home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!mimsy!afterlife!adm!news
- From: sgi.com!pdi!shoshana@BRL.MIL (Shoshana Abrass)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.misc
- Subject: Re: Hard drives...
- Message-ID: <34821@adm.brl.mil>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 23:05:07 GMT
- Sender: news@adm.brl.mil
- Lines: 35
-
-
- In <u6katos@zuni.esd.sgi.com> olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson) writes:
-
- > The problem with moving drives to the Mac is that many models
- > of Mac (all but the most recent?) don't handle unit attention
- > properly on power up or after SCSI bus reset.
- >
- > Conversely, many drives for the Mac have rather poor SCSI
- > implementations. The Quantum drive will probably work, but
- > there are no guarantees. --
-
- I can't let this pass without comment. Undoubtedly, from the
- standpoint of a scsi technician, an sgi (indigoes and personal
- irises) is superior to a macintosh.
-
- Unfortunately, from the standpoint of Joe User, Mac scsi is a
- dream to work with compared to the sgi. We can attach any number
- of scsi devices to our macs - disks, scanners, tape drives, etc. -
- from any manufacturer, and they just WORK.
-
- With the sgi's, every time we attach a new disk drive we run
- the risk of encountering scsi bus errors, timeouts, etc. When
- we get above four scsi devices, we need to start messing around
- with cables - a few inches in cable length can make all the
- difference. We've never had this problem on the macs.
-
- I wish sgi had made their scsi bus more robust even at the
- expense of making it a "poor implementation". I'd rather have
- it work in the real world, than have the comfort of knowing
- it's a perfect implementation of the spec.
-
- -shoshana
- shoshana@pdi.com
- Shoshana Abrass
- Pacific Data Images, Sunnyvale, CA
-