[Gllug] re: SCSI vs SATA

[Tom Fairbairn]

>the necessary chippery is easily (and quite cheaply) available

So is Linux, but that doesn't mean it isn't complicated!  What I meant by that
comment was that the serial stuff is far more complicated as compared to what
you need for parallel.





Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter at blueyonder.co.uk>@gllug.org.uk on 06/09/2004
07:13:00 PM

Please respond to chrisehunter at blueyonder.co.uk; Please respond to Greater
      London Linux Users Group <gllug at gllug.org.uk>

Sent by:  gllug-bounces at gllug.org.uk


To:   Greater London Linux Users Group <gllug at gllug.org.uk>
cc:
Subject:  Re: [Gllug] re: SCSI vs SATA


On Wednesday 09 Jun 2004 3:58 pm, Pete Ryland wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:10:22AM +0100, Tom Fairbairn wrote:
> > Of course, the transmit/receive circuits are far more complicated and
> > hence expensive than the parallel equivalents, but over recent years this
> > cost has reduced compared to the cost of cables and connectors.
>
> Are the transmit/receive circuits really that complicated?

Not these days - the necessary chippery is easily (and quite cheaply)
available.  I'm going this way with many of my designs wherever I need speed.
Serial generally beats parallel in my recent experience!

Chris

--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug




-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug