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: "Ryan Pogge" <pogge@shore.intercom.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:06:33 -0500
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org



hmm

ok let me try to redeem him once more ?!
he knows what he is talking about sorta i think <grin>

--snip--
Ryan,

Perhaps I did not make myself clean in my post about IDE.  I did not mean
to propose that IDE talked "FAT" for this is not true at all.  I was simply
trying to get across the idea that IDE was developed around the IBM (or
Industry) standards for file storage.  I/E a fat based system.  Thus it is
quite a bit easier to talk "FAT" (if you will) to an IDE device vs. a SCSI
one.  SCSI was developed as a "universal" way to store data.  (well... sort
of universal anyways)  Therefore its design never leaned towards one type
of file storage or another.

On the ATAPI note... ATAPI was developed as a protocol layer between
hardware and software.  The creators needed a way to interface a CD ROM
that was generally SCSI (or some weird proprietary bus) to the now standard
IDE bus.  Thus was born ATAPI, a somewhat diced-up SCSI command set.  This
was an easy and cost effective way for IDE to have CD ROM support.

Finally, I have been working with SCSI for years...  Unfortunately, I
haven't worked with IDE in a couple of years (circa, 1990?)  and all of
this has slowly been coming back to me.  It has been my overall experience
that SCSI talks better in a USER DEFINED FORMAT, and this was all I was
trying to get a
t.

--end-snip--



>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.
>
>

Follow-Ups:

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

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>