There are two sides to this standards business.
Nope, not when you can buy the
standard compliant implementation too.
One is the functional specification which states how a device is to operate.
The other is the design specification which states how a device is to be
built.
We accept your comments regarding the fact that removable bays
do not meet current design specs. However if the design that is
implemented by the removable bay is functionally compliant, then that
is good enough for the typical user who is not pushing the envelope.
Nope, not when a fully standards complaint alternative is available, and it is.
PATA removable drive bays have done their dash, you watch.
Do you know for a fact that the Directron Kingwin KF-2x
series of removable bays is not functionally compliant?
No such animal.
And Rus already rubbed your nose
in the FACT that they arent anyway.
How about the Enermax 352?
Not interested in crap that flouts standards when
a standard compliant approach is available thanks.
I talked with the Product Manager at Maxpoint, which is the
US distributor of Enermax products. He personally uses the
352 and he reports that he has seen *no* problems with it.
Wouldnt be the first time some clown lied when you ask about an
observed problem, 'we havent seen any other reports of any problem
with this product, must be something wrong with your setup' Then
you find heaps of others have complained about the same problem.
I discussed briefly this issue of ATA non-compliance,
and he asked me if I had any direct evidence that
the 352 was not *functionally* compliant.
No such animal. Just more sales bullshit.
He said the engineers at Enermax are not idiots
They clearly are when they didnt use SATA
instead and get full standards compliance.
and they abviously took ATA compliance issues into consideration.
They clearly didnt if they didnt use SATA.
It would be financial suicide to introduce a product with
an alternative design that failed to live up to the functional
specifications required by the disk drive industry.
Yes, they have certainly shot themselves in the foot
when they were stupid enough to not use SATA.
Where are all the warnings about how such devices are not functional?
Irrelevant when a fully standards compliant alternative is available.
You made the same claim about Kingwin removable
drive bays even after Rus had rubbed YOU nose in
a real problem with Kingwin removable drive bays.
Just because someone had trouble with their rig does not mean there
is something functionally wrong with those units I have discussed.
Thats the usual stupid approach of shooting the messenger.
My invoice from Directron has a statement
added that if the 352 does not function as
advertised, I can return it for a full cash refund.
Even when it bite you in the arse when you need it most, years
from now, like your previous approach did ? Dont believe it.
Bet they tell you to take a long run off a short pier instead.
In return I promised them that I would evaluate
the unit and let them know how it performs.
They should be able to do that themselves if they actually have a clue.
I checked with the Product Manager to make sure
there were no gotchas hidden in the woodwork.
Wouldnt be the first time some sales ape claims it will be perfect
for a particular situation and it turns out to be a steaming turd instead.
I went thru the scenarios I planned on using to make disaster
recovery archives. He said that the unit is designed to be
straightforward in its use - no undocumented "error codes"
like with the other methods.
That last is a lie.
Fangs in the arse like you got just recently. THAT
time it was recoverable. It may not be next time.
I have been flouting the ATA *design* standard for a
long time now and there have been *no* consequences.
Lie, you ended up with fangs in your arse.
I cannot help it if some others get burnt using
substandard parts. I am using top-line parts.
So is Rus.
If the backup fails, I will know about it, in which case I can
always hook the target drive up directly to the IDE connector.
Assuming the copy on that drive is actually viable.
That's what I had to do with Acronis True Image.
Nope.
After I got done configuring the disk copy operation,
it rebooted the computer into the same kind of DOS shell
that CHKDSK uses when Windows detects a disk problem.
Taint a shell and it aint anything to do with DOS at all.
What consequences functionally are there?
Time will tell, likely when that is most inconvenient, like the last time.
The last time was caused by a defective motherboard.
You havent proven that.
How was I to know that Epox MBs had electrlytic capacitor problems.
A viable approach to backup can handle anything.
Thats what real backup is all about, you can recover from ANYTHING.
Even the house burning down or the system being stolen.
I got almost 6 full years out of that system,
so it's not as though I am out anything.
Just the time you wasted when you didnt have a full backup.
And because I kept a disastor recovery archive on the shelf I was
able to recover with a minimum of effort, thanks to Windows' IPU.
And you may not have been able to recover as easily as that when
your inadequate approach to backup had fanged you in the arse.
In spades if the house had burnt down or floated away.
So I am not in such a bad condition as you make it out to be.
Only because the worst didnt happen.
That might not be true the next time.
I will be watching carefully.
Fat lot of good that did you with the previous approach.
The other system died of old age.
A viable approach to backup can handle anything.
This is a completely new system.
When a standard complaint approach is available.
One reason why I like to clone a disk to make a
backup - and not build an image file - is that I can
inspect the backup using the standard Windows tools.
Didnt help with the last problem.
There is really only one viable approach to testing backups,
wipe the original completely by writing zeros thru the entire
drive and prove that it works when restored.
And even when that is proven, anyone with a clue doesnt
use a single approach to backup with the irreplaceable.
If the backup has no problems, then on the shelf it goes.
To bite you on the arse when you need it most.
