Re: Apple's ways

[Roy Miller <millers@inebraska.com>]

Greg Buchner wrote:

> <snip>
>
> SCSI's at 160MB with 320MB coming...but it's expensive.  You want
> performance, you have to pay for it...early on it was better for Apple
> to do SCSI because it was faster

This is the second post that seemed to fail to remember why Apple put SCSI
in the Mac - and it wasn't because SCSI was superior to what didn't exist
yet (IDE). Apple gave the Mac SCSI because it was the only way to put a
bus "in" what we now call the compact Mac. The Plus could not have real
slots. Even when they learned to squeeze things tighter and put the PDS
into the SE, SCSI was the only really practical way to add hard drives,
scanners, cameras, etc. to a "compact" Mac (has anybody here ever tried
putting a card into the SE PDS? And having floppy/hard drives in the SE
too? Much too crowded in there!

Now, once the Mac II line came out, then yes, SCSI's superiority was the
reason to stay with it, but that wasn't the reason the Plus introduced
SCSI to the Mac line.

Roy

> (although they didn't keep up on the
> speed over the years), but eventually IDE became a better deal.
>
> Plus, there's always SCSI's ability to have several devices on the
> chain, from 7 to 15 (or maybe more in some of the later versions,
> haven't kept up with that.)
>
> Greg B.
> --
> Note:  To e-mail me, replace nobody with gbuchner
> I don't get junk e-mail and intend to keep it that way.
> If you want to send me spam, go jump off a cliff and make
> the world a nicer place.