From: Phil Carmody on 5 Mar 2007 06:05 krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > In article <9ldku21o58531j21nnipbg2qorbqtc71li(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:38:29 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: > > > > >If you accept that there are disk controllers controlling > > >controllers. > > > > > > IDE controllers are ALL ON THE DRIVE. > > Clueless. > > > The part on the MOBO is called an I/O interface, NOT a drive > > controller. > > You couldn't be more clueless, Dumbulb. Actually, he's right. What's on the mobo is the bus controller. Once it's pumped onto that bus it doesn't matter what device is at the far end. Sure, it's most likely to be a physical IDE hard disk drive, but to the motherboard it's just a black box. Are you confusing IDE drivers with IDE controllers? IDE drivers are the things that need to know what commands are to be written onto the IDE bus. They aren't drive controllers though. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Mar 2007 06:07 krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: > > Yes,yes. Is this hardware or software? Note, for the purposes > > of this discussion, firmware is soft. Oh, and exclude optical-- > > I don't understand that stuff. > > Firm^Wsoftware on the disk drive's controller. And this drive controller is where? This will be fun... Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 5 Mar 2007 06:09 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <87zm6t5c5o.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > [....] > >> You are telling the developers that they are wrong?!! > > > >He's telling you you're wrong. I don't believe you could develop > >anything more complex than gout. > > Lots of very complex but wrong software has been developed. Damn. Good point. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 06:54 In article <ro5mu25t5k632vamea8fgrhot2q21do65k(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:24:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>That is not a bit by bit compare. > > For the most part, yes it is as there cannot be one bit out of place >and yield the same checksum, AND the exact bits that would have to be >off in order to yield the same checksum put the likelihood at about 10 >to the 17th power to one odds against. Checksumming is useful. It is not a bit by bit compare. The only way to guarantee that your save matches the disk copy is to go back and read the file from the tape and compare the input with the disk copy using the same criteria. This is a bit by bit compare. There is a very small window of error possibility between a MOVE A,TAPE WORD MOVE B,DISK WORK CAME A,B JRST [REPORT ERROR] JRST .-4 ; READ NEXT WORD PAIR. > > So, you were also unaware that checksums are the de facto standard >in the industry? How telling. Checksumming is not a bit by bit compare. This sentence does not say that 'checksumming never happens and isn't useful'. > > Entire CD and DVD and soon HD DVD images are verified in this >manner. Has been done for decades without a miss. Are you familiar with the term GIGO? > > What happened to you? Why have you "missed" the rest of the world? Checksumming, used in the way you describe, is a shortcut; a bit by bit compare take twice as long. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Mar 2007 07:04
In article <eg5mu29a25a9qac4cjfjgmq3ju3ijtbe7q(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Mar 07 12:12:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>I don't call webbing modern computing. > > No, but it IS the absolute best resource for a dope like you to >learn about it. You are the main reason why I feel that anyone taking >computer sciences as a major should have to take electronics first. IMO, physics should be the first. >You are clueless as to how things actually work at the hardware level. I know that I am not an expert of hardware. I am, however, an expert in the other things that the hard/software developers didn't want to deal with. We have been talking about those things. > > That is why they call this the "information age". For you to live >your pathetic life, cutting yourself out of an entire segment of the >worldwide information base is yet another proof that you do not have a >single clue. > > Start with NEETS > >http://tpub.com/neets/ > > After you learn a little about electronics, I know a little. > take a new, modern course >in computer sciences. No, thank you. > > Short of that, I give you zero credence as you are stuck several >decades in the past. So I have to be a hardware expert in order to talk about what my biz has learned, painfully, over the years? One of the problems we had was that all computing was seen thro hardware- colored glasses. /BAH |