > > for RAID.
> >
> > With only having for a max of 4 IDE devices in an avrage PC mini tower
> and
> > stuff usually getting a little funky before then I don't see why you
> guys
> > call PC's expandable.
>
> "A little funky" ? I haven't had a PC with *less* than 4 IDE drives
> since about 1994 and I can't recall ever having anything "a little
> funky" happen.
And you don't hear the constant whining about not being able to run CD-R's
right. What they sould do next and how they need to backu their
misbehaving windows drive. Never had to hear the diffrence between the
phisical D and logical D partition? Logical C and phisical C. Shure they
behave well.
Anyway have you seen may PC's with more than 4 Drives? Have you seen them
in the flesh? Weren't they running off of a SCSI card?
Slashdot today has a rather laughable article about trying to Make a RAID
work off IDE.
>
> > So I can have a CD, a CDR, a zip, and a big cheap
> > drive that I have to partition if I want to get the most out of it?
> That
> > sucks.
>
> And another drive. For most people, that's heaps. These days USB Zips
> are getting pretty popular as well, I'd imagine.
>
On the mac side, correct. However PC users still buy up those dog slow
parillel port ones.
> > I have three SCSI buses in my mac and 11 devices currently, all but
> three
> > of those are internal. And I like partitioning so that a volume
> contains
> > more than one drive not the other way around!
>
> Thats a lot of busses. What are you doing ?
External Bus... Zip, Jaz, and scanner. Also has room to connect drives I
may bring home from work. Internal bus is faster and has two system drives
(me and my wife so that she does not have to put up with my experiments)
as well as a Sneaker Net drive and a CD and a CDRW. THe last bus is a
Hammer card running a 4 Drive Raid array for video editing. Two of those
are older 4Gig Atlas III drives. They are beautiful for video editing. An
IBM drive is usually a good all around value Good price, good seek and
good through-put. However the IBM drives don't nessacerally have good
reliability (though you could do worse...think micropolis or western
digital) and they don't excel at anything but being well balanced.
>
> > > 3. You can have more devices.
> > >
> > > Few SCSI drives on their own are faster than IDE drives - those that
> are
> > > usually cost an arm and a leg. IDE almost always has faster
> sequential
> > > throughput because of the (usually) higher areal density of the
> > > platters.
> > >
> > > If you have a very specific need, SCSI is good. However, SCSI
> device
> > > are ridiculously overpriced for the advantages they offer most
> people.
> > > In fact, the advantages SCSI offer most people hovers slightly below
> > > zero.
> >
> > "most people" never upgrade their computers.... for those who do SCSI
> > Kicks IDE's butt!
>
> Past a point. That point being (usually) an additional two hard disks.
> Today in IDE that can buy you another 54GB of storage (give or take).
> For the same amount of money _if you were lucky_, you'd pick up 18GB of
> SCSI storage.
I would really not want to see the number of days it takes you to do a low
level format of that 54Gig IDE drive, even if it behaves like the new IDE
drives. I still think 18Gigs of SCSI storage is well worth it to anyone
with the urge to even try to be a creative Pro. Doing Audio? Doing Video?
Just doing Photoshop? Those SCSI drives will do you right. The New SCSI
Drives also have improved alot at what they do over time. They sound and
feel 10x as mean as IDE and for consistancy nothing can beat them.
>
> Like I said, if you have a specific need (usually 100s of GB of fast,
> online storage, the possibility of needing it in the future or a
> plethora of external peripherals) then SCSI is pretty much your best
> option. For *most people* SCSI isn't even close to being worth it.
I get the feeling you have absolutely no experence with SCSI. You give way
to much weight to the people to willing to give out system advice on
usenet or something.