One of the key things I'm thinking about is, independent of total space
on the drive, it looks like physical sector sizes larger than 512b may
be all that is available at some point in the not too distant future. Of
course the drives will continue to appear as 512b to OSs/apps that don't
know
In fact there is appinfo directory with fdkernel.lsm packaged within
those zips. So, I believe, there is a way to actually install it with
fdupdate. But as for me, it is much more straightforward to just
unzip\overwrite.
As for ISO editor it depends on OS you're using. For building ISOs in
DOS
Vote with your wallet. I'm personally not buying any 4k drives nor for
myself nor for companies I'm working for. When you need more than 2Tb of
space you always can add another 2Tb drive instead of replacing old
drive with bigger (3Tb) one.
On 10.04.11 10:10, Scott wrote:
One of the key things
On 4/10/2011 5:20 AM, escape wrote:
Vote with your wallet. I'm personally not buying any 4k drives nor for
myself nor for companies I'm working for. When you need more than 2Tb of
space you always can add another 2Tb drive instead of replacing old
drive with bigger (3Tb) one.
I think that is
Please get it right. I'm not arguing against support of new
technologies. But now it's often when manufacturers trying to disguise
cost cutting and marketing rubbish as prominent new technology.
Look at monitors as an example. Getting 16:10 aspect along with 4:3 was
not a bad idea. While for some
On 4/10/2011 12:08 PM, escape wrote:
Please get it right. I'm not arguing against support of new
technologies. But now it's often when manufacturers trying to disguise
cost cutting and marketing rubbish as prominent new technology.
Look at monitors as an example. Getting 16:10 aspect along
On 10.04.11 20:51, Michael B. Brutman wrote:
I don't think I misread you. But the market is geared to the current
problems, not the past problems. For some strange reason people like
widescreen monitors even though most of our reading would benefit from
portrait monitors.
I'm agree with
I shall add my two-cents worth to the current philosophical
discussion about 4K sectors as follows --
To me, the most disturbing thing about modern PC systems is
their ABSOLUTE LACK of concern for backward compatibility!
We really did NOT need the PCI bus in 1994, except that Intel
wanted to
Jack,
I love a good rant as much as anybody, but some context is needed.
PCI was desperately needed by server class hardware. The ISA bus and
the extensions to the ISA bus were failing for several reasons:
- Inability to share interrupt lines
- Three fragmented standards (ISA, VL, and EISA)
Consumers (home and business) for the most part buy the bulk of their
storage on $/GB type of decisions. Buying multiple lower capacity HDDs
does not meet this model.
The 2.5 and 3.5 form factors are such an embedded standard that making
your drives a different size to get more platter area is
Michael,
You missed my point about backward compatibility, which has been
notoriously ABSENT from the historical events I noted.
PCI was desperately needed by server class hardware ...
Fine, let them have it. But why did ORDINARY users have to be
forced into buying newer mainboards, which
2011/4/10, Jack:
Or, in fact, could this maybe [... just MAYBE!] be another case
of the Wintel Consortium software BRATS being UNABLE to achieve
their targets, using only their college-professors' and bosses'
much-beloved C, and it is actually THOSE brats who are asking
for such help??
This
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net wrote:
A REAL BUS, you say?? If so, then explain to me why, on so
many Intel-based systems, there are so many PCI BRIDGES!! If
it were a real bus, there would be only ONE bus, NOT so many
bridges to yet-another set of wires
On 2011/04/10 14:55 (GMT-0700) Scott composed:
more efficient use of the space, and that is what
4k sectors gets us.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2888
One estimate for 4K sector technology puts this at 100 bytes of ECC
data needed for a 4K sector, versus 320 (40x8) for 8 512B
Scott,
Consumers (home and business) for the most part buy the bulk of
their storage on $/GB type of decisions. Buying multiple lower
capacity HDDs does not meet this model.
A lot of Internet vendor websites, such as NewEgg, just may prove
you wrong. Every time I look at NewEgg and
Scott,
My apologies (age 65 again!); in my last post about disk ECC
sizes, I meant to say 10 byte and 16 byte ECCs, not bit.
Jack R. Ellis
--
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming
smartphone
Zbigniew,
This reminds me somewhat a Forth's Dillemma rant: ...
Which I read, and I do not regard it as any rant but a
statement of fact, especially as I suffered the same --
In 1968, when I still did 360/DOS mainframe work, IBM added
job-stack capability for the DOS foreground-1 and -2
2011/4/10, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net:
Your Forth's Dilemma is not any sort of rant but really
a statement of fact. I know, since I have BEEN there and
DONE that!, as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting, and (as
I wrote) your opinion
Zbigniew,
Your Forth's Dilemma is not any sort of rant but really
a statement of fact. I know, since I have BEEN there and
DONE that!, as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting,
and (as I wrote) your opinion brought it back to my mind.
On 4/10/11 3:56 PM, Jack wrote:
A lot of Internet vendor websites, such as NewEgg, just may prove
you wrong. Every time I look at NewEgg and others, the latest-
and-greatest hard disk has a price premium far WORSE than buying
2 hard disks of 1/2 the size.
Most people don't buy the latest and
Jack,
There are so many inaccuracies and distortions in the reply that you
sent, I'm going to assume you are just irritated or in a bad mood.
The world moves on ... it doesn't make sense to support existing
standards forever. You can have eternal support, or affordable prices,
but not both.
There are so many inaccuracies and distortions in the reply that you
sent, I'm going to assume you are just irritated or in a bad mood.
In fact, I was neither, until reading what you post below. Once again
you choose only to pick nits at the technical examples I mention, but
flatly REFUSE to
On 11.04.11 00:55, Scott wrote:
One estimate for 4K sector technology puts this at 100 bytes of ECC
data needed for a 4K sector, versus 320 (40x8) for 8 512B sectors.
Yes, that's about 5% (5,37% to be exact) you'll gain from 4k sectors.
For 2Tb drive it will be equal to 100Gb of space. The
23 matches
Mail list logo
