** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **
John, you are missing the point.
The spec forces a response that will break current end-users. Sure, the
OEM's will fix these issues on new platforms, however by fascist specmanship
of demanding report of a specific 28-bit limit for drives that can do
48-bit, we introduce problems into the whole after-market world that are
quite unacceptable.
This is not a black-or-white issue, since allowing a drive to report it's
48-bit limit as (example) 1FFFFFFFh and 28-bit limit as anything below
10000000h does not break 48-bit in any way, but rather introduces
flexibility. This sort of change is not a kludge, but rather responsible
specmanship.
MKE.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [temp t13] Re: Read Native Max in ATA/ATAPI-6
** This is the quasi-official and semi-temporary T13 email list server. **
I have to say I agree with Andre. You guys just pile kludges on top
of kludges on top of kludges. I heard a rumor that this was a
standards committee, not a junkyard.
Let's see: Some BIOSes might not handle the previous wording of the
standard properly, so rather than fix those BIOSes (nobody seems to
be naming any names here) let's change all future disk drives to
subtract 1 from the maximum block count?
John
--
If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a
message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to
this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
If you have any questions or wish to unsubscribe send a
message to Hale Landis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To post to
this list server send your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For questions concerning Thistle Grove Industries or TGI's
list services please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
