Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Linh Pham <lplist@closedsrc.org> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: Jason Stewart <jstewart@rtl.org>, <anderson@centtech.com>, j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: which is faster zip drive under FreeBSD: usb or parallel? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0106260818480.26804-100000@q.closedsrc.org> In-Reply-To: <001701c0fe22$164f1ac0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2001-06-26, Ted Mittelstaedt scribbled: # You know those SCSI zip drives from IOMEGA are about the # crappiest SCSI implementation that I've ever seen. Last # I checked they only supported async and didn't support # disconnection so your SCSI bus is stuffed while the drive # is doing it's thing. Iomega's implementation of anything is rather crappy... how does one explain that reading or writing to a Parallel Zip [100] drive on my dually P2-400 (with the parallel port set to either ECP or EPP) soaks up 80+ percent of my CPU. The only thing Iomega seems to do right is their specific USB Zip drivers for NT 4.0 :) # But I can assure anyone that the SCSI zip drives are much, # much faster than the parallel port ones. <nod> I still like my SCSI Zip 250 over my USB Zip 250 drive. -- Linh Pham [lplist@closedsrc.org] // 404b - Brain not found To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.33.0106260818480.26804-100000>