• Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this post for more info about the recent service interruption and migration.

Announcing ZuluSCSI - A file-based SCSI device emulator

Juror22

Well-known member
Okay - I have to weigh in here.
Also, not starting any arguments. :)
1) I love the name, AzulSCSI - I am unconcerned with its heritage, derivation or relationship to another azure-color-named SCSI replacement device. I just think that it has the right amount of 'nerd-appeal', as well as a cosmopolitan sound to it.
2) I like what has been posted so far about why it was created, how it is configured and what can be realistically expected of it. I will definitely be picking up a couple to setup and check out.
 

stepleton

Well-known member
I have to admit having been confused too. When I saw the post title, my first thought was whether it was something with a replacement/adaptation/supplement/new generation/derivative relationship to BlueSCSI. I don't know anything about the dispute that's referenced earlier.

Regardless, having more SCSI emulators and beating the chip shortage is great news! I need some emulators for a couple of Macs that still have spinning disks, and it's great to have so much choice. (All of my NeXTs, meanwhile, have had red-PCB SCSI2SDs for years.)
 

Skate323k137

Well-known member
I have to admit having been confused too. When I saw the post title, my first thought was whether it was something with a replacement/adaptation/supplement/new generation/derivative relationship to BlueSCSI.


Likelihood of confusion exists between trademarks when the marks are so similar and the goods and/or services for which they are used are so related that consumers would mistakenly believe they come from the same source. Each application is decided on its own facts, and no strict mechanical test exists for determining likelihood of confusion.
 

superjer2000

Well-known member
I have to admit having been confused too. When I saw the post title, my first thought was whether it was something with a replacement/adaptation/supplement/new generation/derivative relationship to BlueSCSI. I don't know anything about the dispute that's referenced earlier.

Regardless, having more SCSI emulators and beating the chip shortage is great news! I need some emulators for a couple of Macs that still have spinning disks, and it's great to have so much choice. (All of my NeXTs, meanwhile, have had red-PCB SCSI2SDs for years.)
I am in the same position here. I don’t know the background of the prior disagreement but I thought this was an updated BlueSCSI originally.

I would have picked a scsi2sd related name personally.
 

Compgeke

Well-known member
How did what HDD replacement you use become such a controversial topic? I'd swear everyone's picking a cult to join or something. I'm in favor of whatever's most compatible, particularly since price is a bit irrelevant for these things (one's like $10 cheaper than the other? It's going in a $200+ machine, that's negligible).

I'm glad to see more options in the community. Quick question RE CD support; does it emulate a drive that does 512 byte sector support? That'd be great for old Unix machines where it's becoming a struggle to find functioning optical drives with support (since all the Toshibas are dying). I've personally gone through that pain on my Suns and RS/6000s.
 

olePigeon

Well-known member
I have a question: Would it be possible to do something like this via Software? What I mean is, have a Control Panel that can mount a file as a virtual Floppy Disk. I don't mean as a mounted image, but for the OS to see it as a real floppy disk. Some software is smart enough to know that it's not being run from a real floppy drive.
 

rabbitholecomputing

Vendor The First
How did what HDD replacement you use become such a controversial topic? I'd swear everyone's picking a cult to join or something. I'm in favor of whatever's most compatible, particularly since price is a bit irrelevant for these things (one's like $10 cheaper than the other? It's going in a $200+ machine, that's negligible).
Agreed. There's definitely a place for BlueSCSI, but AzulSCSI has been tested to be up to three times faster at reads, assuming you're using it on a machine that doesn't have an 8MHz 68000 CPU.

I'm glad to see more options in the community. Quick question RE CD support; does it emulate a drive that does 512 byte sector support? That'd be great for old Unix machines where it's becoming a struggle to find functioning optical drives with support (since all the Toshibas are dying). I've personally gone through that pain on my Suns and RS/6000s.
Both SCSI2SD and AzulSCSI can emulate CD-ROM drives with 512 byte sectors. The default with AzulSCSI is 2048, but you can override it by naming a file "CDn_512.iso"
 

MacKilRoy

Well-known member
If I purchase an AzulSCSI with the optional external 25 pin connector, does that override the internal 50 pin connector, or are both installed on the device?

The page says this:
  • Optional DB25 pin header for direct installation of an external SCSI connector, in addition to the Single-Ended 50 pin IDC connector

So I take that to mean I could use the same device internally OR externally (and back again), without any changes to the device itself?
 

MacKilRoy

Well-known member

Edited before I could reply.

Personally, I would have done something like calling it purpleSCSI or even moradoSCSI (which means purple in Spanish), and ordered purple-colored PCBs. There is zero confusion with regards to that. But that's just me. People can call things what they want, I guess.
 

rabbitholecomputing

Vendor The First
If I purchase an AzulSCSI with the optional external 25 pin connector, does that override the internal 50 pin connector, or are both installed on the device?

The page says this:


So I take that to mean I could use the same device internally OR externally (and back again), without any changes to the device itself?
Correct. Yes, if you purchase it with the DB25 connector installed, you can use either connector, but not both at the same time. The IDC connector is soldered on at the fatory. The DB25 connector is soldered on by us, when someone buys that configuration. The AzulSCSI PCB layout is derived from the SCSI2SD V5.1 board design, which we own the IP of.
 

Skate323k137

Well-known member
Edited before I could reply.

Personally, I would have done something like calling it purpleSCSI or even moradoSCSI (which means purple in Spanish), and ordered purple-colored PCBs. There is zero confusion with regards to that. But that's just me. People can call things what they want, I guess.
I would have been good with that TBH. Not my call, but still.

SCSI2SD V6 Speed with ease of use of BlueSCSI: Very awesome.
Textbook case of a trade mark causing likelihood of confusion: Very not awesome
Dodging all the questions about the name: /shrug

BTW, I spent over a decade sorting trademark, DMCA, and copyright cases for a major web hosting company. I could be a lot stronger in my wording here.
 

rabbitholecomputing

Vendor The First
I would have been good with that TBH. Not my call, but still.

SCSI2SD V6 Speed with ease of use of BlueSCSI: Very awesome.
Textbook case of a trade mark causing likelihood of confusion: Very not awesome
BlueSCSI is _not_ a registered trademark, nor is there a pending registration. Check TESS yourself.

Dodging all the questions about the name: /shrug

BTW, I spent over a decade sorting trademark, DMCA, and copyright cases for a major web hosting company. I could be a lot stronger in my wording here.
Choosing to not answer is not dodging. We considered many other names. If we'd named the product "BluuSCSI", "BlauSCSI", or something else that sounds remotely similar (Azul doesn't), it might be a legitimate concern. The product works like BlueSCSI. It's faster and has an overall more mature set of features, as well as far greater compatibility.
 

Skate323k137

Well-known member
BlueSCSI is _not_ a registered trademark, nor is there a pending registration. Check TESS yourself.
Thanks for clarifying. Whether it is registered or not, it is a product sold commercially under that name by various sources, and consumers are aware of it.
Choosing to not answer is not dodging. We considered many other names. If we'd named the product "BluuSCSI", "BlauSCSI", or something else that sounds remotely similar (Azul doesn't), it might be a legitimate concern. The product works like BlueSCSI. It's faster and has an overall more mature set of features, as well as far greater compatibility.
What other names did you consider? -ANYTHING- related to marks consumers already know your company for? You're a well established solution already, this is just downright unnecessary.

And phonetics are not the only deciding factor. Above already establishes the further functional similarities in your own words. Subsequently, read this again:
Likelihood of confusion exists between trademarks when the marks are so similar and the goods and/or services for which they are used are so related that consumers would mistakenly believe they come from the same source. Each application is decided on its own facts, and no strict mechanical test exists for determining likelihood of confusion.

If BlueSCSI were registered, you would not have a leg to stand on. That bolded part has been proven already repeatedly in this thread alone.

Regardless, just because you're legally right, doesn't make you morally right. I'll leave it there. (PS, I own several SCSI2SD devices, I'm not here to just be rude. However, I will probably not purchase any more if this is the general attitude of Inertial / Rabbithole).
 
Last edited:

rabbitholecomputing

Vendor The First
Thanks for clarifying. Whether it is registered or not, it is a product sold commercially under that name by various sources, and consumers are aware of it.

What other names did you consider? -ANYTHING- related to marks consumers already know your company for? You're a well established solution already, this is just downright unnecessary.
SCSI2SD is not a trademarkable term. We tried, and failed. It's a matter of public record in TESS.
If BlueSCSI were registered, you would not have a leg to stand on. That bolded part has been proven already repeatedly in this thread alone.
You say that as if we're not aware of this reality already.
Regardless, just because you're legally right, doesn't make you morally right. I'll leave it there.
Neither does claiming to not be running a commercial operation, when you actually are. There's plenty of hypocracy on the other side, if you care to look for it.
 

Cory5412

Daring Pioneer of the Future
Staff member
Let's go ahead and wrap this up w/re the name. I think we've gotten as much out of this as we really can.

The point has been sufficiently made: If you were designing, building, and selling this device, you would have given it a different name.
 
Top