8 Oct
2011
8 Oct
'11
4:06 p.m.
On 10/8/2011 2:39 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 08/10/11 4:22 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
I seem to rememebr there were some issues where the original Apple SCSI,
as on the Mac+ wasn't quite the same as the rest of the world.
See, that's the difference between people who use Macs (and used them
the time) and the rest. Your superstition isn't true. There is perfect
interoperability with SCSI disks, tapes, scanners, printers, etc. This
was years in advance of the PC world noticing SCSI, of course...
While we're talking standard interfaces, Apple also introduced
IEEE-1394 to their desktops and laptops in advance of the rest.
There is no such thing as "perfect" interoperability on older SCSI
drives. Until drives had matured, the ITLQ nexus didn't work on most,
and you could kill drives by just sending out too many tag queue entries.
The PC world had several scsi vendors, but SCSI never caught on there
because the PC vendors always had a cheaper solution, again thru to the
current SATA interfaces. successor FCAL drive interfaces with scsi were
the same, never hit price points to work on the PC desktop.
There was a well known malfunction that had to do with CD rom blocksize
negotiation that both Sun and Apple exploited since very few drives had
the firmware fixed to conform with the change in blocksize they set
properly early on in the boot process. So you could not use a lot of CD
drives on either Apple or Sun systems.
whether intended or not, that contributed a sense that Apple didn't care
if their system products worked with third party products, since the
problem went unchanged until most CD vendors eventually changed their
firmware to conform with the command sequence that was a problem. IIRC
the standards committee resolved the problem by changing the standard to
resolve an ambiguity that was the real issue.
It is a matter of perception that a vendor of systems could have
changed, both Sun and Apple in their products. The change from 2k
blocksizes to 512 was not really necessary at the time they did it in
the boot sequence. They both talked to any drive just fine from the OS,
it was an issue only on booting.
Don't even slightly try to sell that Apple give a crap about
interoperability of product lifetime in their marketing and product
decisions. Their products are the textbook example of weird and cute
quirky hardware.
Another example, way off cctalk track. Ipod power / data connection.
Can anyone justify why there are different ipod connectors which are
incompatable, and why they don't use the mini usb?
I don't like that fact that they rarely, if ever,
follow standards.
Eh? The company that first made the leap to USB? SCSI?
This is one of the most egregious and ridiculous lies that people tell
about Apple.
I also remmeber that Apple Nubus was not the same as the Nubus standard.
Yes it does. The original Mac OSs didn't have any real way of automating
tasks. A computer is good at doing the same thing over and over again
with slight changes. Not to have that facility makes the machine
essentialyl useuless to me.
If you'd used a Mac you know that automation facilities existed in
System 7, 8 and 9, and of course OS X, and there was third party
automation at least in System 6. There were also command lines
available, not least the well respected MPW shell, if you wanted one.
--Toby
I
don't like the fact that early Mac OSs didn't have any form of
command
line
Eh, it didn't matter unless you were accustomed to a command line, and the Mac's targer user certainly was not. You
are not the classic Mac's
target user, clearly.
Clearly not.
-tony