On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 16:49:37 -0700, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote in message
><37eea975.7169478@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>>On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:32:56 -0700, "Ron Reaugh"
>> wrote:
>>>Neuman - Ruether wrote in message
>>><37e5b5c3.26080410@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

>>>>We have not found having two UDMA drives on the same IDE
>>>>cable presents any problem with mini-DV capture/play...

>>>It might work but provides inferior performance.

>>???
>>If it works and is reliable, what is the problem???
>>Who cares if ultimate performance is compromised

>Most folks.

>>if the most it will be asked to do is well within
>>its capabilities? A constant 3.6MB/sec is easy (one
>>of the advantages of the mini-DV format...). Why worry
>>about having 150mph capability in a car if you will
>>only go to the grocery store at 35mph - choose the
>>more reliable, slower, cheaper solution...! ;-)

>Nonsense. That's just like turning off L2 cache or running your display in
>VGA mode to make things more reliable.

THAT is nonsense! (Probably pointless to respond,
but...;-) Turning off useful features that already
exist on your computer is one thing - adding an
unnecessary (and possibly undesireable) feature like
RAID is quite another... Why advocate running two
video drives as one faster one with mini-DV using
Promise Fasttrack card when the individual drives
are fully capable of handling mini-DV data rates
without it (and having two large video drives is
more useful than having only one drive twice the
size)??? Heck, save your money and set-up time and
run the two mini-DV video drives straight off the
IDE cables - pocket the money, and enjoy the easier
drive management having multiple video drives
provides. Why complicate things when there is
no advantage?