This message is from the T13 list server.
Reasons to keep the seek command
1. Provides backward compatibility.
a. For older BIOS's.
b. Costs nothing if you don't want to
support it.
c. Some people actually use it even if
you don't. This is an entirely new
concept to this reflector, acknowledging
that if you don't use a command, maybe
others do. I know it seems
hard to believe....
2. Provides diagnostic capability for the Host.
a. Verify seek times.
b. Verify mechanical soundness.
c. Yes, this can be done in spite of the
fact that the drive translates CHS,
the fact that LBA's are issued, or zones,
or other layouts make this difficult.
Reasons why I will keep "crying" about these obsoleted commands.
1. It is apparently only "crying" if you are part of the immoral
minority of this reflector. If you constantly harrangue two
specific companies, one of which is in Redmond, and you're
part of the moral majority of this reflector, that's ok.
2. The T13 committee screwed up when they obsoleted these
commands. It makes it impossible for people with older systems
to replace a hard drive that goes bad. Jim McGrath only
enumerated one issue with backward compatibilty,
but he said that it was fixed. But there are many older BIOS's
that don't have this problem, So people might also have to
upgrade their BIOS. A much better option than having to
buy a completely new computer and facing a new OS and
the potential of having to upgrade a significant portion of
your software that you will now have to rent and trying to
find new drivers for your hardware. Obsoletion is a practice
that the company in Redmond has done profitably for years
3. It doesn't matter how many years go by. If a screw-up has
occurred, it should be fixed. If companies are still putting the
command in as a NOP (per Hale), and other companies are
actually using it, isn't it kind of really still active? Doesn't it
help the user community if the command is in the STANDARD?
4. If the committee didn't do due diligence on this, then shouldn't
they be called on it. No, I don't have the emails for earlier
than mid 96, nor do I think that it's relevant. There were people
who posted to the reflector in 2002 saying that they were using
these commands. That's what's important. Getting it
right is important.
5. People who are the committee should be responsible for the
whole of the community. They should act for the good of the
whole. If they can't, they ought to step aside and let others
run the show. But I repeat myself. But only because I haven't
heard a valid argument yet on why the committee isn't
responsible for the whole of the community.
