构建快速.NET开发工作站（SCSI vs SATA vs IDE） [英] Building Fast .NET Dev Workstation (SCSI vs SATA vs IDE)
问题描述
我是开发人员使用XP Pro开发使用Visual的商业应用程序
Studio.NET和SQL Server。
我当前的工作站是一些岁，使用单个IDE驱动器。我是想要建造一个新工作站的b $ b。我计划在可预见的将来不使用XP专业版安装Vista并继续
。
我的问题：
你会是什么？推荐我的新工作站上的硬盘驱动器？我问
因为几年前我看到一些朋友什么都没有麻烦用SATA（他们是SATA的早期采用者并且存在兼容性问题
与他们的主板），但看起来SATA现在已经很成熟
并且稳定，因此比IDE更好。但是SCSI怎么样？
如果我追求全力以赴的表现，那么比SATA更好吗？我希望
能够将驱动器配置为RAID-3（条带）。
谢谢。
Bob Cramer写道：
我是开发人员使用XP专业版开发业务使用Visual的应用程序
Studio.NET和SQL Server。
我当前的工作站已有几年历史，使用单个IDE驱动器。我是想要建造一个新工作站的b $ b。我计划在可预见的将来不使用XP专业版安装Vista并继续
。
我的问题：
你会是什么？推荐我的新工作站上的硬盘驱动器？我问
因为几年前我看到一些朋友什么都没有麻烦用SATA（他们是SATA的早期采用者并且存在兼容性问题
与他们的主板），但看起来SATA现在已经很成熟
并且稳定，因此比IDE更好。但是SCSI怎么样？
如果我追求全力以赴的表现，那么比SATA更好吗？我希望
能够将驱动器配置为RAID-3（条带）。
谢谢。
旧学校还是新学校？前者仍然喜欢SCSI，虽然SATA-II
越来越受欢迎。
" ; Bob Cramer < A@B.com在留言中写道
新闻：％2 **************** @ TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl ...
我是开发人员使用XP专业版开发使用Visual的商业应用程序
Studio.NET和SQL Server。
我目前的工作站已有几年历史，并使用一个IDE驱动器。我是想要建造一个新工作站的b $ b。我计划在可预见的未来不安装Vista和
继续使用XP专业版。
Vista出了什么问题？我使用Vista，以及IIS7进行Web开发
工作。 XP专业版和IIS5使用
IIS7无法触及Vista业务类O / S. Vista和IIS7允许创建多个Web站点，这可以是开发的，而XP Pro和IIS5只允许一个可以开发的Web站点。如果没有别的，双启动Vista和XP。或者你可以去赢得2K3和IIS6的
，它具有与Vista业务相同的功能
版O / S版本。
"先生。阿诺德" < MR。 Ar****@Arnold.com 在留言中写道
新闻：uV ***** ********* @ TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl ...
>
" Bob Cramer" < A@B.com在留言中写道
新闻：％2 **************** @ TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl ...
>我是开发人员使用XP Pro开发使用Visual.NET Studio和SQL Server的商业应用程序。
我当前的工作站是几年前使用一个IDE驱动器。
我正在寻找一个新的工作站。我计划在可预见的将来不安装Vista并继续使用XP专业版。
Vista出了什么问题？我使用Vista，以及IIS7进行Web开发
工作。 XP专业版和IIS5使用
IIS7无法触及Vista业务类O / S. Vista和IIS7允许创建多个网站，这可以是开发的，而XP Pro和IIS5只允许一个可以开发的网站.b
。如果没有别的，双启动Vista和XP。或者你可以
去Win 2K3和IIS6，它具有与Vista业务相同的功能
版O / S版本。
我从未说过或暗示Vista存在任何问题。你有没有提供有关硬盘驱动器（SATA vs SCSI）的选择？
I''m a developer using XP Pro for developing business apps with Visual
Studio.NET and SQL Server.
My current workstation is a few years old and uses a single IDE drive. I''m
looking to build a new workstation. I plan to NOT install Vista and continue
using XP Pro for the foreseeable future.
My question:
What would you recommend for the hard drive(s) on my new workstation? I ask
because several years ago I saw a number of friends have nothing but trouble
with SATA (they were early adopters of SATA and had compatability problems
with their mother boards), but it appears that SATA is now well-established
and stable and therefore a better option than IDE. But what about SCSI? Is
that a better option than SATA if I''m going after all-out performance? I
would like to be able to configure the drives as RAID-3 (stripe).
Thanks.
Bob Cramer wrote:
I''m a developer using XP Pro for developing business apps with Visual
Studio.NET and SQL Server.
My current workstation is a few years old and uses a single IDE drive. I''m
looking to build a new workstation. I plan to NOT install Vista and continue
using XP Pro for the foreseeable future.
My question:
What would you recommend for the hard drive(s) on my new workstation? I ask
because several years ago I saw a number of friends have nothing but trouble
with SATA (they were early adopters of SATA and had compatability problems
with their mother boards), but it appears that SATA is now well-established
and stable and therefore a better option than IDE. But what about SCSI? Is
that a better option than SATA if I''m going after all-out performance? I
would like to be able to configure the drives as RAID-3 (stripe).
Thanks.
Old school or new school? The former still prefer SCSI although SATA-II
is gaining more popularity.
"Bob Cramer" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...I''m a developer using XP Pro for developing business apps with Visual
Studio.NET and SQL Server.
My current workstation is a few years old and uses a single IDE drive. I''m
looking to build a new workstation. I plan to NOT install Vista and
continue using XP Pro for the foreseeable future.What''s wrong with Vista? I use Vista, along with IIS7 for Web development
work. XP pro and IIS5 can''t touch the Vista business classed O/S(s) using
IIS7. Vista and IIS7 allow multiple Web Sites to be created, which can be
developed against, while XP pro and IIS5 only allow one Web Site that can be
developed against. If nothing else, dual boot Vista and XP. Or you can go
to Win 2K3 and IIS6 which has the same capabilities the Vista business
edition O/S(s) have in them.
"Mr. Arnold" <MR. Ar****@Arnold.comwrote in message
news:uV**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...>
"Bob Cramer" <A@B.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...>I''m a developer using XP Pro for developing business apps with Visual
Studio.NET and SQL Server.
My current workstation is a few years old and uses a single IDE drive.
I''m looking to build a new workstation. I plan to NOT install Vista and
continue using XP Pro for the foreseeable future.
What''s wrong with Vista? I use Vista, along with IIS7 for Web development
work. XP pro and IIS5 can''t touch the Vista business classed O/S(s) using
IIS7. Vista and IIS7 allow multiple Web Sites to be created, which can be
developed against, while XP pro and IIS5 only allow one Web Site that can
be developed against. If nothing else, dual boot Vista and XP. Or you can
go to Win 2K3 and IIS6 which has the same capabilities the Vista business
edition O/S(s) have in them.
I never said or implied that there is anything wrong with Vista. Do you have
anything to offer about the choice of hard drive (SATA vs SCSI)?
这篇关于构建快速.NET开发工作站（SCSI vs SATA vs IDE）的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
