From:	Christopher Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
Message-Id:	<97Sep17.151232gmt+0100.11654@internet01.amc.de>
Subject:	Re: ClosedDOS???
To:	ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru
Date:	Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:17:22 +0100
Cc:	crough45 AT amc DOT de, opendos AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<352@mpak.convey.ru> from "-= ArkanoiD =-" at Sep 16, 97 10:57:51 pm
Mime-Version:	1.0

-= ArkanoiD =- wrote:
> 
> a) Not twice,just ~+20%. b) There is _significant_ improvement over EIDE..
> It saves CPU cycles - and when it comes to swap.. I have a EIDE linux machine -
> it looks terrible being compared with nearly similar SCSI one. I get load 
> level ~3 on first one and ~1.1 on second with the same conditions.

I guess I'm biased - compared to a DEC AlphaStation with 166 MHz processor, 
running OSF/1, my PC with a P166 and EIDE drive goes goes like lightning
anyway.

(Prices I've seen for SCSI, you're paying a large amount for the controller
plus the 20% or so extra for the disk, which makes the combined price near
double that of an EIDE drive.  Locally I can get a 4.3Mb EIDE for under DM500,
a SCSI equivalent is around DM650 and the controller around DM400.  It's
twice the price to me; if I had a SCSI controller already it would be nearer 
your 20% figure).

> ..and.. 7 is more than 2 (or 14 is more than 4). 

Sorry, I miss the referrent.  I'll agree with the numeric comparisons
(since I don't run an early-model Pentium!), but why?

> and SCSI is not just a disk subsystem,it is general purpose peripherial
> interface. And it exists beyond PC world.

Being non-PC is irrelevant to me, I don't expect to use my peripherals
with anything else.  I haven't seen any peripherals I want with only
SCSI interfaces recently (almost all CD and writable CD devices are IDE
now), and those I would like are far beyond my budget (the big tape
streamers, for instance).

Chris C

- Raw text -