Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why was SCSI(scuzzy) Discontinued?
- Thread starter 7254278
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
SCSI was (in my limited experiance) expensive, and a pain in the ass. For external devices FireWire/USB is just so much easier, and for internal drives, SATA is a great option for workstations, though fast SCSI drives still have the edge for server appliances, still very expensive though.
It was killed in consumer Macs due to cost.
If you want it add it to your PowerMac, but aome cards still give people deep sleep issues.
Not a problem if it's a 24/7 Server -- but some people might not like it if a PowerMac G5 is blowing hot air next to their bed.
If you want it add it to your PowerMac, but aome cards still give people deep sleep issues.
Not a problem if it's a 24/7 Server -- but some people might not like it if a PowerMac G5 is blowing hot air next to their bed.
SCSI was great if you needed alot of speed, but the cost was probabily not worth it compared to the size and price point of ATA drives. Also there was always a hastle with SCSI ID's and termination. Then for external devices you had to worry about how many devices were daisy chained, and how long your cable was since if you went over 6 feet you started to have issues. SCSI's also not hot swappable, so if you had several SCSI devices and wanted to change them out you had to shutdown to change them out.
To terminate or not to terminate.Patmian212 said:
The devices (like zips) with limited termination settings or IDs.
Too many devices with pre-set termination setting and the same ID.
ID conflicts, termination conflicts, cables too long, various types and varieties of SCSI.
Patmian212 said:
If you do not remember all the better however as the poster above has stated some generalized issues with SCSI:
Norouzi said:
jxyama said:
Nope not at all, and actually on my old 8600 I had a SCSI CD burner and if I didn't turn on the CD burner at just the right time at startup OS 9 would freeze durring startup.
EDIT: "Using SCA80 connectors, yes." I actually didn't know that.
Wow a trip down memory lane. I am just glad those days are history in regards to SCSI, life has become much much simpler in that regard.
Think of SCSI as the father of FireWire and your there.
FW improved on the godd features and threw out the bad.
Which, yes is termination.
FW improved on the godd features and threw out the bad.
Which, yes is termination.
Those were the days... My first SCSI CD burner... a Philips. It did 2x, I was the hero of the neighborhood. Blank CD-Rs were $20. You usually left the room when Toast (by Astarte) was on duty.
SCSI in Macs - I'm so glad it's been terminated.
SCSI in Macs - I'm so glad it's been terminated.
I can't say that I ever found SCSI difficult, only expensive.
The only problem I had with SCSI equipment is that it was more expensive because the equipment had to be intelligent. As far as termination goes, companies such as APS Technologies came out with intelligent termination and it saved a lot of people headaches.
FireWire is a good thing and certainly a worthy replacement for SCSI in consumer equipment but it hasn't made much progress and it's rather slow but that's okay for most people.
The only problem I had with SCSI equipment is that it was more expensive because the equipment had to be intelligent. As far as termination goes, companies such as APS Technologies came out with intelligent termination and it saved a lot of people headaches.
FireWire is a good thing and certainly a worthy replacement for SCSI in consumer equipment but it hasn't made much progress and it's rather slow but that's okay for most people.
Norouzi said:
This site describes the Single Connector Attachment (SCA) interface. While I don't think it's absolutely essential for hot-swap support, it does make it a lot easier, more reliable and safer. SCA-80 connectors are most commonly found in RAID cabinets and enclosures.
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/scsi/cables_SCA.htm
SCSI is still used in many-an-external-device.
At work we use LTO 2 drives as backup drives, which are connected to the backup servers via SCSI connectors.
FireWire is definitely much easier. Always hot pluggable, simpler connector.... remember SCSI, SCSI Fast, 1, 2, 3, Narrow, Wide, Low Voltage, High Voltage...
Apple killed SCSI on its consumer Macs by introducing the iMac which not only had no more Floppy Drive, it also had no more SCSI connector! That was a first after more than a decade of Macs!
So, me thinks Apple killed consumer SCSI because of the difficulty in having such a variety of SCSI, and USB seemed an excellent alternative for the not so speed power hungry external devices. Later FireWire would be the solution for the more power hungry stuff.
At work we use LTO 2 drives as backup drives, which are connected to the backup servers via SCSI connectors.
FireWire is definitely much easier. Always hot pluggable, simpler connector.... remember SCSI, SCSI Fast, 1, 2, 3, Narrow, Wide, Low Voltage, High Voltage...
Apple killed SCSI on its consumer Macs by introducing the iMac which not only had no more Floppy Drive, it also had no more SCSI connector!
That was a first after more than a decade of Macs!So, me thinks Apple killed consumer SCSI because of the difficulty in having such a variety of SCSI, and USB seemed an excellent alternative for the not so speed power hungry external devices. Later FireWire would be the solution for the more power hungry stuff.
MacsRgr8 said:SCSI is still used in many-an-external-device.
At work we use LTO 2 drives as backup drives, which are connected to the backup servers via SCSI connectors.
FireWire is definitely much easier. Always hot pluggable, simpler connector.... remember SCSI, SCSI Fast, 1, 2, 3, Narrow, Wide, Low Voltage, High Voltage...
Apple killed SCSI on its consumer Macs by introducing the iMac which not only had no more Floppy Drive, it also had no more SCSI connector!
So, me thinks Apple killed consumer SCSI because of the difficulty in having such a variety of SCSI, and USB seemed an excellent alternative for the not so speed power hungry external devices. Later FireWire would be the solution for the more power hungry stuff.
FireWire was introduced first in the B&W G3 PM's, memories. It still had the option for a SCSI card however that was the transition period.
I am glad I don't have to work with SCSI, I would drive me nuts at times when I was strapped for time. SCSI will live on in server ends for now, until FireWire 1600 is released.
maya said:
If i recall correctly the PowerMac G3 B&W Server had an Adaptec 29160 SCSI PCI card pre-installed, with a 9 GB 10.000 rpm HD internally attached to it.
That was pretty high end stuff for a Mac back then. That SCSI card can handle much more data/sec than FireWire now can.
So, here's to hoping for FireWire 1600 too!
SCSI was fast alright, but:
1. Expensive
2. All different kinds
3. Not hot-swappable (for things like USB flash drives)
4. Huge cables made the routing hard in the cases
5. Termination. That should be a movie. That's it.
6. It made Macs less compatible with the other PCs out there, making it harder for Mac users to upgrade.
1. Expensive
2. All different kinds
3. Not hot-swappable (for things like USB flash drives)
4. Huge cables made the routing hard in the cases
5. Termination. That should be a movie. That's it.
6. It made Macs less compatible with the other PCs out there, making it harder for Mac users to upgrade.
Basically part of the why are Macs were so far behind the standard PC configurations at the time.
The drives were several times more expensive than an IDE drive and much smaller at the same price.
The Performas got rid of the SCSI HD, and were thus able to increase the size of the drive while dropping the price.
People were always complaining about the price of the drive upgrades that were so much smaller than a competing IDE drive of the day.
Heck how many people would buy a 2GB IDE drive instead of the drastically more expensive 500/750MB SCSI drive for a Performa, Quadra, etc.
And yes you could have put a SCSI drive in some of the machines since they still had a SCSI CD-ROM drive.
---
The switch to IDE drive helped Apple catch up the the PC specs rapidly, since we were falling behind rapidly at the time.
The drives were several times more expensive than an IDE drive and much smaller at the same price.
The Performas got rid of the SCSI HD, and were thus able to increase the size of the drive while dropping the price.
People were always complaining about the price of the drive upgrades that were so much smaller than a competing IDE drive of the day.
Heck how many people would buy a 2GB IDE drive instead of the drastically more expensive 500/750MB SCSI drive for a Performa, Quadra, etc.
And yes you could have put a SCSI drive in some of the machines since they still had a SCSI CD-ROM drive.
---
The switch to IDE drive helped Apple catch up the the PC specs rapidly, since we were falling behind rapidly at the time.
bousozoku said:
That's the thing -- with SCSI the intelligence for drive management is on the drive and the CPU load is minimized. With IDE and SATA, managing the drive takes cycles from the processor. Some early tests of SATA were coming in at 10% processor usage just to use the hard drive.
This was obviously a serious problem for a Mac with a 8 MHz - 120 MHz 68000- 603/604 processor, with not much processor speed to throw around. The heavy lifting *had* to be done by the peripheral's processor. The first IDE equipped Macs were some Performas (I forget the models) and the PowerMac 4400, which suffered from terrible performance.
Once the MHz started increasing and G3's came out, more tasks could be pushed onto the CPU, and cheaper peripherals with no onboard intelligence could be used.
This is one reason why machines with 40 times the raw processing power as ten years ago don't perform 40 times faster; more and more functions have been moved to "native" software, that is, run by the CPU rather than by outboard specialized processor chips. Well, that and the combination of software bloat and creeping featuritis, but that's another post.
- Still scarred from my first SCSI hard drive purchase: EMac (Everex) 20 Mb, (yes, M not G) $1495.00, for my Mac Plus. I still have the Plus and the Imagewriter LQ in the basement.
Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com
CanadaRAM said:
Hmm, I think you might be a little confused. IDE stands for "Integrated Drive Electronics". Basically, the controller chip was built in, onboard. This is one of the major parts which made the drives less expensive to manufacture.
They still might have taken more CPU time to process information, but, remember, SCSI needs a controller card which is MUCH more complex than an IDE controller.
BEN