Gerard wrote:
> All parts that are identical are good, all that are different make them
> inferior.
Blanket statements that big can come in handy during cold weather :-)
> The success of ATA proceeds the same way as the success of M$ O/Ses.
> Users pay for it generally unintentionnally and just use it or
> want to use it because they have it.
There is one other big difference: PRICE.
> What about if PCs were sold with an inflatable doll ? ;-)
> For my part, I do prefer the authentic. :o)
How much would a four channel SCSI card cost me? A lot more than four IDE
channels, I suspect? Now how much do IDE and SCSI drives cost - the same?
Not quite...
> The overcost of SCSI compared ATA to is due to IDE being shoe-horned to
> user with motherboards. By the way, I have had to pay for IDE on all my
> MBs and I donnot use it.
A complete motherboard costs less than most SCSI cards, in many cases.
There is nothing to stop a motherboard manufacturer including on-board
SCSI; a few do. However, both the controllers and drives are more
expensive - and many people buying motherboards have existing IDE drives
they need to be able to use. IDE wins, for the same reason the BIOS still
supports booting into real mode DOS: people need it.
> In my opinion, if IDE/ATA is allowed to be soldered in standard on
> motherboards, then Microsoft should be permitted to put everything they
> want in Windows kernel.
Duff argument; if IDE were a proprietary standard being pushed by a
monopoly motherboard manufacturer, this would be more realistic. It isn't.
A better comparison would be, perhaps, Rambus and Intel...
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST