This message is from the T13 list server.
I am one of the people who monitor this reflector to keep abreast of what is going on in T13.. however in a past life I, as Jim M knows was intimately involved in the ATA hardware design at Quantum. I think that the issue here is that the drive vendors want to eliminate what may be considered antiquated features. The host guys want to make sure that the drives that they purchase and stake their reputations on are reliable and have margin. I think that this is a very reasonable thing to expect from the host guys perspective. However, they want it for free, maybe less. HDD vendors are beaten mercilessly into what i consider to be unreasonable pricing (a lot of the blame for this can be placed on the drive companies themselves). So i can understand the desire to eliminate features which require development, testing support, code space, whatever. Everything that is there costs money and anybody who has followed the earnings (losses) experienced by drive companies over the last few years must understand that if you want something you must be willing to pay for it. I would really like to see a departure from the headlong dive into price reduction without cost reduction mindset that seems so prevalent in the industry. Or maybe we could just eliminate a lot of CEO and VP salaries and compensation that is completely unreasonable in this environment. I mean how hard is it to follow the capacity curve anyway? Sorry for the bandwidth utilization on the reflector Jim Wilshire Sr Staff Eng. System Architecture Keen Personal Media, Inc. The PVR Solutions Company www.keenpm.com <http://www.keenpm.com> P. +949.672.6224 F. +949.672.6211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ALSO CONTAIN PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION OR WORK PRODUCT. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US VIA RETURN E-MAIL OR BY TELEPHONE AT (800)-556-2000. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of sraposo Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:15 AM To: ata reflector Subject: Re: [t13] R/W Long Redux bonus for seek and Recalibrate This message is from the T13 list server. In march, 3rd 2002 I posted a question that timidly asked someone who had the patience and time to answer, why read/write long commands were discarded from AT/A-4 on and if it could become available again. Today, 10 days after, people discussed a lot and even argued about this. It seems that some people see that a HDD exists to serve people. A feature already developed and tested should costs less to be kept than the consequences of discarding it, as Don properly said. Not all the real world computers are brand-new using the ultimate BIOS and the most modern HDD. There is some inertia that makes a lot of not-new computers over the world still useful running still useful applications that could rely on some not-modern feature. Those ones who work on software development know how stressing is write a code that has to consider several versions, some has such features and lacks of others, other versions has others features and lack other and so on. I am not able to see the problems that someone who works at HDD development sees, so I should not criticise anyone, but I agree with Don and others who thinks that the other end of the line, that end where users are, should be considered. It's not a battle between makers and users. Sure HDD and AT/A should evolve, but I modestly suggest to consider real world people needs. Regards, S�rgio Raposo - Brazil >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. > > > > > > > > >
