You are correct indeed, a PITA wow good thing those days are behind us all.edesignuk said: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.
To terminate or not to terminate.Patmian212 said:I dont remember much from the scuzzy days so can anyone refresh my memory... What amde it a pain in the ash?
If you do not remember all the better however as the poster above has stated some generalized issues with SCSI:Patmian212 said:I dont remember much from the scuzzy days so can anyone refresh my memory... What amde it a pain in the ash?
Norouzi said: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.
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.jxyama said:SCSI also wasn't hot-pluggable, no?
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.Norouzi 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.
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! 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.
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.maya said: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.
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.bousozoku said: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.
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.CanadaRAM 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.