14 Aug
2008
14 Aug
'08
12:42 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
For sure - but SCSI seemed to have a reputation for
being picky about
cabling, host adapter settings, device ordering etc. - all the exact
same things which have plagued IDE over the years. Given that IDE was
more accessible due to it being cheaper technology, I'm surprised
that it too didn't gain a reputation for requiring goat sacrifices
and the like that SCSI did. I suppose cost wins out over common sense
at times...
I got the impression that SCSI was used (in those days) in higher
end systems. If you stuck with one vendor, you probably only played
with well tested configs but if you tried to save money because "it's
all SCSI, it must all play together" then you could run into issues.
I know one of the reasons that DEC was late to the SCSI game was that
they felt it didn't meet their reliablity requirements.
If you used IDE in the PC space you would almost certainly be fine
unless you shoved two disks on one cable - and I guess that most
people (and corporations) didn't do that.
These days you would expect everything to work everywhere.
Antonio