🚀 go-pugleaf

A SCSI clash:
Why do Hewlett Packard recommend one SCSI adapter card per device???
Here's a problem concerning HP's Scanjet scanner and Surestore 
writeable CD ROM. I'm sure that the advice being given out by
manufacturers may well be 
wrong in some circumstances:

A friend's scanner came with its own 8 bit card which, while there was

only a scanner as a SCSI device in the computer, worked very well.
Next, a 
Surestore was fitted and it came with its own 16 bit SCSI card. Since 
SCSI interfaces should support up to 7 devices or more, we checked
with Hewlett  Packard about whether to continue using the existing
SCSI card for the scanner  and additionally install the new one for
the Surestore. They advised that we should (as does the Surestore
manual). This seemed wrong to us but the manual and HP indicated it
was  the right way to go...

Problems started straight away: intermittent hard disk lock up,
Windows 3.11 file 
manager deleting files instead of renaming (as selected), crashes and 
system lock up. A large number of  expensive international calls to HP
later, and they agreed with our thinking after all - the scanner and
the Suretore should be fitted to one common SCSI card. But they had no
idea if they had such a product or how it could be accomplished!

The motherboard is a PCI board fitted with a CYRIX 586 100MHz chip, 
256K cache, 32Mb RAM, internal mode 4 EIDE Hard disk controller and
its fitted with a Seagate 1Gb mode 4 drive and a Conner 850Mb mode 4.

Why are HP advising fitting a seperate SCSI interface for each 
peripheral. Does this not defeat the whole logic behind SCSI? What if 
this person gets a third SCSI device and then a fourth? Where will
they  fit the interface cards? Why don't HP supply a 16 bit or PCI
SCSI adapter board with a internal terminated connector for the
Surestore and an external socket for other devices like the Scanner
(or indeed an external kit to daisy chain the Surestore with other
devices?)

Does anyone out there agree with a policy of seperate SCSI cards for 
each device? Could the clash have damaged any part of the machine 
(thought to be very unlikely).
Thanks for any views.
Thomas.