That is NOT a SCSI Port! That's a generic DB-25 Connector! Apple was the only Dip$h . . . erm . . . idiotic . . . organization . . . that foisted this sub-standard connector on their users.

Click to expand...

Apple was not the only company. Iomega used it on the SCSI ZIP drives, and there were quite a few other peripheral makers that used it.

I think I even had a Compaq with one back in the late '80s or early '90s; but I may be remembering wrong.

Click to expand...

Correct, as I went on to say in that paragraph . . . [] ]'>

Other companies followed suit, but it was a stupid notion to begin with and it's STILL a . . .

Click to expand...

The Zip went into production many years after the 512ke, the first Mac to have SCSI, IIRC. Several PC mfrs used Apple's bastardization of the SCSI Spec, but it was Apple that opened the floodgates on that particular brand of idiocy.

To be accurate, GAP should have phrased it as "DB-25 port", yes. (P.S. I don't see you correcting people who improperly use "DB-xx" to refer to ports other than the width of the DB-25 port.

Click to expand...

Actually, the DB moniker was in such widespread use for ALL "standard density" D-shaped connectors in the computer press back in the day (and persists to this day it would seem) that I never caught on to the existence of "proper" nomenclature! Thanks for setting the record straight about the terms for the different D-Shell widths and use of the HD suffix.

Besides, it's only the DB-25/SCSI nonsense that drives me batty!

Back on topic! :

On further thought, using a straight-thru DB-25 <-> DB-25 cable to compare to an Apple DB-25 <-> Centronics 50 (a TelCo 25 Pair Connector modified by Centronics to use bails in lieu of the offset screw down lugs on TelCo connectors, BTW! [] ]'> ) would seem to be a more comprehensive test.

Meanwhile, you've piqued my curiosity, so I'll rummage through my toy boxes again! :rambo: