12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
5:20 p.m.
The problem is that SCSI never has been cheap, and it still used those accursed ribbon
cables. I've spent hours fighting with those cables trying to get them to fit...
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-08-12, at 8:13 PM, Mouse <mouse at rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
Well that
was one of the reasons. ;) ATA/IDE was one of the
worst-designed interconnects in the history of this industry. Even
the PC weeniez knew it had to go. SATA, for all of its faults, is a
godsend!
A godsend...to hardware makers and others who benefit from forced
obsolescence.
There was a perfectly good alternative to ATA/IDE, and has been for
ages. It's called SCSI. It is, and was at the time SATA was
introduced, a mature, proven technology with a huge installed base.
I trust you'll forgive a certain amount of cynical belief on my part
that forced incompatbility in both directions of both hosts and disks
was a major part of what drove the imposition of SATA on customers.
That and NIH are the only excuses I can think of for it.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
[...run eight
parallel data pairs...]
The problem is that in general you can't [as speeds
rise, skew and
crosstalk get bad]. That's why we have gone SATA rather than PATA.