On 7 Jun 2000, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes:
>
> > Really and the $5 difference in the final electronics on the bottom of the
> > drive justifies this statement? All other parts are shared and
> > "IDENTICAL", this may be a FYI for you.
>
> So why the fuck do we still have to mess with crappy IDE chip sets when
> there are reliable SCSI chip sets out there, such as SYM53C8XX?
You get crappy SCSI chipsets and good IDE ones, too...
> Why the fuck do we still have to pay about three times as much for a
> similar drive with SCSI interface rather than ATA?
Pricing is often based on demand, not cost. If the customers will pay an
extra 10%, the manufacturer would be stupid not to charge an extra 10%.
> Why are 10,000/min drives not available as ATA? Why are 5,400/min drives
> not available as SCSI? Why are there no Diamond Max SCSI drives?
This situation makes more money for the companies involved. 10krpm drives
are expensive items, thus aimed at the same market as SCSI; 5.4krpm drives
are budget items, aimed at IDE's market.
> If it's not for profit, tell me why. A vendor could easily separate the
> interface from the filter/decoder/cache section, and sell those
> interfaces (either ATA/100 or some SCSI variant) with either drive.
They could, but then they might make less money - so they don't.
> It's not done, though.
Of course not; they are in this game for the money.
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 - 21:00:28 EST