 | | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Actually I never heard a thing like "SCSI RAM", but I'm not familiar with systems other than PCs, so it can be. In case you mean a SCSI subsystem for HDD, CD-ROM and such devices, You may have it easily, although it might be quite expensive (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
Perhaps you are talking about a SCSI RAM drive ? this is a SCSI DVD RAM Recorder .....I have never heard of SCSI RAM as in SCSI accessed RAM Memory modules.. but I have seen SCSI DVD RAM drives ....They use thier own version of recording media .... (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Depends what you're doing and how much you really care about performance. My friend Paul and I both have Linux systems that get backed up over the network by our Operations group. They're mostly identical systems, but Paul's is all IDE and (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) of In the olden days before processors could address massive amounts of RAM, you could get cards and external peripherals that contained dynamic volatile RAM on a SCSI interface that would behave like very fast disk. It was used for video (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
Quantum still makes these, and calls them Solid State Disks. They have a bad size/capacity ratio, but phenomenal access times and reads-per-second rates. (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
This is a result of the Number One difference between IDE/UDMA and SCSI; IDE 'borrows' number-crunching from the system processor (thus affecting processor load and responsiveness), whereas SCSI has all the number-crunching built into the controller (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Yes indeed. Also bad for anything both cpu and disk intensive, like compiling or certain graphics stuff. (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Maybe if you're gaming on a crappy machine. I love these "SCSI vs IDE" talks. I own and use systems with both. The _only_ times I notice the differences are when I'm copying gigantic amounts of data from one drive to another. And I mean (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Probably true for gamers, and certainly for someone who just wants to browse the web / do office stuff. People just shouldn't say that IDE performs as well as SCSI without some serious clarification. It reminds me of a computer expert friend (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) well, isn't there a famous quote of Bill Gates that "no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM"? :) Dan (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Specifically, people code or do graphics work -- for personal stuff, even -- and really _can_ benefit from scsi. (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) :) Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to blame that one on Bill. The 640 thing was designed into the hardware by IBM. (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Ok, I'll be a little clearer. For the vast majority of people, and that's including ME, and I own more computers that I use for more purposes than probably 99% of the computer owning population - everything from gaming to web serving to mp3 (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Can benefit some, yes. And I guess at that point those people need to make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether they think it is worth it to shell out the still large amount of money to go SCSI. And if they think it is really worth it, great. (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Don't worry - many more important things we can blame on Bill. :) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
Reminds me of the first off-the-shelf computer I ever bought; I got the 20Mb hard drive 'cause I couldn't conceive of ever needing 40Mb. *smirk* -Cheese (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
See, the promary reason I'm squarely on the SCSI side of this debate is that I've been a Mac dude for years; I've got piles of old SCSI drives lying around. Everytime I build a new (PC) box, I tend to use an inexpensive SCSI controller, and one or (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Desktops with SCSI RAM?
|
|
(...) Kinda funny that a Mac person would still be squarely on the SCSI side of things since it has been a _long_ time since Macs have come standard with anything but IDE drives. :) (...) Yep, and there are inexpensive controllers to be had. I just (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
