Building a new system: SCSI or IDE?

I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months, and am facing the
old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks and a CD/RW or
DVD drive. I'm assuming that each device should go on a dedicated
channel. If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels built
in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable enough for all
practical purposes? (I define this to mean a negligible chance of
failure over a system life of three years, with the drives running
almost constantly.) Are there any popular brands or models which have
particularly good or bad reputations?

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

Jonathan Sachs wrote:
I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months, and am facing the
old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks and a CD/RW or
DVD drive. I'm assuming that each device should go on a dedicated
channel. If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels built
in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable enough for all
practical purposes? (I define this to mean a negligible chance of
failure over a system life of three years, with the drives running
almost constantly.) Are there any popular brands or models which have
particularly good or bad reputations?

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

I suggest neither SCSI nor IDE (meaning PATA) HDs, but SATA. SATA
is the successor to PATA, with better performance and better cabling.
I think that a good current choice would be SATA for HDs and PATA
for DVD/CD stuff.

Modern HDs have MTBFs, regardless of bus, on the order of 10 years.
What you get in practice depends a lot on the environment; pay real
attention to cooling (air flow) and make sure that your power supply
choice is based on attributes other than price.
--
Cheers, Bob

"Bob WIllard" wrote in message ...
Jonathan Sachs wrote:
I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months, and am facing the
old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks and a CD/RW or
DVD drive. I'm assuming that each device should go on a dedicated
channel. If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels built
in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable enough for all
practical purposes? (I define this to mean a negligible chance of
failure over a system life of three years, with the drives running
almost constantly.) Are there any popular brands or models which have
particularly good or bad reputations?

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.

I suggest neither SCSI nor IDE (meaning PATA) HDs, but SATA.

Well, that certainly solves the seperate channels problem.

SATA is the successor to PATA, with better performance

Potentially better performance. Currently there is only one drive that act-
ually makes use of it. Others are just PATA drives with a SATA interface.

and better cabling. I think that a good current choice
would be SATA for HDs and PATA for DVD/CD stuff.

Modern HDs have MTBFs, regardless of bus, on the order of 10 years.
What you get in practice depends a lot on the environment; pay real
attention to cooling (air flow) and make sure that your power supply
choice is based on attributes other than price.
--
Cheers, Bob

Jonathan Sachs wrote in
message ...

I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months,
and am facing the old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

SCSI has basically passed its useby date for all except the most
demanding situations. Basically lousy value for money now.

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I doubt you'd be able to pick the difference in a
proper double blind trial with your ears plugged.

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks
and a CD/RW or DVD drive. I'm assuming that each
device should go on a dedicated channel.

No need.

If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels
built in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

2 channels will be fine.

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable
enough for all practical purposes? (I define this to mean
a negligible chance of failure over a system life of three
years, with the drives running almost constantly.)

Yep.

Are there any popular brands or models which
have particularly good or bad reputations?

I like the WDs myself. I avoid the Hitachi/IBMs because
of the atrocious record they got with relatively recent
drives and the fact that they have a lousy RMA system.

Best to avoid the Seagate Barracudas in your situation
because they have chosen to disable AAM because of
some stupid claim about patent infringement. That means
that the currently buyable drives arent that quiet anymore.

50Gb $45US - Lousy value? Its where you shop


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Jonathan Sachs wrote in
message ...

I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months,
and am facing the old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

SCSI has basically passed its useby date for all except the most
demanding situations. Basically lousy value for money now.

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I doubt you'd be able to pick the difference in a
proper double blind trial with your ears plugged.

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks
and a CD/RW or DVD drive. I'm assuming that each
device should go on a dedicated channel.

No need.

If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels
built in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

2 channels will be fine.

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable
enough for all practical purposes? (I define this to mean
a negligible chance of failure over a system life of three
years, with the drives running almost constantly.)

Yep.

Are there any popular brands or models which
have particularly good or bad reputations?

I like the WDs myself. I avoid the Hitachi/IBMs because
of the atrocious record they got with relatively recent
drives and the fact that they have a lousy RMA system.

Best to avoid the Seagate Barracudas in your situation
because they have chosen to disable AAM because of
some stupid claim about patent infringement. That means
that the currently buyable drives arent that quiet anymore.

Simon wrote in message
...

50Gb $45US - Lousy value?

Pity about the price of IDE, salesfool.

Its where you shop

Usual salesfool liar.

You obviously flogged used cars previously.


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Jonathan Sachs wrote in
message ...

I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months,
and am facing the old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

SCSI has basically passed its useby date for all except the most
demanding situations. Basically lousy value for money now.

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

I doubt you'd be able to pick the difference in a
proper double blind trial with your ears plugged.

I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks
and a CD/RW or DVD drive. I'm assuming that each
device should go on a dedicated channel.

No need.

If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels
built in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

2 channels will be fine.

What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable
enough for all practical purposes? (I define this to mean
a negligible chance of failure over a system life of three
years, with the drives running almost constantly.)

Yep.

Are there any popular brands or models which
have particularly good or bad reputations?

I like the WDs myself. I avoid the Hitachi/IBMs because
of the atrocious record they got with relatively recent
drives and the fact that they have a lousy RMA system.

Best to avoid the Seagate Barracudas in your situation
because they have chosen to disable AAM because of
some stupid claim about patent infringement. That means
that the currently buyable drives arent that quiet anymore.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:29:51 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Simon wrote in message
...

50Gb $45US - Lousy value?

Pity about the price of IDE, salesfool.

And you, I suppose, are one of the foremost names in mathematical
physics?

Its where you shop

Usual salesfool liar.

Why don't you tell your uncle again how you proved that
defragmentation was useless, dear? I'm sure he will be /very/
interested.

You obviously flogged used cars previously.

And you rather obviously do that now.

Josh

Some silly little pathological liar claiming to be
Joshua P. Hill desperately
attempted to bull**** its way out of its predicament in message
...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

"Jonathan Sachs" wrote in message ...
I'm assembling a new system in a couple of months, and am facing the
old dilemma: SCSI or IDE disks?

I have traditionally insisted on SCSI disks because they're faster and
more reliable. Lately I've been having some hearing problems, though,
and the drive noise is bothering me. Thus I'm motivated to use IDE
drives in my next system if I can do so without too much compromise.

What about performance? If I run two or or three disk-intensive
applications under Windows, will there be much practical difference
between a pair of fast Ultra320 drives and a pair of fast IDE drives?

Should be, given that SCSI still has the beter access time and IO/s.


I will have at least three IDE devices: two hard disks and a CD/RW or
DVD drive. I'm assuming that each device should go on a dedicated
channel. If so, should I get a mainboard with four IDE channels built
in, or will an add-on adapter work equally well?

There probably ain't a difference unless the extra
channels are on the MoBo chipset. Still, with 2 harddrives
you probably won't spring the PCI bus 132MB/s limit anyway.


What about reliability? Are modern IDE drives reliable enough for all
practical purposes? (I define this to mean a negligible chance of
failure over a system life of three years, with the drives running
almost constantly.) Are there any popular brands or models which have
particularly good or bad reputations?

My mail address is jsachs177 at earthlink dot net.