Chuck(G)
25k Member
I was a bit let down that the Syquest Sparq drive was offered only in parallel port version. I've got one and i think I've had it out of the container only once.
- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
"removable disc/cartridge" SCSI drives that can act as a fixed disk drive
- Thread starter Jackson
- Start date
krebizfan
Veteran Member
Sparq was also available in an IDE version though I think those only accounted for about 10% of production.
Sparq should be treated as warning of how cost cutting could go too far. Most of the problems I have seen with Sparq were caused by the tray not inserting evenly.
Samir
Experienced Member
From what I recall, the Sparq drive was basically introduced to compete with the Jaz which was doing much better than the Syjet 1.5gb due to errors on the cartridges. I could be completely off base here as my memory has faded quite a bit about those years, but living through them was quite exciting--Jaz, zip, syquest, mo, floptical, oh my!
krebizfan
Veteran Member
Syjet was a follow on to the 270MB design. Originally about 650 MB which seemed reliable in prototypes; doubled to 1.3 GB when Iomega introduced Jaz; increased to 1.5 GB just before release and didn't work. Sparq was to be the ultra cost reduced drive that would have Zip drive appeal. Then there was Quest to get DVD equivalent capacity on a disk. With additional competitors like Avatar Shark and Castlewood Orb and the couple of roughly 2" designs, there must have been close to 20 different systems using removable disks between 1995 and 2000. Exciting unless data gets stored in one of the failure prone models.
Samir
Experienced Member
Ah yes! All those others too!
We found in our analysis that by the time you ate the drive cost and got 1gb worth of media, the cost was less than a hard drive. But then hard drive prices started dropping as capacities increased. The removable drive in all forms was doomed once this paradigm shift arrived.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Don't forget the MO drives, such as the PMC Apex. I believe that one could boot from that as well.
Samir
Experienced Member
Neat! Any driver needed for this?
I know I've still got a Maxoptix 4.6GB (2.3Gb per side) 5.25" optical drive and media. I just hope everything works as I still had some data on all that stuff.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
The PM stuff (and probably the Maxoptix) was plain old SCSI, so you could set your controller to boot from it, I seem to remember. They behave like regular hard drives, although PM did offer drivers.
Right after the Apex, Pinnacle circled the drain. Those drives were horrible--they'd go out for seemingly no reason at all. PM was snowed under with warranty returns and were giving numbers like 6 weeks to 3 months before you'd receive a swapped drive (i.e. not you own, but someone else's repaired drive).
Right after the Apex, Pinnacle circled the drain. Those drives were horrible--they'd go out for seemingly no reason at all. PM was snowed under with warranty returns and were giving numbers like 6 weeks to 3 months before you'd receive a swapped drive (i.e. not you own, but someone else's repaired drive).
Samir
Experienced Member
You know what--that drive we have is a Pinnacle Micro. I remember because the first one just stopped working for no reason one day and was replaced under warranty.
NeXT
Veteran Member
Sony SMO-S501 and SMO-D501 have a dip switch on the back that make the drive specify to the controller and operating system if it is a fixed or removable device.
I have a few 1.3GB MO drives and a couple 2.6GB ones (ALL SCSI) but never bothered with the 4.xGB ones because they were junk and media is hard to find.
CDR and eventually DVDR killed removable drives just because anybody you wanted to send data to had an optical drive that could read it.
A Parallel port Sparq drive must have been slow. I liked Iomega Jazz drives since they were SCSI.
Collecting removable drives is fun.
CDR and eventually DVDR killed removable drives just because anybody you wanted to send data to had an optical drive that could read it.
A Parallel port Sparq drive must have been slow. I liked Iomega Jazz drives since they were SCSI.
Collecting removable drives is fun.
Samir
Experienced Member
The 4.6gb one we have is actually a 2.3gb per side drive and you have to flip the cartridge over. Were these compatible with your 2.6gb drives?
krebizfan
Veteran Member
IIRC, the small differences in capacity like 2.3 GB versus 2.6 GB were the result of different sector sizes. 2.3 GB used 512 bytes per sector while 2.6 GB used 1024 bytes per sector. Plus there were any number of proprietary capacities.
Some drives supported multiple sector sizes. Most drives had the ability to read/write half capacity discs and read only for quarter capacity; some stretched read only support all the way back to 640MB. The proprietary capacities were generally only supported by the drive that made it and the replacement for it at the next higher capacity. Rather obviated the longevity of WORM discs if it becomes impossible to find a drive that reads those discs.
Parallel port drives were slow; filling a 1 GB Sparq disk took basically the lunch hour. On the other hand, the parallel port drive was a lot easier to attach to a new system.
Some drives supported multiple sector sizes. Most drives had the ability to read/write half capacity discs and read only for quarter capacity; some stretched read only support all the way back to 640MB. The proprietary capacities were generally only supported by the drive that made it and the replacement for it at the next higher capacity. Rather obviated the longevity of WORM discs if it becomes impossible to find a drive that reads those discs.
Parallel port drives were slow; filling a 1 GB Sparq disk took basically the lunch hour. On the other hand, the parallel port drive was a lot easier to attach to a new system.
Samir
Experienced Member
Ah yes, the sector sizing. I believe our drive was using 2048 sectors, so it might be one of those formats that was one step away from the WORM drives.
And I think you bring up a good point on why removable storage (and even tapes drives for that matter) never made it as a long term archive medium--the inability to play back the media. Just think of the record on the Voyager spacecraft--in another 40 years or so, even the civilization that created it won't be able to listen to it. Audio and video cassettes have almost already gone this route. I think the CD format might have even started to fade into history if they weren't the best way to physically distribute music.
Depending on what type of parallel port it was, you could get higher data rates--nothing near internal drives, but faster. We actually still have a xircom external ethernet adapter that could transfer at maximum parallel port rates, and that was never full ethernet speeds. (Very convenient though.)
cchaven
Experienced Member
I know my Pinnacle Micro Sierra 1.3GB is 1024 bytes/sector but it will also work with the 512 bytes/sector media that DOS wants.
The interesting thing about records/LP/etc is that it really doesn't take much to play them back. Just look at the acoustic era with the RCA Victrola and Edison Amberola machines. Wax and plastic cylinders and shellac disks played back with little more than a needle of various types vibrating a diaphragm and amplified by a large horn. Nothing electrical and the most complex part of the machine was the spring wound motor. I'd think it'd be fairly easy to any advanced civilization to figure out how to read them.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Oh, I don't know about that. 1/2" magnetic tape on open reels has proved to be a very durable medium. Lately, I've been working with tapes that are more than 50 years old quite successfully.
Got anything else that's more than 50 years old for data storage? Paper, maybe?
Do you really expect data stashed in the cloud to be around in 50 years? I have trouble finding stuff on the net written 5 years ago.
For example
Last edited:
ziloo
Veteran Member
Chuck(G)
25k Member
Look at the date on that tape. Know any other data storage medium that lasts 50 years and isn't paper?
Samir claims that "tape never made it as a long term archive medium".
That tape was already 10 years old when Voyager 1 was launched--and it's quite readable today.
Samir claims that "tape never made it as a long term archive medium".
That tape was already 10 years old when Voyager 1 was launched--and it's quite readable today.
krebizfan
Veteran Member
Clay. Stone. Sumerian missives can still be located and translated which is a longevity not even paper can match.
Some of the modern storage methods should last for centuries barring fire or explosion. But a tricky format that only works on a single model of drive is a bad idea for storage. I know companies that preferred the manufacturer suggested special format and now have no easy way to read the data back. Getting 10% more data on disc or tape is not worth the aggravation of vendor lock-in.
ziloo
Veteran Member
You just cross correlated the lunar orbiter tape with the voyager's launch date...!!!???
I don't think there would ever be a storage medium to compete with yours Chuck! :clap:
ziloo :mrgreen: