[OLUG] SCSI vs. IDE Burner

[Jason Ferguson]

Ive used both... here's my call on it:

a. Linux is MUCH better than Windows for burning... Ive never made coasters
(ruined blank CDs) in Linux when I didnt make stupid mistakes.  Windows just
didnt seem to like the hardware as much.
b.  SCSI is easier to configure.  SCSI obviously has its advantages... speed
to burn not being the least of them.  I like the idea of the burning process
being all on the same bus (Im not there yet, cant afford good sized SCSI
drives anytime soon).
c.  IDE is cheaper, and the performance, to me, is acceptable.  It takes
adding a line to your lilo.conf (and running lilo again, of course), to make
the system talk to the burner as more than just an ordinary ATAPI cdrom.
Also, compiling the IDE-SCSI emulation, either into your kernel or as a
module.

I still intend to do my presentation on burning CDs, even if I did miss the
last meeting.

Jason


Eric Penne wrote:

> Paul told me to ask.
>
> Why choose a SCSI expensive burner vs. an IDE burner,
> when IDE is so easy to setup and cheaper?  Especially
> when you can get Hewlett-Packard burners that aren't
> too bad or the PLEXTOR ATAPI burner.
>
> I'm looking for experiences from Cd burner users on
> both sides.
>
> =====
> Eric Penne
> epenne at ieee.org
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sent by OLUG Mailing list Manager, run by ezmlm.  http://olug.bstc.net/
> To unsubscribe: `echo unsubsribe | mail olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net`


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent by OLUG Mailing list Manager, run by ezmlm.  http://olug.bstc.net/ 
To unsubscribe: `echo unsubsribe | mail olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net`