|
|
Posted by Roy L. Fuchs on 04/25/06 02:35
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:21:19 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> Gave us:
>Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:37:23 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> Gave us:
>>
>>> The technology isn't new. Those of us who were following the future of
>>> hard drive storage were reading the white papers in the early '80s. If a
>>> whole host of other (read cheaper) tricks and gimmicks hadn't worked,
>>> perpendicular would have been trotted out a long time ago.
>>
>> Bullshit. It is new.
>
>You are completely wrong. I was reading those white papers in 1984. The
>proposals of the time was for 4MB 5 1/4" perpendicular encoded floppy
>disks.
You're a fucking idiot! I HAVE a 2.88 floppy drive, and it is NOT
perpendicular technology.
I read the papers on this NEW technology about two years ago in EE
Times!
Oh, if you do not know what EE Times is or the significance thereof,
you should bow out of the debate right now, dingledorf.
>
>> It isn't "read cheaper" it is WRITE with higher
>> integrity, and no, we did NOT have the capacity to write Gigabits per
>> lineal inch back then, dumbass.
>
>Look, moron, the fact is that perpendicular storage would have been
>trotted out if there were no cheaper way to increase bit density. Your
>ignorance not withstanding.
You're an idiot. The reason it is in now is due to the fact that
horizontal recording method has reached its limit. Any denser, and
the bits forget which way they were told to be oriented due to the
proximity of the next bit. Perpendicular recording does not have the
problem. Your cluelessness totally withstanding.
>> It was only about six years ago that IBM was able to write 15
>> Megabits per lineal inch with their MR technology, which nearly ALL HD
>> maker still use to this day.
>
>So what? That has nothing to do with the technology. The facts are as I
>stated.
Except that you stated no facts, dipshit.
>> It isn't a gimmick. It is a new adoption of an old technology with
>> many changes incorporated into it that were NOT possible until
>> recently.
>
>Earlier in this post you said it wasn't old, now you say it is old. What
>is a reasonable person to make of that?
You are just too fucking retarded to grasp the conversation. The
OLD technology is horizontal method. the NEW technology is a variant
on the head design AND the platter media.
The simple fact is that you are too fucking dense to EVER get it.
>> It most certainly was NOT around back in the eighties, the days of
>> ten MB hard drives. It took us years just to get up to ONE GB!
>
>It was, and you can learn something if you bothered to look it up.
No, it was not, and YOU could learn something if you looked it up.
When was the last time you even read an EE Times, if ever?
>Moron!
Nice sig... fits you well, ya fucking utter retard!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|