Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:11 On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:13:57 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >, most dim one. PCI is not required for either ATA nor Busmaster >DMA. THe first busmaster DMA ATA was on ISA, Dimbulb. Oh but, the KRW dumbfuck has forgotten that ever since the adoption of the PCI bus, ALL peripheral I/O passes THROUGH it, as in TERTIARY to it. Guess which side of that bus your precious IDE I/O chip is on? Guess where even an ISA bus is at when used (as they were for years after PCI hit the industry)? The exception was AGP, and PCIx is even a PCI bus architecture, and it is blazing fast. Yet you seem to think that all this is bypassed. Good luck learning about modern PC motherboards, you're going to need it.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:13 On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:13:57 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> Gave us: >Wrong. Ever heard of PCI-E? PCI is not necessary for ATA (in fact >ATA looks more like ISA). Dumbass. PCI is instilled in the chipset, and ALL peripherals are tertiary to it. PCI-E IS a new segment of the PCI architecture.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:22 On Mon, 05 Mar 07 15:41:22 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >These terms were common in the PC world. > >/BAH Look, dipshit... even in military circle, using NON PC computers, such drives are the norm. You can't even begin to fathom why. COST.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:23 On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:46:45 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. > Yet another reason why you are retarded.
From: MassiveProng on 5 Mar 2007 22:24
On Mon, 05 Mar 07 15:48:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <eshcs5$l1t$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>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. > >No, it wasn't. Not with the spec I had. He didn't say decades ago, he said years ago. You are STILL decades behind. Yet another proof post. |