Re: TI-H: Place (ahhh here is what he meant)

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: Place (ahhh here is what he meant)
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:02:22 -0900
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
In-Reply-To: <03d301be74ca$0a88b5e0$39adecd0@root>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


This guy is wiggin.  IDE AND SCSI DRIVES DON"T TALK FAT AT ALL.

There...  IDE also is addressed like memory, and isn't programmed to "talk"
fat.

The ONLY thing that isn't like memroy is the ATAPI standard which improved
data transfer and custom command sets, BUT IT IS ALMOST THE SAME.


Your friend needs to get a little bit more reasearch on drives first...
>Ok I wayyyy missunderstood what he was saying originaly
>about the SCSI being easier as far as the filesystem goes..
>here is what he meant:
>
>"SCSI has no advantages over IDE as far as FAT goes.  What I was getting at
>in my earlier post is IF someone wanted to store this data on a hard disk
>in their own format, this would be easily done with SCSI.  SCSI is not
>bound in any way to the whole FAT theorem.  IDE however was developed to
>talk FAT... It is possible to create your own format on an IDE drive, but
>not very much fun at all.  With SCSI you address the data like you would
>memory.  It keeps the layer between FAT and Hardware very separated.
>"
>
> so thats what I was trying to remember earlier

Man, trippin.  IDE keeps the layer between FAT and hardware as separated as
oil and water.

References:

Re: TI-H: Place (ahhh here is what he meant)

From: "Ryan Pogge" <pogge@shore.intercom.net>

Prev: Re: TI-H: Place
Next: Re: TI-H: Place
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread