Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 10:07 In article <esh15o$8qk_003(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <874pp16r7c.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>> Has controller functionality moved into all disk drives? That >>> sorta sucks. ....Do these disk drives have multi ports? >> >>Ever since IDE was invented, and before that too. >>You're several decades behind the rest of the world. > >From your sentence, I must conclude that you are saying >all disk drives are IDE? For a while it could be said that a high enough percentage was that if someone said disk drive you could assume IDE. SCSI was the next most common but not nearly as common. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: krw on 5 Mar 2007 10:17 In article <esh1bm$8qk_004(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.2054aaec1791f94798a052(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eseef4$8qk_001(a)s993.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > <snip> > > Thank you! > > >> >Words change meaning, levels of indirection are thrown in, confusion > >> >reigns, Dimbulb is wrong (and swears a blue streak to prove it). > >> >Nothing ever changes. > >> > >> [glum emoticon here] Yea, no progres has been observed. > > > >I've made this point in the other group, but sometimes things are > >invented in more than one place at close to the same time. Each > >invents new words and a mess occurs. For example: AMD and Intel have > >totally different and contradictory vocabulary WRT caches. I always > >get confused when reading either's cache docs. > > Well, when I started typing that kind of stuff up, we created > our own spellings, too. You mean like "disk" and "DASD". Oh, and "pel". ;-) -- Keith
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 10:27 In article <eshaf7$8ss_001(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >tape. And that was a PITA because a checksummed directory of the >tape was never precisely accurate because the checksum of the >first file (the checksummed directory of itself) always changed :-). > >It was one of those neat CATCH-22 problems that I liked to think >about. It reminded me of those three-way mirrors in the clothing >store's dressing rooms. It was turtles all the way down. A checksum isn't the best way to do it if but assuming a checksum is used, the problem of the checksum including its self was solved years ago. Hint: what do write you when you haven't done the checksum yet? What do you write after you have done it. On machines that do ones compliment math the checksum is a slightly better check. Cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is not subject to the problems a simple check sum is. One an NRZ tape, a small defect can damage two bytes in a row. This damage can cause the checksum to come out the same in an alarmingly high percentage of the cases. The parity usually warns you but even it can be fooled. With CRC, the same trick as is used in checksums can be done. It usually involves a table look up to do however. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 10:29 In article <esh1sr$8qk_007(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.... me ....] >>So now you go back to "never". Which is it? > >I wish you would think and read at the same time. >I'm getting weary of this word game you keep resorting >to when I've made a point. The simple fact is that you haven't made a point. You think that just because you have written words that this performs some magical operation out in space that you see as "making a point". You at least should require that the words form a logical argument on the topic under discussion before you claim that they "make a point". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Mar 2007 10:46
In article <MPG.2055feeb3db1e22498a066(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: [....] >Much of the "controller" is on the chipset these days, oh >MassivelyWrong one. I know that appearing to agree with MissingProng is a strong indication of error but there is a point that I would like to make here. Way back in the mists of time, there was electronics for disk drives we called the "controller". This electronics was much simpler than the electronics used related to disk drives today. Today, there is a lot more electronics included in the term "controller" mostly because we didn't create a new term to cover the new stuff. The bulk of work of the controller of old is now done by the disk drive but mother board chip set now has a bunch of this new work to do. The IDE was the point where the mother board electronics was the simplest. I believe that this disagrees with what MissingProng has had to say on this subject but should it turn out to agree with him in full or in part, I will retract it immediately. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |