[rescue] Various machines for sale

[Dave McGuire]

On 1/8/25 13:27, Mouse via rescue wrote:
>> Yeah that was always BS.  People just wouldn't take the five minutes
>> required to learn about what termination is and how to apply it.
> 
> It actually was remarkably tolerant.  I have discovered
> triple-terminated SCSI working just fine.  I think I even once saw a
> quadruply-terminated SCSI bus working.

   Yes, and that was by design.  I don't mean to say that 
over-termination is supported by the design, which it is not, but the 
design is deliberately resilient enough to handle it.

>> Doubly hilarious were the retards who loudly asserted that "IDE is
>> superior because it doesn't need those annoying terminators".
> 
> As much as I sympathize with (and mostly share) your point of view,
> actually, from the end user's point of view, that is correct: if the
> end user doesn't have to even think about such things, it *is*
> superior...for most users.  Most users would rather have simple-to-use
> over complex-to-use, even at the price of performance, flexibility, and
> complexity under the hood.  Witness USB. :-(

   Agreed.  But supposed *technical people* were saying crap like that. 
I'm not talking about nontechnical end users.

>> Because the n00bs who designed the IDE interface didn't understand
>> transmission line theory or impedance matching well enough to design
>> it into the interface does not mean it is "superior".
> 
> They understood it well enough to design an interface that would work
> without it.  (I suspect this mostly meant limiting cable lengths and
> speeds, but I'm not a transmission-line engineer.)

   Everything about the design says that they didn't understand one whit 
of it, and didn't understand mass storage interfaces in general. 
Absolutely nothing about it was a good idea.

                -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA