SCSI setups CD-R / CD-RW article @ CDRWcentral

I just posted the article SCSI setups CD-R / CD-RW article @ CDRWcentral.

Ian at CDRWcentral has made an article that will probably fire up the discussions about SCSI here again. But this article is not intended to promote the use of SCSI drives but it should be a good…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

I’ve said it before and I’m going say it again cause it’s soooo true and unless people vote their opinions nothing will ever be done about it. A SCSI CDRW drive is loads better than an IDE one. I dont mean because of buffer underruns or anything because the large amounts of RAM in a system can take care of that as well as the memory buffers they are building into the drive. For all you guys with IDE drives just try this and watch your system slow like hell. For everyone on a SCSI we can do this without noticing. Put a CD in your drive that has a large file on it, a DivX is a perfect example. Now try and copy that file to your hard drive and watch your whole system start to lagg. With a SCSI drive you forget your copying the file accross!!

nila, I agree. The problem is that most of the people that say there is no difference between ide and scsi have: A. Never built a scsi system because it is too complicated. B. Never built a scsi system because the price is prohibitive. C. They bought their Gateway and it doesn’t have scsi. D. All of the above.

SCSI isn’t even that expensive. Sure if you buy an adaptec SCSI card it’ll cost you a lot. You can buy generic ones though for like £30. There’s no financial excuse to not use SCSI.

If we are talking SCSI systems here, then that would mean SCSI Harddisk(s) which are way more expensive than IDE ones. If we are talking a complete SCSI system vs an IDE one, then the price difference is quite a large one. For just a SCSI CDRW drive and a cheap SCSI card vs an IDE CDRW then the price difference isn’t that huge, but you don’t have as much choice of drives if you go SCSI.

Also if we are just talking SCSI card and SCSI CDRW then most of the benifits are lost. You still are going to slow down the system for that file transfer since you hit the IDE bus and therefore the CPU. SCSI is no doubt a “better” interface. Better meaning faster. IDE however is more standard (less compatability problems), and simpler. Price is a second major issue. SCSI must come down in price and stop chaning connectors every couple years (backwards compatibility is important) for it to stand any chance of entering the desktop market.

nsumner, That’s the point. SCSI isn’t designed for the desktop market and never will be. It’s for high end workstations and servers.

I’m sorry fb-, but I have to disagree. I have a U160 SCSI with 2 20 Gig h/disks on it and my system is twice as fast as with just IDE disks in it. Anyway, how else can you get 16 devices (HD, CD, Zip etc) onto IDE eh?

petera, I think you misunderstand. My system is all scsi. I understand and love the speed that scsi gives me! My point was just that when you go from ide to scsi, the system is really no longer a desktop, but a workstation.

Just because a computer has SCSI in it does not mean it automatically becomes a workstation, just think of all the Mac’s out there, wich until recentaly came with SCSI as standard. In todays world, the only diffrence between a desktop computer and a workstation it the purpose that it is bought for.