Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: EISA vs. ISA
Message-ID: <2709@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 22 Dec 90 02:50:43 GMT
References: <51097@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1990Dec15.170839.5974@bilver.uucp>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 22


  In theory the MCA bus has a small advantage over the EISA. And the
EISA has an advantage over the ISA. Now ask yourself what you are going
to do (in the lifetime of the motherboard) which will use the extra
bandwidth. Then buy ISA in most cases.

  For a single CPU application, using a single disk controller and no
more than two drives, and any display using the ISA bus, the faster
busses make no ecconomic sense.

  Unless you are going to to use the bandwidth anything beyond ISA does
as much good as a six lane highway for a motorcycle at 2am. Anything you
can't *use* brings no benefit.

  There are people with applications which have multiple CPUs, or
controllers, or special bus master peripheral boards, which may benefit
from these busses. Unless you are doing something special, save your money.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me