> Well, SCSI may be more versatile, but I have yet to get a single report
> about problems with IDE because of bad termination.
On the other hand, Master/Slave/What-have-you jumpering for IDE seems to
be a lot less understandable than SCSI IDs ... not to mention
incompatibilities.
> The fact is that neither IDE not SCSI is perfect. IDE wins hands down
> in price and ease of use, while SCSI wins on high-end performance and
> flexibility. Which one you consider to be more important depends on the
> use.
In my experience, there is not a lot of difference in price (sometimes,
none), and SCSI wins hands-down in ease of use.
> drives etc for SCSI without having to buy an extra card. Anybody who
> buys a SCSI CD-ROM these days has too much money and too little sense.
Or has been burned by IDE too often.
> IDE has had a _lot_ of development due to mass market issues. Many
> technical people look at technical specifications rather than at market
> issues, and that's not necessarily the best thing to do.
Technical issues, and $$. What else is there?
I usually choose cheap stuff for my home machine. For example, I still use
a 486.
I won't put an IDE peripheral on this machine for my own use, ever. Bad
enough that I have to live with them at work. (And even there, servers
usually are SCSI - the few with IDE are *painfully* slow.)
True, SCSI isn't perfect. But IDE isn't even in the running, as far as I'm
concerned.
MfG Kai