[rescue] FREE STUFF in Austin, TX

[David Passmore]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:39:52PM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
> 
>   Up until the current series of Seagate drives, there were indeed two
> different lines of actual mechanics.

I can't find anything to prove or disprove this... I am going on the word of
a Seagate rep I spoke to at a conference a couple of years ago. Not that it
really matters, but I have not seen a difference in failure rates between
IDE and SCSI drives, and mine are mostly Seagates.

>   Not to be argumentative, but...while I agree with your statement
> above, the "usual" SCSI/IDE debate most certainlyh is NOT a religious
> war.  It's a war that comes about when someone who doesn't know what
> they're talking about poo-poos SCSI because it's more expensive and
> less available (well, in retail stores, anyway), criticising anyone
> who uses it because "IDE is bigger and better and the wave of the
> future and blah blah blah"...for ALL applications.

I was talking about the debates on this list... :) ... about the 'technical
superiority' of SCSI... well, I'm sure an Origin 3500 is technically
superior to an Ultra 2, but an Ultra 2 will get the job done... you know the
drill. I've certainly never had anyone tell me that IDE was the wave of the
future, in any case.

I do have Intel boxes and they all run IDE except for the machine that
does MPEG-2 encoding, which has a 10k RPM SCSI drive-- the idea being that
writing to the drive can't skip a beat.

David