ID: Memorex 3266?
jwstephens at msm.umr.edu
Tue Oct 25 12:45:22 CDT 2005
Chuck Guzis wrote:
>How about this one:
>I don't think they were SCSI!
>On 10/24/2005 at 11:39 PM jim stephens wrote:
my only reason for suggesting scsi it that some IBM equipment has SCSI
device to the controller, and then converts over to the channel or escon
That has fallen out of favor, but our vintage equipment has that
feature. The tape silos
that were manufactured used fast wide 3490e drives for instance, and
hooked to escon and scsi at the same time, so that in a single machine
could have workstation servers and mainframes attached at the same time
I looked at your link, which was interesting. The "Protronyx" reference
in the post
was a possible bit of information, but seems to be dead before the 1988
on the message that was referenced. I did not find any reference to
to see what equipment environment they work in. I did find that the
name thieves have "parked" the Protronyx.com domain for someone to trip
and that was only done in may of 2005.
You probably are right, however based on the streaming 125 ips transfer
which for pre 1988 scsi would have been a pretty interesting trick to
The transfer rate would not have killed you off necessarily, but the
performance might have.
More information about the cctalk