On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, [ISO-8859-1] Gérard Roudier wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Stephen Torri wrote:
> >
> > > If we get ATA/100 then why buy SCSI?
> >
> > For better performance, superior reliability and flexibility ATA lacks by
> > design.
>
> Really and the $5 difference in the final electronics on the bottom of the
> drive justifies this statement? All other parts are shared and
> "IDENTICAL", this may be a FYI for you.
All parts that are identical are good, all that are different make them
inferior.
The success of ATA proceeds the same way as the success of M$ O/Ses.
Users pay for it generally unintentionnally and just use it or
want to use it because they have it.
What about if PCs were sold with an inflatable doll ? ;-)
For my part, I do prefer the authentic. :o)
The overcost of SCSI compared ATA to is due to IDE being shoe-horned to
user with motherboards. By the way, I have had to pay for IDE on all my
MBs and I donnot use it.
In my opinion, if IDE/ATA is allowed to be soldered in standard on
motherboards, then Microsoft should be permitted to put everything they
want in Windows kernel.
Gerard.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST