From: bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB)
Subject: Re: IDE vs SCSI
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Lines: 108
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dante.nmsu.edu

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) write:

>In article <1qpu0uINNbt1@dns1.NMSU.Edu> bgrubb@dante.nmsu.edu (GRUBB) writes:
>>wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>>Since the Mac uses ONLY SCSI-1 for hard drives YES the "figure includes a
>>hundred $$$ for SCSI drivers"  This is sloppy people and DUMB.
>What group is this?  This is not a MAC group.
Nice of you to DELETE BOTH YOUR responce and the item that prompted it.
to whit:
>>I just bought at Quantum 240 for my mac at home.  I paid $369 for it.  I
                                      ^^^
>>haven't seen IDE drives cheaper.
To which YOU responded:
>A friend of mine just got a Maxtor 245 meg IDE drive for $320.  (that's 245
>million bytes, or 234 mega-bytes).  With the basic $20 interface, he gets
>close to 1 meg/sec transfer on his 286-20.  Does your figure include a few
>hundred $$$ for SCSI drivers?
To which I correctly pointed out the following:                         
>Since the Mac uses ONLY SCSI-1 for hard drives YES the "figure includes a
>hundred $$$ for SCSI drivers"  This is sloppy people and DUMB.
As I said this is sloppy and DUMB {YOU should resounded by DISCOUNTING the Mac
NOT giving "Maxtor 245 meg IDE drive for $320" example.  By giving an
example you give the IMPLIED consent that for MAC info to be INCLUDED
in the SCSI discusion.}

>>Ok once again with the SCSI spec list:
>Why the spec list again?  We are talking SCSI on a PC, not on a MAC or
>a UNIX box.  And we are talking ISA bus, or possibly EISA or VLB.
Ok I will do this V E R Y  S L O W L Y so you can understand
REGUARDLESS of whether it is a Mac or a PC SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 are DIFFERENT
from each other as is asynchronous and synchronous SCSI-1.  All of these
have DIFFERENT SPEEDS and COSTS. Lumping them all together as 'SCSI' is
dumb and sloppy.  Take again the quote later on as an example of the problem 
in the PC world {The spec list was so that you knew where the numbers were
coming from in the article.  It shows the article is CORRECT in it
staments about SCSI but not CONSITANT}.

>This isin't comp.periphs.SCSI.
With the way this thread has gone how do you tell :-).
>Tell me what the performance figures are with a single SCSI drive on a PC
>with an ISA (or EISA or VLB) bus.
Already GAVE them.  YOU keep deleting them! So here are the Specs
on everybody AGAIN {With some added info}:

SCSI-1 {SCSI-1 controler chip} asynchronous range: 0-3MB/s
 synchronous range: 0-5MB/s  Both common to the PC world; difference is
 mainly in software not hardware.

SCSI-1 {SCSI-2 controller chip; also called SCSI-2 (8-bit)}: 4-6MB/s with 
10MB/s burst.  This is advertised as SCSI-2 in BYTE 4/93:159 FOR the
 PC and AT THESE SPEEDS.{NOT the Mac, the PC.}

{I have not seen the following for EITHER the Mac or the PC}
SCSI-2 {16-bit/wide or fast mode}:  8-12MB/s with 20MB/s burst
SCSI-2 {32-bit/wide AND fast}:     15-20MB/s with 40MB/s burst

On the other interfaces let DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu speak:
>IDE ranges from 0-8.3MB/s.                          
 asynchronous range: 0-5MB/s {infered from BYTE 4/93:159}
 synchronous range: 0-8.3MB/s.
>ESDI is always 1.25MB/s (although there are some non-standard versions)

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>Theoretical performance figures are not relevant to this group or this
>debate.  I'm sure that there are some platforms out there that can
>handle the 40 megs/sec of SCSI xyz wide'n'fast, but the PC isin't one of
>them.
Note that I ALSO give the AVERAGE through put for SCSI-2 which holds true
a Mac OR IBM/PC clone with the correct hardware and software.
And since PC ADVERSIZEMENTS are using Theoretical performance figures WHY 
CANNOT WE?

>>If we are to continue this thread STATE CLEARLY WHICH SCSI you are talking 
>>about SCSI-1 or SCSI-2 or SCSI over all {SCSI-1 AND SCSI-2}
>>IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

>Well maybe if the SCSI design people had their act together than maybe
>all PC's would have built in SCSI ports by now.
With PC articles like the following it is obvious that the problem is NOT with
SCSI but with the PEOPLE WHO REPORT IT! {Like YOU.}
Look at the inconsitant use of SCSI in the below quote: 
(My comments in {})
"Although SCSI is twice as fast as ESDI,{This is asynchronous SCSI-1 with
a SCSI-1 chip} 20% faster than IDE..." {this is BOTH asynchronous SCSI-1 with 
a SCSI-2 chip AND 8-bit SCSI-2} PC Magazine April 27, 1993:29
The ARTICLE is confused, NOT SCSI.  The TERM is a mess from inconsitant use
NOT because the interface itself is a mess.

SCSI means "The set of SCSI interfaces composed of SCSI-1 AND SCSI-2"
NOT 'SCSI-1' as some people want to use it.

To read CONSITANTLY the quote SHOULD read:
{asynchronous SCSI-1 with a SCSI-1 chip}
"Although asynchronous SCSI-1 is twice as fast as ESDI, one third the 
speed of IDE..."
or {asynchronous SCSI-1 with a SCSI-2 chip or 8-bit SCSI-2}
"Although SCSI-1 with a SCSI-2 chip and 8-bit SCSI-2 are eight times as fast as
ESDI, 20% faster than IDE..."

NOTE the NONUSE of 'SCSI' by itself.  This eliminates ambaguity.

If we are to continue this thread STATE CLEARLY WHICH SCSI you are talking 
about SCSI-1 or SCSI-2 or SCSI over all {SCSI-1 AND SCSI-2}.  Lumping
everything into SCSI as SCSI-1 is SLOPPY, WRONG, and DUMB.  Inconsitant
SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 usage is also a problem.  Clean it up now or have
a mess like SVGA was several years ago because everybody and his Uncle
slapped 'SCSA' an their own monitor inteface {SCSI IS standarized unlike
SVGA was years ago EXCEPT in terminaology.}
