schlang wrote on 2022-03-03, 15:48:
SCSI drives are heavy and noisy, I don't see the practical (!) benefit in retro PCs. All the stuff you are going to do on these old computers will be random access, you will almost never do stuff that will achieve linear reads and high troughput
SCSI has a long history, though, so it's inevitable linked to retro computing.
The early Macintosh used it for example, and certain MIDI devices.
The Japanese systems also used SCSI at some point.
That's why projects like RaSCSI exist in first place, I suppose.
Personally, I never really had trouble with SCSI myself.
I admit I didn't do use cutting-edge SCSI technology, either, on the other hand.
I mean, such things like that Trantor controller on my PAS16 weren't very quick, either.
But they seemingly did work they way they should. 🤷♂️
Edit: There used to be caching controllers, also.
SCSI was nice in multi-tasking/-user environments, I guess.
Early IDE was limited to PIO etc most of the time (DOS) and relied on brute-force, whereas SCSI was more intelligent.
Edit: To be fair, there was a drawbrack, also.
Not all of the SCSI controllers provided an int13h handler, which was required for DOS.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//