Well, here they are, granted, in back order:

http://snurl.com/2sp3

Looks like whoever said they would be around $300 is correct.

@drian.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:58:29 GMT, @drian wrote:

> Well, here they are, granted, in back order:

And incredibly enough the speed of the 74GB version is faster in amny ways
than the Seagate 15K.3 15.000 rpm SCSI drive - only seek times is still far
better on the SCSI drive.

Look at the performance database on:
www.storagereview.com

--
Kind regards/Venlig Hilsen
Dr. Ralph

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:05:24 +0100
"Dr.Ralph" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:58:29 GMT, @drian wrote:
>
> > Well, here they are, granted, in back order:
>
> And incredibly enough the speed of the 74GB version is faster in amny
> ways than the Seagate 15K.3 15.000 rpm SCSI drive - only seek times is
> still far better on the SCSI drive.
>
> Look at the performance database on:
> www.storagereview.com

Look at the specs--the 15K.3 is faster than the Raptor across the board,
faster seeks, lower latency, higher transfer rate, the whole nine yards.

Storage Review is testing under Windows XP, which is known to have a
performance problem with SCSI drives. Further, there are some tests in
which they disable write caching that they do not perform on SATA drives
because their host adapter doesn't let them do that reliably. This has
to skew their overall results. And they are using different host
adapters, which most likely makes a difference all by itself--results
with a different host adapter might be quite different.

In other words take any comparison they do between drives that use
different interfaces with a significant dose of salt.

> --
> Kind regards/Venlig Hilsen
> Dr. Ralph


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Dr.Ralph" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:1n2i3vq81gpam.oi41u4qpxrkn$.(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:58:29 GMT, @drian wrote:
>
> > Well, here they are, granted, in back order:
>
> And incredibly enough the speed of the 74GB version is faster in many
> ways than the Seagate 15K.3 15.000 rpm SCSI drive -

Hardly.
And the 15k.3 is a drive already 1.5 years old and itself only marginally
faster than the 10k.6

> only seek times is still far better on the SCSI drive.
>
> Look at the performance database on:
> www.storagereview.com
>
> --
> Kind regards/Venlig Hilsen
> Dr. Ralph

>> And incredibly enough the speed of the 74GB version is faster in many
>> ways than the Seagate 15K.3 15.000 rpm SCSI drive -
>
> Hardly.
> And the 15k.3 is a drive already 1.5 years old and itself only marginally
> faster than the 10k.6

Yeahhh.....you could be right about that.

I own 4 15K.3 36 GB myself and run them in raid 0 arrays (2 on each
separate channel - backup on two 250GB SATA drives in raid 1)
but must say I considered selling them and gettting 4 of the new raptor 74
Gb drives instead as soon as I saw the benchmarks.

But now I'll keep my excellent SCSI 15K.3' drives and patiently awaiting
the upcomer for the 15K.3 - probably called Seagte Cheetah 15k.4 SCSI.

But must say I'm still pretty impressed over the new raptor 74GB disk's.


--
Kind regards/Venlig Hilsen
Dr. Ralph

> In other words take any comparison they do between drives that use
> different interfaces with a significant dose of salt.

Yes you have a strong point there.......maybe I won't sell my 4 15K.3 36GB
as of now - but if the raptor 74 GB continues to get rave reviews around
the world - I might end up exchanging my 4 15K.3 36 GB for 4 Raptor 74GB
drives.

Time will tell - but think that WD is doing a great job challenging the
minor server SCSI market with this excellent SATA series of drives.


--
Kind regards/Venlig Hilsen
Dr. Ralph