ID: Memorex 3266?

jim stephens jwstephens at
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 
from the
device to the controller, and then converts over to the channel or escon 
from there.

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 
could be
hooked to escon and scsi at the same time, so that in a single machine 
room, one
could have workstation servers and mainframes attached at the same time 
to the
same silo.

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 
time stamp
on the message that was referenced.  I did not find any reference to 
that company
to see what equipment environment they work in.  I did find that the 
godaddy domain
name thieves have "parked" the 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 
pull off.
The transfer rate would not have killed you off necessarily, but the 
inter command
performance might have.


More information about the cctalk mailing list