Nagered hard drive;'(..
in [Computer]
|
From: Jon Green on 24 Jun 2010 12:01 On 24/06/2010 16:45, dennis(a)home wrote: > > "Huge" <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message > news:88hbnuF7rjU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> John, you're arguing with 'dennis the erroneous'. Why? > > Because he likes to learn things, you can't learn things. Word to the wise: that's because Huge knows enough things already that little's new any more. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. Blog: http://bit.ly/45cLHw Pix: http://bit.ly/d8V2NJ Website: http://www.green-lines.com/
From: John Rumm on 24 Jun 2010 12:13 On 24/06/2010 16:44, dennis(a)home wrote: > > > "John Rumm" <see.my.signature(a)nowhere.null> wrote in message > news:5b2dnXjjK-cQ6r7RnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... >> On 24/06/2010 12:42, dennis(a)home wrote: >> >>>>> PS what do you think are the obvious reasons they died out? >>>> >>>> "Died out" is perhaps over egging it - it never really got started. >>>> There were several problems; Price was a significant factor in the >>>> first place - it required bespoke drives >>> >>> Well that's not exactly true, most of the drives at the time had sync >>> connectors and you just didn't use them if you didn't need them. >>> >>>> and controllers with non standard interfaces. >>> >>> The interfaces were standards at the time there was nothing special >>> about the drives compared to other drives. >> >> Just how far are you going back here? > > Far enough to predate anything most people have seen or even heard of. > I have been in computer engineering a lot longer than most people. Older ain't always better ;-) >> RAID and the numbered levels were not even defined as a standard >> concept until the late 80's and by that time ST506 interfaced drives >> were coming to the end of their era. > > I predate st506. That was standardised in about '79/'80 ish IIRC >> Early IDE systems were already appearing, and "standard" RAID was >> pretty rare on anything other than IDE or SCSI drives. >> >> (I have no doubt there were some proprietary systems about that tried >> RAID 2 like tricks to eek some extra performance out of the drives of >> the day however, but would not call them "proper RAID" to borrow your >> phrase). > > Oh i would, proper RAID distinguishes them from RAID. Can't think why. We are not talking inexpensive commodity hard drives, which is the foundation of RAID as a concept. >> IIRC I bought my first HDD about '87. A "huge" 42MB seagate. SCSI >> would have been a better match for the system, but was out of my price >> range at the time... > > When I started they were in the 5 MB range and were 14" dia, you built > controllers with RLL compression and stuff like that. > Typically they would occupy a couple of MB1 sized cards or a bit more. You probably did not have one of those on your home computer though... -- Cheers, John. /=================================================================\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \=================================================================/
From: John Rumm on 24 Jun 2010 12:14 On 24/06/2010 16:45, dennis(a)home wrote: > > > "Huge" <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message > news:88hbnuF7rjU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 2010-06-24, John Rumm <see.my.signature(a)nowhere.null> wrote: >>> On 24/06/2010 12:42, dennis(a)home wrote: >> >> John, you're arguing with 'dennis the erroneous'. Why? > > Because he likes to learn things, you can't learn things. Indeed, I do like to learn things.... but that is not why I argue with you. -- Cheers, John. /=================================================================\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \=================================================================/
From: Roland Perry on 24 Jun 2010 13:42 In message <hvvpji$gsj$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 14:20:35 on Thu, 24 Jun 2010, Jules Richardson <jules.richardsonnewsmoo(a)gmail.com> remarked: >(and remember the days when you had to reformat the drive if you changed >its orientation, as otherwise it'd start spewing out errors all over the >place? :-) No, I don't remember that, and I go back all the way to 1980 and drives that were 10MB per platter. -- Roland Perry
From: dennis on 24 Jun 2010 14:28
"John Rumm" <see.my.signature(a)nowhere.null> wrote in message news:_6SdnW_CWuK_Gb7RnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... >> When I started they were in the 5 MB range and were 14" dia, you built >> controllers with RLL compression and stuff like that. >> Typically they would occupy a couple of MB1 sized cards or a bit more. > > You probably did not have one of those on your home computer though... I didn't have a home computer for ages, never really saw the attraction. By the time I got one 50MB hard disks were common. |