Slightly odd HD problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Li'l ol' me
  • Start date Start date
Fred said:
Yep, utterly clueless.

Nope, you are the clueless one.

Anyone can take out their SCSI drive and run the diagnostic command in
translation mode and see for themselfs. Physical sectors 0 translate fine.
Or have a look at their Defect Lists and see some sector addresses there
with sector 0 in them. The unbelieving types like yourself can check it
with an alternative utility and find it will tell exactly the same.

http://www.wdc.com/service/ftp/scsi/bench.exe
http://www.nu2.nu/download.php?sFile=cu110f.zip
Wrong. As always.

Nope, the SCSI utilities don't lie. Same result with several of them.
Wrong. As always.

Your standard answer Rodney, when you have been beaten.
And physical CHS too.

So what is it, Rodney, 0x16/0x0/0x1 or 0/0/1
Can't you make up your mind?

You are the clueless one, Rodney. "As always".
 
Fred said:
****nut, ****nut, ****nut.


Pity you're still utterly clueless.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
utter cluelessness better than that pathetic effort, ****nut.

Similar like your pathetic effort, Rodney, using a false name?

No thanks.
 
Folkert Rienstra said:
Nope, you are the clueless one.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
Anyone can take out their SCSI drive

Soorree, its IDE drives that are being discussed,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
and run the diagnostic command in translation mode and see
for themselfs. Physical sectors 0 translate fine. Or have a look
at their Defect Lists and see some sector addresses there with
sector 0 in them. The unbelieving types like yourself can check it
with an alternative utility and find it will tell exactly the same.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.
Yep.

the SCSI utilities don't lie.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.
Same result with several of them.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.
Your standard answer Rodney, when you have been beaten.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
So what is it, Rodney, 0x16/0x0/0x1 or 0/0/1
Can't you make up your mind?

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
You are the clueless one, Rodney. "As always".

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
 
Folkert Rienstra said:
Similar like your pathetic effort, Rodney, using a false name?

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****nut.
No thanks.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, ****nut.
 
Fred said:
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

For example?
Soorree, its IDE drives that are being discussed,
you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

So you actually think that SCSI drives use physical sector 0 intern-
ally but IDE drives do not use physical sector 0 internally because
IDE drives don't use sector 0 externally in a totally fabricated
CHS scheme and therefor cannot use (physical) sector 0 internally.

Wow! Talking about total cluelessness.

"Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child".
All completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.

For once I agree.
In which case your earlier comments were also "completely and utterly"
irrelevant.
All completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.

IDE drives are no different on the physical side of things.

"Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child".
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.

IDE drives aren't discussed. Low Level Formatting is.
Completely and utterly irrelevant to the IDE drives being discussed.



Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.



Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

Make up your mind, Rodney. Which one?
Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

It's not my predicament, Rodney, it's actually yours when
confronted with Physical Cylinders Heads and Sectors.
 
For example?

None from you, child.
So you actually think that SCSI drives use physical sector 0 intern-
ally but IDE drives do not use physical sector 0 internally because
IDE drives don't use sector 0 externally in a totally fabricated
CHS scheme and therefor cannot use (physical) sector 0 internally.
Wow! Talking about total cluelessness.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
For once I agree.
In which case your earlier comments were
also "completely and utterly" irrelevant.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
IDE drives are no different on the physical side of things.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
IDE drives aren't discussed.

Obvious lie.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
Low Level Formatting is.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

Make up your mind, Rodney. Which one?

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
It's not my predicament, Rodney, it's actually yours when
confronted with Physical Cylinders Heads and Sectors.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
 
Back
Top