Re: ULTRA ATA/100 announced

From: Matthias Andree (
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 05:11:05 EST

Andre Hedrick <> writes:

> 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.

So why the fuck do we still have to mess with crappy IDE chip sets when
there are reliable SCSI chip sets out there, such as SYM53C8XX?

Why the fuck do we still have to pay about three times as much for a
similar drive with SCSI interface rather than ATA?

Why are 10,000/min drives not available as ATA? Why are 5,400/min drives
not available as SCSI? Why are there no Diamond Max SCSI drives?

If it's not for profit, tell me why. A vendor could easily separate the
interface from the filter/decoder/cache section, and sell those
interfaces (either ATA/100 or some SCSI variant) with either drive.

It's not done, though.

Matthias Andree

Where do you think you're going today?

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST