my understanding of the hardware differences between ide and scsi hard drives is mainly some logic on the interface board. basically that scsi drives have more/different logic. are there any technical reasons why manufacturers of scsi drive haven't gone to the very large, i.e., 72GB sizes? i am aware of the full-height 5.25" 47GB, etc., but nothing larger in storage than the 36GB 3.5".
my guess is it's more of a marketing issue, so prices of the smaller drives are kept higher, but i don't really know.
--- Not all idiots are stupid, some merely know <font color=red>no</font color=red><font color=orange>th</font color=orange><font color=blue>ing</font color=blue> ---
SCSI drives are better suitable for RAID cobfigurations. The concept behind RAID (Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Drives) is that combining many small drives is always better than having a single large one. Indeed, even RAID Level 0 already offers the data transfer rate at (number of drives) times (transfer rate for one drive). RAID Level 5 allows multiple simultaneous reads and writes, error correction codes, nearly instantenous recovery when any of the drives fails, and many other nice things.
In other words, the true power of SCSI is in flexibility. You want to have drives smaller, so they could be combined in all kinds of neat configurations. Having a single enormous drive is usually inefficient.
With an Adaptec 19160 SCSI card and 160 SCSI drive, you will get 160 MB/sec performance, hard drives are usually 7200 rpm or 10000 rpm, and have access speeds of less than 6 ms. They're also frequently used with RAID, and for high-end graphics/multimedia workstations.
They're mainly used for business, although if you just want to use a SCSI CD-RW, Scanner etc. You can get a 2906 or 2930 for $60-100.
Also, SCSI drives do come in sizes larger than 36 GB, Seagate makes a 181.6 GB SCSI hard drive, which as I recall, is bigger than any current IDE hard drive on the market.
<b><i><font color=red>DUDE.</b></i></font color=red>
just checked the link above, and then went to seagate's site...16MB of cache, 508 Mbit/sec internal transfer rates, up to 47 MB/sec sustained transfer, 4.17 ms ave. latency....
all i can do is <font color=blue><i>drooooooooool....</i></font color=blue>