Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!sail!keithe
From: keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Question on SCSI hard drive.
Message-ID: <9077@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 7 Mar 91 16:17:41 GMT
References: <20524.27cbb281@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Reply-To: keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 23

In article <20524.27cbb281@oregon.uoregon.edu> ngkong@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
>Hi,
>	Can anyone please tell me the advantage of using a SCSI drive? I
>currently own an RLL drive, but I am looking into getting a 2nd drive.
>Therefore, I have the option of installing a SCSI device.  However, I
>would want to be sure that it is worth my $$ to pay extra for the SCSI.
>	For info, I am running Win 3, and my machine is a 20Mhz 386DX.
>My RLL transfer rate is about 800kb/sec, and the SCSI is > 1.2Mb/sec?
>Would I get significant improvement, or rather, significant trouble in
>making everything works?
>

In my experience I've found ESDI to be preferable to SCSI for MS-DOS machines.
With the Adaptec 1542A or B controllers, at least, you run the risk of some
minor but annoying- to killer-incompatibilities.  With a 15 Megabit/second
ESDI drive and compatible controller (I use the Adaptec 2322B-8 (or is it
-16? Ray?)) you'll get transfer rates as high as the best SCSI.  (Stay away
from WD ESDI controllers.)

I won't buy SCSI disk subsystems for DOS machines in my department.  Now if
you're gonna' run UNIX (tm), that's another story...

null *keithe()