Do you prefer SATA or SCSI?

[flameup]

Do you guys prefer SATA or SCSI disks for your PC and why?

[z80]

-sata has much higher capacities manufactured.
-and is alot cheaper.

-scsi is significantly faster

[roguefan99]

SATA, because I can find SATA drives easily Plus the reasons z80 outlines

[BCNZ]

In 2000 I built a brand new PC using an AMD Athlon 750 and two 9.1 GB SCSI drives.
It was very fast at the time. It left IDE systems in the dust.

The drawback?

At the time, the SCSI drives I used were second hand, and they cost me $250 each. 18GB was sufficient for what I was doing then, but today, I'd fill them in a flash.

The minimum size drive I use these days is 500GB.

Hitachi make a 300GB 10,000 RPM SCSI drive for $820 NZ. I'd need two of them just to get by. That's more than it would cost me to build the entire PC including a decent sized LCD monitor!

[LeroyPatrol]

I'm always SCSI especially when it comes to servers. A while ago we bought a couple of JBOD's (just a bunch of disks) that house 16 x 250GB sata drives that have performed flawlessy in Raid5 configuration with a hot spare. Over 4 years prob had 4 failures compared to almost none for the same period with the SCSI drives. But bang for buck they've been excellent value. I only recently replaced the 250GB drives for 1TB drives. Boy we've got some space now!

Leroy

[Redwight]

My HTPC (the MCE machine) has three Sata II HDD and a Sata burner, the gaming rig has two SCSI's and a Sata burner.
And the difference in speed isn't that big unless you manage them right, the difference in capacity however is a clincher for home use; Sata wins hands down there.