Jump to content
Byte Knight

You can never have too many storage options...

Recommended Posts

IMG_3769.thumb.jpg.4336876c02146cc61bc50b62d71938a3.jpg

Can you?

 

I've got a SCSI2SD board in both my LC III and Mac Bottom SCSI external HD (which came with my SE/30 and had a dead HD).  The PDS slot is taken up by a IIe card, so I had to go with the AsantePrint 8 to get it on my network.  I was pleasantly surprised that I could connect to the vtools server through the internet!

 

IMG_3765.thumb.jpg.3dfb88e5dbbc3663e9732dfa9d65c9d1.jpg

IMG_3777.thumb.jpg.5d5a1a61a97c5eba86d473f39846be16.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 2:55 PM, Byte Knight said:

 I was pleasantly surprised that I could connect to the vtools server through the internet!

At first I was like "I'm glad I'm not the only one who calls my software share "sw"" until I read this.

 

Very nice!

 

19 hours ago, LaPorta said:

Very nicely done. There's your answer to busting the 2 GB limit on these systems!

7.5.5 and 7.6 should be able to do 4-gig partitions on an LC III. Most '040s minus PowerBooks and the 630/580 should be able to do up to 2TB volumes over SCSI.

 

14 minutes ago, pcamen said:

How about adding a zip 100 and a Syquest 44 to the mix, he he.  

Bernoulli!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  1 hour ago, pcamen said:

How about adding a zip 100 and a Syquest 44 to the mix, he he.  

Bernoulli!

 

Never had or seen a Bernoulli, but have all the others (Syquest, Zip, Jaz...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

7.5.5 and 7.6 should be able to do 4-gig partitions on an LC III. Most '040s minus PowerBooks and the 630/580 should be able to do up to 2TB volumes over SCSI.

I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool! I will +1 for the Syquest; that’s my favorite (most reliable) removable storage I have found for Macs so far. I do like Zip too, but as we all know, they can be iffy. I remember a couple of years ago, I had two Zip drives fail in two different PCs in the same week. I’ve had better luck with the external units so far. 

 

I’d like to have a Bernoulli drive for my IBM PCs and XTs. They are pretty hard to find unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention expensive, even when plentiful. I recall looking up disks during their EOL period, still being sold in catalogs, seeing a low three-figure sum for a 44MB cart and thinking "okay, zip disks it is…"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

7.5.5 and 7.6 should be able to do 4-gig partitions on an LC III. Most '040s minus PowerBooks and the 630/580 should be able to do up to 2TB volumes over SCSI.

Good to know!  That should cut my number of HD images in 1/2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, pcamen said:

How about adding a zip 100 and a Syquest 44 to the mix, he he.  

I had a zip 100 back in the day, but it always hacked me off that those disks were so expensive.  The zip drives were available for how many years and those damn disks never seemed to come down in price, I imagine because no one else besides Iomega was allowed to produce the disks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And realistically in this day and age, 100MB is very small, even for hobby-ing.  .  I am going to set up a system with a Syquest 44MB drive just because that is what I had back in the day, for nostalgic reasons.  I had an un-accelerated SE/30 with an external video card and a Syquest drive with like 5 cartridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 9:41 AM, jessenator said:

Not to mention expensive, even when plentiful. I recall looking up disks during their EOL period, still being sold in catalogs, seeing a low three-figure sum for a 44MB cart and thinking "okay, zip disks it is…"

3.5" Magneto Optical was the way to go.  They were about the same speed as ZIP, but in that time frame, held 640 MB per cartridge and the cartridges cost  about the same as Zips.    The difference was that the MO drives were still about $250 when the Zip drives were closer to $100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never bothered with MO carts when they were new, too expensive for the drives, but love them now. Removable media in general is fun to collect and use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Byte Knight said:

those damn disks never seemed to come down in price, I imagine because no one else besides Iomega was allowed to produce the disks.

Iomega was intentionally selling the Zip drives at or below cost, and was selling the disks for a relatively healthy margin.

 

The intent was to, essentially, simulate the razor blade/ink printer markets. Theory theory was that with the drives and disks priced just so, they'd be able to generate near infinite demand.

 

In reality, the costs for the disks were high enough that the storage market for '90s data-hoarders didn't really materialize the way Iomega thought it did.

 

The other thing is Iomega spent a lot of money getting Zip into as many retailers and pre-built systems as possible. It was a successful plan to build something that defacto ended up succeeding floppies until USB flash disks became possible/reasonable in 2003, but.

 

As far as disk production, Fuji and I believe possibly Imation (I'd have to check) produced their own. Fuji was building the internal magnetic media, so Iomega licensed the rest of the cartridge design back to them.

 

This is moderately ironic because Iomega made at least some of the money that made it possible for Zip to exist and for Syquest to stop existing by (along with Nomai) cloning SyQuest 44/88/200 cartridges, due to a technicality in the way SyQuest's patent was written and the actual physical design of the way their drives and cartridges were built.

 

The other frustrating thing is that Iomega had better technologies, but Zip is just what ended up being cheap enough to sell like that. Even worse is that ultimately MO was actually cheaper per megabyte than Zip if you had more than just a couple disks worth of data.

5 minutes ago, pcamen said:

just because that is what I had back in the day, for nostalgic reasons. 

Fun and nostalgia is pretty much the only reason to use any of these formats for anything. SCSI2SD v5.5 is arguably better and more reliable as a removable or swappable media format for any kind of "actual use".

 

I picked up an EZ-135 and a Bernoulli 230, mostly because they're Neat. I have some Zip stuff, but I dislike it a lot, aesthetically, mostly because I believe Iomega behaved very badly as a company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify Re MO: By 1998, which was admittedly a couple years into Zip being available, MO was less expensiver per gig, for the cartridges, but with the up front cost of a drive, there's obviously a particular crossover point at which you either have under or over a certain amount where one of the options is, in total, more eocnomical than the other.

 

I haven't put together information on what that looked like in, say, 1997, or 1996. Of course, in the US in particular, a lot of what made Zip "win" was that you could buy the cartridges at Wal Mart and Staples.

 

That late 1998 issue of MacWorld was the one where MacWorld correctly identified "add more hard disks" as the msot viable and cost effective general purpose storage solution, and that's pretty much been where we've been since.

 

Relatedly, the big disadvantage of MO is traditionally performance. 

 

Cartridge systems have existed since, but the advent of USB and Firewire meant that the need for a storage platter to be removable from the actual "mechanism" is essentially long gone. Without removable systems, you would previously have had to turn off your computer and re-wire internal or external peripherals to change what particular set of data you were working on, especially for any piece of information bigger than a floppy diskette.

 

EDIT/add:

In 1998, the other-other thing is that 640-meg 3.5" MO cartridges are less expensive than both Zip and Jaz per-meg, but if Zip filled a need for relatively small datasets. Older 128/230-meg MO cartridges would have worked in a 640 mechanism, but I don't know at that moment how that would have changed the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 44MB SyQuest drive in a Compact form factor case and man, it's just perfect for a single drive Plus or additional storage on the SEs and SE/30, and doesn't take up any more room on the desk.  But wow, is it LOUD.

 

Should fire up my Zip drive sometime and see if it still works.  I even have the Zip battery pack for it - bet that thing's quite dead by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha.... recently did that - My Quadra 700 has ultra wide SCSI via adapter in it - its 36gb, I've partitioned it in 2x 1.2gb, 4x 2gb - works well!
Cheers

AP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding hard disks was always the way to go, but very few saw it due to the price unless they truly did the math and a little shopping, even in the very early days.

 

Case in point: my Mac LC and its storage issue. When I got the machine in 1992, it came with a 40MB drive. That was the more affordable option, and when buying a new system, that's usually a major point of contention. RAM was falling in price and was easy to install, so that part of the puzzle was easy to solve, but storage was at a premium on that drive. A 40MB drive will already be over a third of the way full with a typical System 7.1 installation and Word 5.1 with typical options installed. Toss in MacDraw, Print Shop, Kid Pix, the Apple IIe Card driver, and a few games and the drive is reaching its limit. If there's a big-ticket item like Spelunx to be installed, plenty of programs are going to have to be relegated to floppy disk. Most of my HyperCard stacks were run from floppies, for example.

 

My dad got tired of hearing me complain about the hard drive being too small. He did his homework and decided a 160MB external SCSI hard drive was the way to go. It didn't have cartridges, but was an effective one-time purchase that would deliver good performance and a decent dollar to megabyte ratio. It wasn't the largest drive available in 1993, when it was purchased, but fit the budget and my needs. The Apple-branded drives were expensive, but the LaCie got a good review and used the same Quantum mechanism. Between the two drives, there would be 200MB of storage, and as a bonus, the LaCie drive came with Silverlining, DiskDup, and a bevy of shareware.

 

Is it expandable like a SyQuest or Bernoulli? Absolutely not. However, in the end, it had the right mix of storage space, performance, and affordability. 

 

Zip disks came out the following year if memory serves me right, so they weren't an option, but even if they were, this drive probably would have been a little better of a deal. It took years to outgrow it, and by that time, I had an iBook with a 6GB drive sitting alongside the LC. I still have all of the aforementioned equipment, and while I did dabble in Zip disks, the hard drive has outlived them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×