From: "Pat Farrell" <pfarrell@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 14:05:19 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Hardware generators was: your mail
Message-ID: <61288.pfarrell@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message Sun, 19 Jun 1994 11:24:34 -0600,
  Richard Johnson <Richard.Johnson@Colorado.EDU>  writes:
>
> How about a SCSI device instead.  Most UNIX boxes and Macs nowadays have
> a few unused SCSI IDs.  The great majority of DOS machines with SCSI (all
> those new ones with CD-ROMs, etc.) have unused SCSI IDs.  SCSI has the
> advantage of being rather fast, and is a cross-platform solution.

Sadly, the state of PC platform SCSI is in turmoil, at least right now.
Microsoft is working hard to convince folks that Enhanced-IDE is the
answer, and many CD-ROMs, big disks, etc. that are aimed at the mass
market are no longer SCSI, but E-IDE.

I don't think you can substantiate your claim that a "great majority of
DOS machines" have SCSI.

Worse, MS is pushing hard to push into Windows-for-Workgroups. Many OEMs
no longer ship Windows, even for standalone PCs. They ship W4Wg.
W4Wg's support for SCSI devices is a step or two down from even
W4Wg 3.10. My SCSI disk setup (1.7GB Maxtor) is significantly slower under
W4Wg 3.11 because MS changed things to the point that I no longer have
32-bit disk I/O.

Chicago is claimed to have "better" SCSI support, but I was hoping that
I could get this at least prototyped this summer. No RSN reliance
on 3rd party vendors for me, thanks.

Right now, SCSI is too high-end (Suns, HP, Macs, serious PCs, etc.)
for the market that I have in mind.

Pat

Pat Farrell      Grad Student                 pfarrell@cs.gmu.edu
Department of Computer Science    George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Public key availble via finger          #include <standard.disclaimer>