home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
- From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
- Subject: Re: SCSI or IDE.
- Message-ID: <1992Nov5.180155.3429@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
- References: <96248@netnews.upenn.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:01:55 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In <96248@netnews.upenn.edu> turabe@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Toshiyuki Urabe) writes:
-
- >Hi,
-
- >Thanks for many answer about my question about SCSI or IDE HDD.
- >Simply, I have one more question.
-
- >Considering only speed, which has better performance for ususal
- >use of windows or OS/2 if both has same access speed?
-
- Are you talking about cached or uncached? On a single-tasking system
- a cached IDE simply FLIES. The Adaptec drives are uncached SCSI. Bus
- mastering controllers will generally be a win, and under some
- operating systems (UNIX, mostly) a caching controller doesn't do
- anything for you (or actually slows things down).
-
- I'd get the SCSI and run it asynch.
-
- --
- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
- in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
-