On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Woody wrote:
> Well I wouldn't buy a Quantum, simply because they are the most I have
> ever replaced...about a year ago, Compaq released an advisory about
> Quantum Bigfoots...they were all bad...I've changed so many of them, I
> can't count...
>
> Woody
I completely agree with this assessment of Quantum Bigfoots. However, I
cannot sing enough praises about Quantum's Enterprise line
(Viking/Atlas) of SCSI hardware. It's cheaper than comparable Seagate,
and just as reliable. I've never had the same flaming hoops to jump
through with RMAs to Quantum as I've had with Western Digital and Seagate.
But... bottom line. It's my experience that if you ask 10 different
administrators what their favorite and most despised hard drives are,
you'll get 20 different (and overlapping) answers. You should just buy
whatever fits your budget on hard drives.
My recommendation is always for
SCSI. I can't tell you what a difference it makes in any OS to offset the
load of disk drive operations onto the SCSI controller instead of letting
it eat away at your CPU time. Running 20 parallel C compiles in linux,
downloading files from the net, and composing letters in Applixware is
cake when you have SCSI. No lag time.
My $0.02.
David
