>> For single disk configurations, modern IDE disks are supposed to be
>> as good as scsi (I don't use IDE so don't quote me :-), and $/Mb is
>> much better for IDE than scsi so its hard to suggest anyone go scsi
>> for a single disk system.

> that statement needs to be cleared!  It depends upon what one wants
> to do with the computer.  As ide drives still need the processing
> power of the CPU to do transferrs

Is this actually true?  I thought modern IDE interfaces were just as
capable of "start it and forget it" operation as any SCSI interface.
(And don't forget that SCSI interfaces demanding PIO exist, though
quite possibly not for i386 machines.)

> there are many environments where SCSI is still more performant.

Oh, certainly.  For example, I have many machines for which IDE drives
are totally useless. :-)

In fact, quite aside from all the reasons to prefer one or the other in
isolation, I would always go with SCSI because then I can use the
drives anywhere; with IDE I'm much more restricted (Intel, some Alphas,
a few of the more recent Suns, anything else?).  Of course, whether
this is a valid argument for *you* only you can tell.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B