I fail to see the significance of that figure.
What there is electrically between the motherboard and drive connector
is completely different in Fig 9 and with a removable drive bay.
What I do see inside the box is an 80-wire ATA-type
connector that connects to the drive - it appears to
be the same as an official ATA ribbon cable.
Pity about what is between that particular connector and the one
that connects to the motherboard, with a removable drive bay.
There is the connector between the tray and the box
that the tray goes into. That looks like an old Centronics
20 pin connector, like the ones used on printers.
And that is nothing like Fig 9, electrically.
Are you saying that it is this 20-pin connector that
is causing the removable bay to be non-compliant?
Yes, and the number of discontinuitys between the
motherboard connector and the drive connector.
With an ATA standard cable, there are no electrical discontinuitys at all.
If so, do you have direct evidence that using
such an arrangement actually causes a problem?
Yes, I have already told you that there have been a number of
reports of problems in here alone with removable drive bays.
You commented on one of them yourself.
I can see how such an arrangement can be abused
by using poor quality parts, but if the parts used are
quality, how can it cause actual problems?
You clearly dont know anything about electrical transmission lines.
Nope. I have already told you that there have been a number
of reports of problems in here alone with removable drive bays.
You commented on one of them yourself.
or a real problem with the Directron Kingwin bay?
Flouting standards is always a real problem for those
of us who understand why we have standards.
Have you contacted Kingwin to discuss this matter?
Dont need to. They are sure to have realised that their
removable drive bays flout the ATA standard, even if you dont.
Or are you issuing a blanket indictment
Anyone with a clue can do that when they flout the ATA standard.
based on anecdotal claims about inferior units?
Are you attempting to brush off the
FACT that they flout the ATA standard ?
Yes, I can see that with the use of a 20-pin connector between
the tray and the bay. I would think they could use a 40-pin
connector specifically designed to meet ATA specifications.
It would STILL flout the ATA standard because that doesnt allow
for ANY connector between the motherboard and drive connector.
But that's not the issue here.
Corse it is.
I agree when the components are crap. But how do you know
that the components used by Kingwin cause a real problem?
I said they flout the ATA standard. They clearly do.
I spent time as a hardware design engineer in the SCADA indusrty.
But clearly dont know anything about the reasons
the ATA standard on that 80 wire cable was chosen.
Its basically an unterminated transmission line.
And that matters with ATA100 and ATA133 speeds particularly.
When I was R&D manager our group was the first to put an
affordable CMOS RTU on the market - we sold literally thousands.
I am very knowledgeable of the importance of standards.
Yet you choose to use a removable drive bay that flouts the ATA
standard when you could use a SATA removable drive bay that is
standard compliant instead. You can get those from KingWin too.
Yet we had to cut corners on some standards because
CMOS LSI was relatively new at the time (c. 1983). We
subjected our design to the most rigorous of tests with
beta sights such as Mobil Oil Producing Texas New
Mexico - out in the oil field. They used 100 of them
for pumpoff control in a very hazardous environment.
We passed all the tests.
Some of us prefer to adhere to standards. For a reason.
IOW, if you are forced to "flout" a standard,
You arent with removable drive bays, you can comply with
the SATA standard and still get that from the same supplier.
and you produce a robust workaround
and test the livin' crap out of it.
Not feasible for a home user and a removable drive bay.
Very feasible to use a SATA removable
drive bay and not breach the standard at all.
After all, today's standards are yesterday's "flouted"
standards brought up to speed in a new situation.
Wrong with hard drive interface standards.
If everybody in the design business adhered to existing standards
like anal retentives, then we would still be using clubs to catch supper.
Crap, its completely trivial to buy a removable
drive bay that doesnt flout the relevant standard.
I'll take that as a "no".
More fool you.
I appreciate your concerns and I am aware of problems
that can exist when someone flouts standards. But I am
also experienced enough to know that standards are flouted
to create new products. That's how new standards get written.
Like hell it is. Didnt happen with SATA which does allow removable
drive bays, essentially by redesigning the connector and changing
to a serial transmission method that avoids the massive limitations
we were starting to see with ATA100 and ATA133 speeds.
One area I participated in was modem standards.
Irrelevant to hard drive standards.
Back then Bell 212A was the dominant standard - that was 24
Kbits/sec. We used a brand new CMOS modem chip designed
and manufactured by Texas Instruments in England. That's how
we kept costs so low. It was a risk but when the Texas New
Mexico trials were completed we knew the risks had paid off.
Like I said, irrelevant to hard drive standards when there
is no need to flout the standard when SATA allows standard
compliant removable drive bays and adds hot swap as well.
THATS the way to get a reliable removable drive bay.
As a result we sold a shitload of those RTUs to the pipelines
like Panhandle Eastern (now Duke Energy). They needed to
run the units off solar panels, so CMOS was a necessity.
Irrelevant to removable drive bays.
Please furnish direct evidence that the Directron
Directron is completely irrelevant.
Kingwin KF-23 has caused any real problems.
Rus already told you of one example.
It aint the only one.
I put my boot disk directly on the primary IDE cable as usual,
and I put the removable one on the other cable as a slave
And some choose to have the boot drive in the removable bay, so
they can change the OS they are booting from conveniently and
can recover from a boot drive disaster much more quickly too.
(because of that crap Mitsumi CD-RW problem). I tried it other ways
but the transfer rate measured by DIP 4.0 is always about the same.
It is actually a bit faster with the removable drive as second channel slave.
Irrelevant to whether PATA removable drive bays flout the standard.
I'll take that to mean high-quality MB and drive.
More fool you again.
I don't buy junk - never have and never will.
I pay extra for high-quality components.
Problems have been seen with high quality
motherboards, hard drives and removable drive bays too.
Some of us prefer to stay with the standards when
that is feasible, and it is with removable drive bays.
I can understand your concerns if some script
kiddy builds an el-cheapo piece of crap with
third-rate junk from fly by night suppliers.
Never ever said anything about those at all.
But I don't do that, so you can't lump me with the twits.
Never did.
I am trying to make a case that there are two kinds of flouting
- the kind that you can get by with and the kind that you cannot.
No need to flout the standard if you want a removable drive bay.
Just use a SATA standard compliant removable drive bay.
I have the impression that you are tarring the entire
removable bay industry with too broad a brush.
You're deliberately ignoring the FACT that Rus
has seen a problem with Kingwin removable
drive bays BECAUSE they flout the standard.
He aint the only one that has.
I have their marketing collateral, which reads in part:
"Support all brands of 3.5" IDE ATA 33/66/100/133 H.D.D."
Thats nothing like 'specification compliant', thats just
saying that their drive bays CAN USE those drives.
The operative word is "support".
Nope, they clearly mean that those drives can be
USED in their drive bays. Different matter entirely.
Until I am told otherwise, I have to take
that to mean they meet the standards,
You have no basis what so ever to do that.
They clearly do flout the ATA standard.
albeit not the way you insist they do.
It aint me, its what the standare requires, stupid.
If I connect two tin cans with a taut string, I have a communications
device. It is as good if not better than a telephone. I am obviously
not compliant with telephony specs but I do "support" voice
communications when used as directed.
Gets sillier by the minute.
Maybe Kingwin found that using a "Centronic" 20-pin
connector met the requirements for ATA compliance,
It cant.
although they did not implement the recommended design.
It aint recommended, its mandated. If
that isnt used, its not standard compliant.
Please point out where they are non-compliant.
Already did.
OK. I will use flout instead. I never could spell worth a crap,
Yeah, plenty of engineers have the same problem.
although I am better than a lot of posters.
BTW, since one good deed deserves
another, the correct word is "it's" not "its".
Nope, I choose to do it that way.
I also choose to use the ys form instead
of ies with words like stupiditys.
I ususally do not engage in spelling flames.
It wasnt a flame.
Thats a remarkably silly justification for flouting the standard.