SCSI CDRW on Cyberstorm

[Nataline]

The Win/MacOS/whatever software bundled with the drive needs the 300MHz, not the drive itself.

I had a Plextor PX-W4012TS in my A4k/CSPPC, worked fine.

Oh, and I also had an LG GSA-4163B on the internal IDE controller for a while. I seem to vaguely remember burning a couple of CDs with it, albeit slowly.
On the back of the box it says "Minimum Requirements: CPU P4@2.4GHz or Higher - RAM 512MB or Larger recommended - HD space 10GB or more - Direct X 9.0 or Higher - Videocard Memory 128MB or Higher recommended". Of these I had only the HD space, so I learnt two things from this revelatory box:

#1: My CSPPC@233MHz/50MHz could use the drive, ergo it must be able to meet the "Minimum Requirements", and therefore it must be at least as fast as a P4@2.4GHz :-o ;-)
#2: "Higher" and "Larger" should always be written with capital first letter. (I have no idea why. Thus were The Words written on The Box.) :-P

[Nataline]

rkauer wrote:
 SCSI devices DON'T NEED INTENSIVE CPU LOADS!

 Like Piru said, ONLY if you try to burn ON-THE-FLY archives you will get in problem.

 SCSI controllers handles the data in the SCSI chain by itself. So if you generate an ISO image FIRST AND burn it in speeds lower than 32x, you don't get a single problem with it.

 Please don't compare the lightweight and elegance of Amiga's OS with the ignorance and brute force of those crappy M$ winblows.

 Only the supplied software who comes with the device itself need that stupid configuration to work.

 I am clear enough?

 Sorry if those words offends you, in any way.

Are you yelling at me here? :-? If you are, I would like you to take a closer look at those pictures of little faces I placed right after the words "as fast as a P4@2.4GHz". See how the yellow one winks at you? That was supposed to tell you something about the previous sentence.

Furthermore, I would have to be immensely stupid to claim something like that based on a clearly senseless chain of deduction. "A CDRW works, so 50>2400"? Oh, come on now. I might be [d]a bit daft[/d] delightfully eccentric, but that's just too much.

Apparently my wording was too complex. Perhaps this might help to understand what my intentions were.