Is SCSI hdd`s really worth the money?

[mynx]

SCSI devices, especially hard drives are of higher quality than there IDE counterparts. The are designed to be running 24/7. They are designed to be used in in data critical areas. They all carry 5 year warranties. SCSI hard drives are generally made in the USA. IDE drives are made in where the labor is cheaper.

[Michel Carleer]

Can you give me one good reason why something made in the US (or in Europe for that matter) HAS to be, by definition, of better quality than if it is made elsewhere?
Michka

[Eric VanHeest]

It's not that it's better quality, it's that it's more expensive

[RBryant]

Yes, I would call IDE drives far slower than SCSI drives from a day to day point of view since 90% of disk activities are limited by access times, not max transfer rate. The fact that the best of the IDE drives have an access time twice that of the best SCSI drives comes across as a vast difference in performance when starting up an application, for example. I just put together 3 KT7-RAID systems with 4 75GB Deskstar 75GXP's on a 1Gig Thunderbird, and starting up IE, Photoshop, and Soundforge all still take longer than it does on my home machine (pIII 500 with 3 cheetahs).

And yes, I would call 0.59% far less than ~5% as far as CPU utilization goes.

As far as a casual user goes though... IDE is "good enough" for most video applications. And it is definitely at an attractive price point. But even a casual user will notice the difference of switching to SCSI while doing "anything" on his machine.

[This message has been edited by RBryant (edited 17 September 2000).]

[mynx]

Michael: It doesn't HAVE to be. Companies as a rule build items local to monitor and have better control over the quality. They farm out the manufacture of less critical items to keep a better profit margin. As the saying goes "You get what you pay for". Although not always true, it is usually true.