[lug] A bit confused
nate at natetech.com
Fri Oct 6 11:14:11 MDT 2000
I'm probably just behind the times... :)
I've just had better experiences with SCSI long-term than IDE. Almost
all of my machines are IDE, so I don't know why I'm ranting about SCSI
However, a number of the machines at work have the wonderful IBM 10,000
RPM SCSI drives, and their speed and reliability have been better than
I'll defer to your judgement on the CD-R's. I'm just a casual CD
burner... I think you've got the experience to back up your claims!
What IDE burners do you like the best these days?
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 05:22:40PM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> >Uh, you mean SCSI *is* better, not *would have been* better, right? :)
> >I love using SCSI CD-RW burners under Linux/BSD/whatever... much better
> >than their IDE counterparts.
> Hmm? How so? I just got 4 SCSI burners and if I could take it back I
> would have gotten IDE instead. You're limited to two burners per box
> if you're running them concurrently, and having to buy SCSI controllers
> for every two drives ups the cost even more... All of our hardware
> has two spare IDE channels, so...
> We burn about 100 CDs on IDE burners every month and 200 on SCSI.
> There really isn't much difference I've seen from the Linux side.
> I used to be a SCSI snob, but you know, I'm perfectly happy with
> IDE for most things these days.
> Did I mention I just got an 80GB hard drive for under $300?
> "Ayn Rand books and guns... You guys take World Domination seriously."
> "It's our job." -- Conversation with Luke Jones about Rob Riggs place.
> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
> Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
More information about the LUG