Posted by Matthew L. Martin on 04/25/06 22:26

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> 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.

Congratulations on stating the obvious. The use of perpendicular
technology was, as I said, deferred due to other, cheaper technologies
being used instead.

> I read the papers on this NEW technology about two years ago in EE
> Times!

Great. Now go back to the archives of mid 1980's storage industry
magazines. You will see extensive mentions of perpendicular or vertical
magnetic domains. They were well understood at the time. The cost of
implementation was just too high.

> Oh, if you do not know what EE Times is or the significance thereof,
> you should bow out of the debate right now, dingledorf.

EE Times is a fine source of information most of the time. In this case,
their fact checkers were out to lunch.

>>> 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.

That is exactly true, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

>
> Except that you stated no facts, dipshit.

If you knew how to look them up, you could. I can't take you to the
library and I very much doubt that 1980's trade rags are available on
the internet.

>>> 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.

A variation that was well understood, but too expensive to use, over 20
years ago.

> 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.

The technology was available and understood. Cheaper methods of
achieving greater density were used until they reached their limits.
Pundits of the 1980's would have been amazed at how long it took to
become necessary.

> 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?

Last week. When was the last time you read a mid '80s storage industry rag?

>> Moron!

Very self descriptive.

> Nice sig... fits you well, ya fucking utter retard!

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Matthew

--
I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

[Back to original message]