Date : Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:54:56 +0000
From : hideki.adam@... (adam colley)
Subject: Flames. (was DFS on 3.5inch - Is this supposed to work?)
Hello.
Well, this message certainly reminds me of everything I don't miss
about Fidonet.
On 16/11/06, W.Scholten <s-whs@...> wrote:
> Complete and utter bullshit. Read the mailing list archives. Read the
Nope. Swearing at me doesn't make it so.
> docs with FDC. I would not say "Most PCs haven broken SD support" but
> the facts from people trying e.g. FDC and anadisk (so direct hardware
> access, no BIOS or whatever intermediate layer) gathered over many years
I don't recall mentioning those applications, I mentioned Omniflop.
> I tried out a number of PCs with FDC/Anadisk from a 486, to a pentium
> pro, k6-233, k6-350, pentium-166 and found that 80 track didn't work,
> except with a switchable speed drive on the ppro/p-166. 40 track worked
> on the ppro (-> rotation speed) and perhaps also the p166 but none of
> the others. Robert Schmidt tried out far more IIRC and he and I got lots
> of email over the years of reports from people for whom it didn't work,
> and sometimes it did from people for whom it did work.
Not evidence. How many machines have you tried Omniflop on? that was
the package I was referring to, not other software with broken timing
and FDC access that is flaky at best.
None? Thought so.
> So, that 'most PCs don't support SD' might be false now but I've not
> seen enough evidence to be sure (and your couple of machines are
> statistically insignificant), it looks as if this wasn't so in the past.
4 != a couple.
Is your position so weak you have to edit and misrepresent my words?
> This doesn't mean "it's a myth" is correct (look up the meaning of the
> word myth). If you think most *current* PCs work with SD, provide
I will when you look up the meaning of "Misrepresentation"
> evidence that your assertion is true, FROM TESTS WITH MORE THAN A
Provide evidence that it isn't. You're the one who seems to have a
problem with my words which were entirely accurate as far as they went
regardless of your strawman arguments.
> HANDFUL OF MACHINES/CHIPSETS, and then you can say "is not true (any
> more)". For the integrated chipsets of todays, probably only a
Actually I can say whatever I wish (as apparently you can yourself)
> I had to look PEBKAC up. Aha, the user gets the blame (and what a surprise,
YAUA(*)). So you Adam Colley, who doesn't know anything about the amount
of machines this was tested on in the past/recently, by whom and with what
failure rate, decide that the user trying it is/was the problem? Give me
a f*cking break. Oh yes, read the archives for a message from me about disk
reading where I mentioned 300/360 rpm switchable drives. PEBKAC indeed.
Where's your evidence? all I've seen is swearing and blustering, all
hot air and no substance, produce your evidence or admit that you have
none.
Ah, I wonder if it was you who said I couldn't use an 80 track Cumana
drive in a PC by setting it to 1.2MB in the BIOS before I proceeded to
do exactly that with zero problems (except the cutting of one track on
the drive being required and that was to do with the drive ready
detection, nothing to do with spin speed or density) citing spin speed
differences.
If it was it seems that you aren't the fountain of all knowledge after
all, funny that.
Your entire message seems to be one big PEBKAC, contribute something
positive or be silent.
--
Hideki.Adam