View Single Post
Old January 21st 05, 11:03 PM
Michael W. Ryder
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a

LeeBos wrote:

Subject: P4C800-E Deluxe and PCI Express
From: "Michael W. Ryder"
Date: 1/20/2005 8:02 PM Eastern Standard Time

LeeBos wrote:

Subject: P4C800-E Deluxe and PCI Express
From: "Michael W. Ryder"

Date: 1/20/2005 4:11 PM Eastern Standard Time

daytripper wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:48:57 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"

I seem to recall IBM saying that MicroChannel Architecture was the best
thing to ever happen to PCs. Where is it now? Just because something
is "better" does not mean that the general public will accept it. Look
at Betamax vs VHS. Betamax was supposedly the better product but the
people bought the VHS standard and Betamax died.

A classic example of mis-applied logic. Nice work.

Since you went and waded in above your head, here's the clue you lack:

- MCA was a PROPRIETARY interconnect architecture.
- BetaMax was a PROPRIETARY technology package.

And what does proprietary (i.e. Microsoft) versus open (Linux, BSD,
etc.) have to do with what the people will buy, or even need. Just
because there are cars out there that can do 200 mph does not mean that
everyone is going to buy them. There will always be those who buy the
"newest and greatest" just because it is or because they bought the line
fed them by the marketers.
Since you are so stuck on open standards how come SCSI-320 is not the
current goal of everyone? It is far better than IDE, it is open, it is
available from multiple vendors. So why is SATA (an inferior product)
now being offered to everyone but not SCSI?

hth ;-)


Because it's cheaper!

And PCI/AGP is cheaper and more available than PCI-E! So why is
everyone so enamored with PCI-E? Just because Intel says that PCI-E is
the directions du jour does not mean we all have to jump off a cliff.

What I ment was that SATA is cheaper than SCSI.

I have both a P4C800E and a P5AD2E and can't see the diff between AGP and
PCI-E, except that the PCI-E was more expensive.

My point was that SCSI is superior to IDE and SATA but no one is moving
all their new models to SCSI. SATA and IDE are more popular because
they do what people want them to do and are cheaper than the
alternatives. If only the best solution was sold we would all be using
Fibre Channel SCSI.
I just don't see why anyone should have to pay way too much to replace
working equipment for a new slot that offers NO benefit to the user.