On Oct 26, 2017 7:48 PM, "Mike Stein" <[email protected]> wrote:
Nice write-up except for the obviously still incorrect first part. I really don't get why this is such an issue; the correct cable connects pin 1 at one end to pin 1 at the other end, end of story. How is it so simple when you have never seen an official/original cable, or even a known-good home-made one, nor even have a known-good DVI to ensure that the cable is the only variable in the system? I was about to say you didn't post anything as definitive or explicit as you suggest now, but I just re-read you first post in this thread and I have to admit you did describe a simple rule to follow, and you didn't say it as "I thought it was...", you declared it. Mostly I guess it's just that no one had said anything at all on the topic (recently, in response to Randy's question I mean) at the time I decided to start figuring out the answer from first principles, and had already started gathering clues and references and deductions by the time you said that, so to me it somehow didn't register as being any firmer than just another possible idea that might be right, but still needs to be verified. You didn't actually say something like "Here is my actual cable which I actually used last month, and here is it's pinout." On top of that, before making the straight-through cable, I actually made one with the twists, and it didn't boot. On top of that, do the tech references not say what I say they say? AD0 is on pin 3 on the M100 clear as day, and on pin 6 on the DVI clear as day. (and by using AD0, we eliminate the possibility that one side or the other starts counting from 1, they both have an AD0). I linked to all the references I pulled from, right to th pag numbers, and for convenience I copied the pinout diagrams into a single side by side picture right on that wiki page. I mean, how is it at all irrational to refer to the tech reference? They are all known to have an error or two scattered in them, but they are still largely a correct reference. Is the pinout in one or the other tech reference actually completely backwards? And no one has made loud note of that? Given that, how is it at all remarkable that I consider myself to know nothing until I actually see it work in my own hands, or at least see someone else's equally incontestable proof showing it working? -- bkw
