> On 15-Dec-99 Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> > As Gavrie noted, there is no difference between the technologies which
> > should cause any difference in quality. The mechanics is similar.
>
> As far as performance is considered, it's not RPM that usually matters (inspite
> of a big hype), but the amount of cache on disk. Until recently (1-2 years), the
> maximum cache on IDE disks was 128KB, while about each SCSI disk had 0.5MB.
Nobody mentioned performance. We discussed ONLY quality. Next time,
please read the message before responding automatically. All we wrote
(both Gavrie and I) was that SCSI disks have better quality and
reliability, NOT because of the SCSI technology, but ONLY because the
manufacturers DECIDED to use higher quality production when
manufacturing them. You can't charge $500-$1000 for an IDE disk, but
you can tell your rich customers: "You want quality? Buy SCSI!", and
force them to spend so much money, while still having the poor
customers with your $100-$200 IDE disks. It's marketing.
RPM, of course, not only doesn't improve the quality, but even the
opposite: If, using the same technology, you (the vendor) overclock
the disk from 7200 to 10,000, you burn it! A too higher RPM is bad
for quality.
--
Eli Marmor
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
