On 31 Aug 2003 at 10:20, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > This started out with Philip Aker's comments about ATA vs. SCSI > reliability. I guess, to summarize -- and apologies for so much > verbiage, but I hope some of it was helpful -- I feel it's wise to > upgrade regularly not only because it gives you more room for > expansion but also because it 'resets' the likely failure time to > zero. To use the cliché, "it works for me". :) (Yeah, I know, more > useless anecdotal evidence.)
Another point that may be getting lost in the discussion of other issues is that nowadays, the actual hardware in ATA and SCSI drives is identical -- it's only the controllers that are different. Because of that, the hardware failure rates for the drives themselves (and not the controllers) should be identical. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
