Major Solutions to AT Attachement; Discussion page[edit]

Improvements Plans
* IDE & ATA confusion (2nd revising, expecte to be finish end of next week)
* The History (PC Age, IDE, EIDE, under revision process)
* pre-Revolution Age & Revolution Age (Main) --- contents is controversial, expected time, 
undecidied yet. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This will answer more of your questions in the dicussion, understand that Wikipedia IS NOT A FAQ NOR IS IT A FORUM DISCUSSION AREA. Please provide facts, evidential proof or logical explanations if you have doubts.

I suggested categorizing all of them together, it is getting way to messy.

So I finally understand why are there so many confusion and unanswered question in the discussison. I have made some updates, please read the bottom paragraph lists you continues. You'll understand why I decide to made the changes

Organizations
Table of Contents

IDE & ATA confusion
The History (include IDE, EIDE, PATA)
- The PC Age (the concept that you must understand)
- Revolutionary changes

　　　(mobile influences, this is the part that 98% of the people in the university don't understand, I categorize them into 3 part for easier
　　　explanation)

Revolutionary Changes will include the following
(It mainly is talking about how the ATAPI history being influence from the timeline of history)

Peripherial Influences
HCI & other mobile interfaces influences including: USB, FireWire, eSATA...etc.
SSD influences

Note: There is 2 section where I introduce something that I think you should know as a common sense for involvement in the computing industry. Which

Short History (you must know this)
pre-Revolution Age (how ZIP drive, Media Drives is related to Multimedia industries and basic concept of why ATAPI didn't incldue this part)

IDE & ATA confusion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDE (Integrated Device Electronics) Simply put it Integrated Device Electronics should refer to add-ons hardware only. As seen in Intel the usage of integrated is used ONLY to refer an add-on, such as GMA. The reason why Hard Drives or HDDs are considered as an IDE is because, Hard Drive itself intially is an essential part of PC that the computer MUST Have. However, since the solutions or options to Storage allow you to have a variety of options, instead in a pre-determined form, it is considered somewhat of an semi-integrated device.

Pre-determined in this case, (meaning no options) refers to the fact that the physical properities of devices is unlikely to be changed no matter what. For example, in CPU no matter how you try to improve the product, they are always going to be packaged in some sort of arrays, such as BGA, FPGA...etc, the only that will change is the nano-architecture of circuits and programming (e.g. parallelism, distributed or clustered instruction programming). RAM is always going to be limited to their nano-architecture.

Therefore it is consider an "integrated." The term does seem quite self-contradictory, but looking from a different aspect it is not really not self-contradictory at all. Becuase if you have no options, than it would be a very big problem for management, thus server wouldn't appear today at all. (The options are SSDs, Hard Drive, Holograhpic storage...etc.)

Knowing what IDE are, let's move onto what is ATA. ATA is actually a 2 part word, AT (Advanced Technology) refer to the material of cable, Attachment meaning interface. ATAPI means (AT + API) or Cable interface API, which sounds correct, becuase DMA, LBA, ECHS works roughly at the same level of applications.
Note: the level which it resides depend on the hiearchy of OS priority.

Now here the part where you HAVE TO FOCUS. IDE (refer to Hard Drive + any other mobile devices) ATAPI (cable interface) ATA (Advanced Technology = cable, Attachment = interface) ---usually in technology the virtual parts always come first before the hardware comes e.g. ATA + EIDE

The History
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning of computer, they are no mobile devices at all, there is only mobile communications, use in the army. If you want to understand it works, you have to understand Telecommunications or you work for NASA space control communication, so its basically rocket science. As time progress PC got invented and thus gradually become a common household products thus mobile product pop-up.

PC Age
IDE In the PC age, the only storage technology avaliable is Hard Drives (HDD), since they don't have the technology to build mobile devices yet, most ppl call the HDD an IDE product. Thus the cable interface was govern by ATAPI (Note Floppy Disks Drive (FDD) is considered a backup feature not a mobile devices, therefore you don't hear people calling a FDD an IDE product.)
---IDE Hard Drives (for BIOS interface uses LBA, ECHS)
---IDE transfer interface uses PIO, DMA
Dominator: Western Digital, Iomgea
---Standard: IDE / ATA Standard

EIDE
Then EIDE pop-up (it work exactly same as EISA), they just extended so it be backward compatible with previous IDE drives. Understand that the term EIDE, is an incorrect naming use by the people in the industry, it is definately not an extension to IDE, IDE only refer to mobile devices, the only reason that HDD is considered IDE, because we need a variety of management solutions. It would be more correctly to called it EATC (Extended Cable (AT) Connector).
---EIDE Hard Drives for BIOS (use primarily ECHS, Int 13h, Int 16)
---transfer interface: Ultra DMA
Dominator: Seagate, Pheonix, Sony / Philips
Minor: Toshiba, Hitachi
--EIDE/ATA-2 Standard

PATA
The term PATA, was not a popular term, not because of popularity. Because PATA (Parllel Cable (AT) Interface), means HDD that uses EIDE ONLY + Word DMA (Parallelism) interace. However, since EIDE was developed to be backward compatible, many manufactureres choose not to produce it, instead in the PATA age, most manufacturerers developed a built-in processor specifically for LBA & ECHS processing to promote the usage of prefetching, smart caching and other types of non-main memory as a way to promote the developement of virtualization beginning.

The end of the PATA age markup a revolutionary change in the industry. Because mobile solutions are discoverd. The ATAPI was accelerated at a unforseen stage of period, from the industry and there was a lot of rising concerns about specifications, certifications and enormous amounts of dispute and arguements. Storage technologies became a huge topics of whether investment should be in processor capabilites, storage interface for management, more technologies implementation or speed?

Short History
Speed in history has not been a major factor at all, since all industry knows that the stability and management of low speeds can overtop faster speed easily, proven in UltraSPARC T2 uses 8 core (parallelism) vs IBM Cell + HP (which uses thousand of cores, base on distributed computing). Cluster Computing are still in research.

Many of the companies want to invest in Parallel computing, but most of them failed due to insufficient money, Sun Microsystems & IBM and possibly HP are the only 3 companies who can still hold on after the majort failure that almost crush their companies in huge amount of debt.)

pre-Revolution Age
(ZIP / Tape Drives) So as PATA age ended, there was a little tide before mobile went into a bloom of cherry blossom. You guess it, it was the zip drives, however, since they are one of the shortest age in the storage history, there wasn't a standard developed, it was more of a hype.

As it ended almost 100% the society forgot them, except the guys in filming and hollywood because following Zipe Drive age came Peripherials + Mobile Flash Memory / NOR memory which has dominated for quite a long time and didn't end until this year was HD-DVD & Blur-ray are considered junk.

Most people don't know that Media Drives actually derived from Zip Drives technology, since the devleopement is mainly in the multimedia industry. However, the subject usually require more than one field of studys, therefore most people didn't understand at all. (e.g. video & audio connector require understanding of Digital, Analog, Sound, VoIP and broadcasting network infrastructure & display (CRT, LCD, Plasma, OLED, touchscreen), display production technologies (Aperture Grille)

by broadcasting network infrastructure I refert to the OSI model. (OSI layer 4 doesn't uses TCP / UDP, OSI layer 2 (physical) they have their own packets, see ATA over Ethernet for details).

(Summary): In most cases, where the specification is more relevant to other industry than the formal industry intended the association usually give the authorities to the World Class Organization such as ISO, World Wide Web Consortium, then the ISO usually would direct it towards small association in the industry such as MPAA or RIAA OR they would work together with the association, but in general ISO is only involve in the authorities process and deals mainly with World Wide problems in engineering section. Ethics and morality are not their responsibilities to enforce it.

Revolutinoary Age (Main)

So when ZIP drive ended. ATAPI was fully recognized, because it contain mobile standards which is originally intended for. The Storage standards divided into 3 parts: Peripherial (or media drive bays) and Mobile Devices. The third part is SSD (but you have understand Peripherial and Mobile Devices first).

Since no mobile technology was developed, management become a concern, and there was a huge demand for mobile devices, many of the chipset manufacturerer and storage technologies try to formulated a solution, which was building Host Controller Interface as a of way of offloading stress on the Southbridge. However, since the mobile competition was at a very strong tension, everybody want to own the market, many association privatize the authorization to make their standard, and that is why OHCI (FireWire of IEEE) & UHCI + EHCI (USB of USB Alliance) have so many problems in their driver. (Remeber this part, it will be referred later)

In the Peripherial, referring to Optical Drives (excluding media cards). Optical Drives is named optical , refers to the lazer technology it has nothing got to do with Fiber Optics. ATAPI was a mess just like Mobile Devices problem. MPAA, RIAA wanted Digital Right Managements, when the technology doesn't exist. (some of you may recall rumors hearing that Japanese invented disc that can't be copied in the music industry). However, no evidence is proven that could work. Note: ATAPI did specific the mini-disc (I think it was called mini-DVD that can fit into your CD/DVD---ROM, R, R+RW, I don't the industry invented Blu-ray. Anyhow, ATAPI suggested that using the previous developed cable interface before going to far all at once, but because many of the companies wanted privatization of authorization of standards for their own industry (referring to multimedia). They develope their own standards which up till now is still very foregin to computer experts who want to understand about multimedia.

Enormous amount of people blamed on the US Hollywood and US Governments for not being repsonbile for world economy. Because the multimedia developement could of easily accelerated since 80% are computer based, however, since the multimedia industry mess up the entire specification, for now it is totally unsure how the specification is going to turn out, unless the Wireless Communication help draw the line.

Proceeding to the disaster of Periphierals, then SATA connector was invented, interesting it join Host Controller Interface (aka AHCI). No one knows why, but many people guessed it was because that SATA could hold infinite drive and not to have a management system would be a disaster. However, the periphieral also got the attention and there was a huge attempt at trying to develop it, though many didn't succeed because they didn't listen to ATAPI which cause a lot of interface problem, thus 98% of them never made it to the market or in any news section on internet nor magazine.

Finally in SSD industry much of the company wanted to develop fast speed hardware to promote the industry before the investement in the interface can be started. Luckily the SSD industry was smart to use media drives interface (e.g. CompactFlash) via the ATAPI DMA interface since, LBA, ECHS and PIO are way too old. For now ATAPI association is still under consideration, because using DRAM for SSD is not a smart idea at all. ATAPI and many other world leaders believe they should develop their own resources, rather than using the resources which is not intended for thus causing uncessary damages (e.g. see Dell notebook incident). However, since HD is gradually becoming a part of consumer demand, it would be very hard to predict the turn out.

Confidential Unannounced Plan (might be removed, status unsure) I will add File System later, maybe next week. power connectors for IDE, EIDE

ATAPI

LBA, ECHS (BIOS interface for IDE + EIDE)
Int 13h, for new
PIO, DMA
UDMA,

--Ramu50 (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Ramu50's material[edit]

Ramu, much of what you have written here is wrong; some is "not even wrong"; and almost all of it is nearly incomprehensible due to your apparent inability to express your ideas in clear written English. I have not time for a point by point rebuttal here, but I can tell you that if you make any changes to the main article based on this screed they will most likely be reverted, and not just by me. Jeh (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(Above paragraph was writen by jeh 01:15 22 June. It was DELETED by Ramu50 ([[1]]) when he made the following reply. Restored. Jeh (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) )

To Jeh, if don't have the patience to wait for me to rewrite, then get out of this discussion, becaues I spent 5 hours writing this, even though it sucks, but at it is better than nothing, trying to justify info that doesn't even have a logical explanation. We all know that ATA world is very messy in terminology, so evidential proof is very likely to be hard to find, but for the least you should provide logical explanation, I did it and you didn't. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this not as an article standpoint, I try to write it in less formal way so people won't get bored with it. Much my knowledge come from CompTIA A+ and reading thousand of article on the internet. If many aren't satisified or claim that they are wrong, I will place evidential proof and further discussion is going to be needed. But keep in mind that the article is nevertheless have to be written in neutral, no matter how much time it takes. Of course, there will be a lot of opposition, depending on how well people can accep it. However, I don't expect everybody to change instantly or must follow my way, but since this discussion has already been unanswered for way too long, some of them are clearly outdated. This is just a brief head up about getting your information straight, therefore I did in a very casual way not. = = Sorry I didn't pay attention the grammatical errors, I know it annoyed a lot of people. The viewpoints you don't have to agree on me, but I encourage to give substanial proof nevertheless.

The history about pre-Revolution Age & Revolution Age will be extremely controversial since these decision are generally not publish for the general public, because they do not represent the association standpoint. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to stop thinking in terms of "I am right and all who disagree are wrong" and instead change your mindset to "why am I so wrong and confused, and where can I get better sources?" Jeh (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the ATA/IDE confusion in the article needs to be addressed, and the stimulus you provided to reorganize and archive the talk page topics was good... but that's about all you are correct about. I have moved your proposed organization to the archive page, as the reorg is now done. Jeh (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As for giving proof, you are the one making extraordinary claims -- it is up to you to provide the proof for your positions. But here: [[2]] is a good summary of the history of the terminology. Be sure to click the "next page" (Enhanced IDE) link at the bottom, and the next page after that, etc. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You might also read up on ISA: [3] and EISA[4] as you seem equally confused there - EIDE and EISA in fact have utterly nothing to do with each other, they do not "work exactly the same," and EIDE most definitely is IDE (as the term was used by WD) with some extensions. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile neither IDE or EIDE is tied to or associated with "mobile devices" in any way whatsoever, whatever you mean by that term - I gather you mean add-in devices, but in English "mobile devices" refers to things like mobile phones. The built-in hard drive that came with your PC, if an ATA drive, was every bit as much an IDE drive as the add-in drive you installed next to it. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. - whatever you had planned to write about file systems, please consider: They have absolutely nothing to do with the ATA interface; information on them simply doesn't belong here. The job and scope of the ATA interface stops with presenting the disk drive as an array of blocks that can be addressed, read, and written. Partitions, file systems, etc., are all implemented by software. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For first Jeh you need stop being the boss of this discussion, you, me and all other users are not adminastratiors, the things being propose is one thing. I like the way how you organize the Archive page, but in the future, I think there still need to be some consideration of agreement from other users. Back to original discussion, before your start posting unreliable citations you need understand what is reliable sources. I mention several time already that this is a reference and still undergoing planning, read what other is saying before you start having your own ideas and become misleading. Improvements will be made, but not instantly. You should organize your reply better, instead of constantly changing in your viewpoints and going off-topic.

No one else is writing here at the moment. I don't consider myself boss, but I do consider myself correct on these points. These are not matters of opinion, they are verifiable facts. Based on what you have written here I would say you are in no position to judge what is a reliable source and what is not; clearly you have gained your false impressions from a variety

of unreliable sources. Nor do I need to take advice from you as to how to post on a talk page. You, not I, are the one coming here with a thoroughly disruptive proposal. Your text is not a "reference" of any sort as it is mostly wrong. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the citations you provided they are not reliable sources, the author is stealing copyright from PC Guide (known as PC Magazine in UK & USA). The information there is represented by one person idea, if it were agree by the company (they should state the type of company e.g. LLC, Ltd, Corp, GNU, Limited FRAND OSP...etc.)

The pages I linked are not "stealing copyright". Indeed you contradict yourself - if it is "one person idea" (the page author) he cannot possibly have stolen it from someone else! (Conversely if he did steal it from say the U.S. "PC Magazine", then how is it an unreliable source?) Anyway he did not steal it: "PC Guide" is the author's own name for those pages; I've been following them for years and have even provided a suggestion or two. That other publications may have similar or even identical titles is irrelevant: Titles cannot be copyrighted, only content. But not the facts -- facts such as these are part of common knowledge. In reference material the specific wording expressing a fact is subject to copyright but the underlying fact is not. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the following line, if anything were to happen to this company, the government needs to nothing about it, since he didn't follow the copyright law. Copyright generally uses EULA, and even if he choose not use EULA, all words should be formal, using a phrase is not responsible at all.

Not responsible for any loss resulting from the use of this site.

What do you mean, "didn't follow copyright law"? Those pages have been up and under development for years -- if he had stolen the text from someplace like PC Magazine it would have been noticed long ago and he would have been asked to remove them from the web. He has a proper copyright notice according to not just US but international copyright law. Nothing about copyright requires use of a EULA (how many EULAs have you found in books lately?). The phrase about not being responsible doesn't have anything to do with copyright either - it's a disclaimer of liability, that's all; such could appear on a public domain work just as it could on a copyrighted work. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Jeh, you need to speak legitimately about your viewpoints, you are not the adminastrators, if your ideas are constantly changing while I am planning, how is this article ever going to be finish.

My views are not changing, particularly as to the validity of the material you have posted here. "IDE is for 'mobile' devices only?" "IDE (or ATA) came in with ZIP drives??!?" I'm sorry but these and so many other things you have written are just so far from true that a series of edits cannot fix them. You are like someone on a football field insisting that the players follow the rules of baseball. A few small changes will not make things work. And your knowledge is far from sufficient to allow you to plan any changes to the article. You need to forget everything you think you know on this subject and start over. The pages I linked previously would be an excellent starting point. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My planning is to propose on making the article to IDE device, so specifications, association and interface standards...etc can be tied in some sort form, like stubbing linking and so forth.

You can propose anything you want but I am telling you - any changes you make to the article that express almost any of the views you have written here will be reverted within hours. That is not because I am trying to be boss, it is because your views on the history of ATA, etc., are almost all wrong. I happen to be the only one writing in this talk page for the moment but believe me, I won't be the only one reverting. And if you persist in trying to establish your changes on the main page you will be banned for disruptive and tendentious editing. Either that, or eventually you will give up and go away in disgust, convinced that you are right and the mean editors here just won't change their minds. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please - for your own good - before either of those things happens, accept the possibility of what I am telling you: that you are simply wrong about most of the things you are trying to write about here, and therefore are in no position to lead, guide, or even suggest the sorts of changes you seem to be proposing. And take the opportunity to learn better. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It IS high time that the article properly describe these terms, and since you brought it up, I'll take a stab at that. Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While I will make another article named Storage Devices, that will include HCI, HPA, TCQ, NCQ, Peripherials, I/O influences...etc. This can benefit many loosely define article and reorganize altogether. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I can see it's going to be an interesting summer. Could you at least learn to spell key words like "peripherals"? How about "attachment"? Jeh (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ATA (Advanced Technology refer to the cable material, it was commonly refer as IDE ribbon cable, however, because it causes a noise problem in airflow, some manufacturerer designed the IDE round cable. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "Advanced Technology" is not part of the name at all. Assuming for sake of argument that it was, it would have nothing to do with the "cable material". Nearly identical cables were in use for literally decades previously. In the PC space, see the floppy cable, ST506 and ESDI cables, etc. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ATA describe the basic interface of (BIOS {LBA, ECHS} & HDD addressing {PIO, DMA}) while ATA/ATAPI was generally use more advanced interface like 48bit LBA, AAC and describe standards for peripherials. It also improved the PIO, DMA, so designers can use the standards to built their own technologies, this is because that Hard Drives, are unlike (CPU, grapic cards, sound card and network card in which their design is mostly base on parallelism, distribution or relational, thus requiring redesigning the physical nanoarchitecutre for effiency.) They are very dependant on their interface for their effiency like JDBC connectivity. So implanting their own technologies for consumer product can greatly change the consumers' desire. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, ATAPI has to do with the "packet interface" used for CDROMs, tapes, etc. In particular the ATAPI part of the spec has nothing to do with PIO or DMA modes. Nor did the addition of ATAPI to the spec have anything to do with 48-bit LBA. AAC is not in the spec at all. And far from "describing standards for peripherals," the ATAPI portions of the spec leave the specifics of talking to various classes of devices (CD-ROM, tape, etc.) to other specs. All ATAPI does is provide a way to exchange SCSI commands and responses in "packets" sent via ATA. The specific SCSI commands needed by a tape or CD-ROM drive or etc. are in different specs, unique to those devices. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way ATA/ATAPI doesn't describe SSD, so I am removing that. That part is still undecided by the association. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. One, it allows for SSD as it does for any other random-access block storage device that has approximately disk-like characteristics. Two, there are a few features specifically for solid state drives: The "CompactFlash Association (CFA) Feature Set", which "provides support for solid state memory devices." This was back in ATA/ATAPI 4 (section 4.10). (but it's independent of ATAPI). Hence I have restored the SSD reference in the lede, and also added the CFA feature to the table row for ATA/ATAPI 4. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then only CompactFlash can be part of SSD, and the article should mention it. I will update it. All of the interface use for notepad (e.g. PCMIA) and originally designed for magnetic tape drive interface needed to be verify. CompactFlash is verified under INCITS 317-1998 (1153D) (ATA/ATAPI 4.0 with Packet Interface Extension)) . Next time reference it yourself. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is nothing preventing any other sort of SSD from using the CFA feature set. Please note that that and all following versions of the spec says "provides support for solid state memory devices", not "provides support for CompactFlash devices". For that matter there was nothing preventing SSD from being used before ATA/ATAPI-4, as long as the SSD emulated a hard drive, it just would not be able to use these specific few commands. The reference link is already given in the feature and versions table. Please do not remove SSD from the article, or change it to refer to compact flash only, there is no support for your position and your changes will be reverted. Jeh (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You totally don't undertand how ATAPI specification works. CompactFlash, Secure Digital and all other ZIP drive or media card interface were NEVER considered as an interface before. They were only considered a new line of products by the general public. By using SSD (either SRAM, DRAM or NOR-Flash), the government hold no responsibility, if accident happens, because SRAM, DRAM and NOR-Flash were first not intended for long term storage like HDDs. So this is an unethical practice and disrespecting the original inventor of SRAM, DRAM and NOR-Flash, they were lucky not to get sued. Second, using media drive or ZIP drive (which is intended for mobile devices is also unethical and if accident happens happens the invetor hold no responsibility, because there was no licensing involved, which make the implementation illegal. The only reason that ATAPI accepted SOME of the media drive interface into their specification is because the law require all electronics to have a warranty. So having a specification would be lower the chances of accident thus increasing safety. Also since at this stage of storage, the products is under research, that is why under these circumstance the government allow this to happen without licensing. SSD only means the devices uses MLC, SLC and NAND gates if wish, they are no evidence that indicate SSD are non-volatile. If they were this implementation can be legalize. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, please. This paragraph of yours (and the corresponding section in the main article) is pure speculation on someone's part. I don't know where you got these ideas, but you should not trust that source(s) in the future.

If you disagree, please provide references for these claims, particularly in the main article.

The CompactFlash hardware interface was specifically designed to be compatible with ATA, and the ATA spec (as of ATA-5) cites the CompactFlash connector as an alternate connector. Pretty far from "not supported".

And there is no "government responsibility" over anything in these specs, so there is no concern over liabilities or accidents or warranties or any of the similar stuff claimed. These specification organizations are volunteer groups, primarily made up of academic researchers and experts in the related industries. The "American National Standards Institute", for example, is a private non-profit org, not a government agency of any sort. Same for INCITS, which is the parent group of the T13 committee. And - surprising fact - you'll find they never really use the word "specification", because of the risk of implied liability. We say "the spec" for short, but it isn't really called that.

In any case, the documents say "The optional CompactFlashä Association (CFA) feature set provides support for solid state memory devices." I don't see how you can argue that this does not mean that solid state memory devices are supported.

--- Jeh (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant: Warning to Beland: DO NOT USE, Please Improve this article template, this is a discussion. If you do it again I am reporting you to adminastrator.

What on earth does this mean? Who is Beland? Jeh (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Above short paragraph was deleted by Ramu50: [[5]] restored Jeh (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) )

The Warning to Beland is none of buisness Jeh, I just move it yesterday. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Warnings along the lines of "don't do x or I will report you to admins" are considered uncivil. You might want to consider removing your warning. Jeh (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no proof, so you mine as well shut up or provide some real proof. By the way stop your useless whining in this discussion or I am just going to delete your work, because it is a waste of Wikipedia space. The term specification can be use by anybody, and it has no denotation or connotation in regards to legal terms, the previous reference documents I provided was only an update to your previous debate. I am not necessarily support your viewpoint, so stop being immature once again. You never provide proof or logical debate against my viewpoints, the documents you stated doesn't even exist. IEEE, INCITS and W3C were NEVER confirm by anyone to be non-profit organization, just because you make no revenue, doesn't mean you are a non-profit organization. CompactFlash was originally design by SanDisk for portable digital devices, thus the use of NOR flash already prove that its original intention was not for desktop or notebook storage, even if it is by logic it wouldn't be approve by INCITS because of its space limitation. (Even if they aren't the inventor, in legal system if you don't register your invention other people can take your artwork or do whatever you want.) Ethically speaking it is not wise and certainly not very respectful, but legally it is allowed, because reality is that way. If you want your ownership back, you need to go to settlement who currently own your artworks, your undergo lawsuit to claim back your authority. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I Have no proof??? This article and the points you are trying to challenge represent long-established consensus. If you are challenging consensus, particularly with controversial claims, then you are the one obligated to provide "evidential proof" from the beginning.

In particular, I request that you provide references—not your "logical explanations", which are not valid, regardless of how "logical" they may seem to you, because the assumptions you are reasoning from are false to begin with—for the following claims, which are all direct or near-direct quotes from your text. Note that in some cases I have provided specific rebuttals. But in all cases the onus is upon you to provide evidence of each of your claims. NOT a reply to my rebuttal, but evidence for each of your original claims.

Until you do this, I doubt that anything you write on the subject of AT Attachment or any related technologies will be taken seriously.

"Integrated Device Electronics should refer to add-ons hardware only."
"As seen in Intel the usage of integrated is used ONLY to refer an add-on, such as GMA." (The Intel GMA is specifically not an add-on card, it is a graphics chip that's soldered to your motherboard! Read the article about GMA that's right here on Wikipedia!)
"AT (Advanced Technology) refer to the material of cable" (The exact same "material of cable" was used in PCs long before ATA (e.g. floppy, ST506) and for decades before the PC)
"the cable interface was govern by ATAPI" (So ATA-1 through ATA-3, which did nt include ATAPI, did not specify the cable interface?)
"ATAPI means (AT + API) or Cable interface API..." (See above.)
"...which sounds correct, because DMA, LBA, ECHS works roughly at the same level of applications" (Applications are not aware of such details. Applications deal with block numbers within files, not LBAs, which have scope across the entire drive. It is up to the file system driver to resolve these to either LBA or CHS. Nor does an app in a modern OS have any control over, or even knowledge of, whether DMA is used or not.)
"IDE In the PC age, the only storage technology avaliable is Hard Drives (HDD), since they don't have the technology to build mobile devices yet, most ppl call the HDD an IDE product. (There were PC hard drives long before IDE. ST-506, ESDI, SCSI. There were also "mobile devices" long before IDE, notably Bernoulli drives, which came out in 1983. CD-ROM drives also existed for PCs long before IDE. They were usually interfaced via SCSI.)
"EIDE, is an incorrect naming use by the people in the industry, it is definately not an extension to IDE... it would be more correctly to called it EATC (Extended Cable (AT) Connector)."
"The term PATA, was not a popular term, not because of popularity." (PATA is in fact a new term, used to distinguish parallel ATA from serial ATA, and its popularity is just fine.)
"Because PATA (Parllel Cable (AT) Interface), means HDD that uses EIDE ONLY + Word DMA (Parallelism) interace." (No. "PATA" has nothing to do with DMA; a PATA device is just what we used to call ATA device before Serial ATA came along; as such a PATA device can most certainly use PIO.)
"However, since EIDE was developed to be backward compatible, many manufactureres choose not to produce it" (A very large number of models of EIDE drives were produced. Western Digital still brands their drives this way. See, for example, [[6]]: "With SATA and EIDE interfaces..." )
"instead in the PATA age, most manufacturerers developed a built-in processor specifically for LBA & ECHS processing" (LBA addressing is not new, it was supported in [[7]]. See section 7.1.2: "A drive can operate in either of two addressing modes, CHS or LBA, on a command by command basis..." BIOS support for this came later but that is not an issue here.)
"The end of the PATA age markup a revolutionary change in the industry." (PATA does not mean what you think it means, and while Serial ATA is certainly challenging Parallel ATA's dominance we are not at the "end of the PATA age" yet. I just bought a brand new Seagate PATA 750 GB drive last week.)
"So as PATA age ended, there was a little tide before mobile went into a bloom of cherry blossom. You guess it, it was the zip drives" (mobile devices such as Bernoulli drives existed long before ATA itself, let alone before it "ended", since it has not ended yet.)
"Media Drives actually derived from Zip Drives technology"
"So when ZIP drive ended. ATAPI was fully recognized, because it contain mobile standards which is originally intended for." (ATAPI was developed not for "mobile standards" but for basically anything other than a hard drive, or hard drive emulator, attached to an ATA cable. Doesn't have to be a "mobile device" at all. Conversely, some "mobile devices", like solid state disks, are not ATAPI devices.)
"SATA connector was invented, interesting it join Host Controller Interface (aka AHCI). No one knows why," (Actually everyone knows why: For a basic SATA controller it is useful to have a standardized register-level interface to that controller. That way you don't need a different device driver for every different make and model of controller.)
However, the (SATA) periphieral also got the attention and there was a huge attempt at trying to develop it, though many didn't succeed because they didn't listen to ATAPI which cause a lot of interface problem, thus 98% of them never made it to the market or in any news section on internet nor magazine." (So I guess all the Serial ATA drives I see on the shelves, not to mention the ones installed in my machines, never made it to market. Oh wait, I guess they did! SATA hard drives and SATA DVD-R, etc., drives are plentiful. If that's just 2% than I really have to wonder what all the other 98% of products are that "never made it to market.")
"CompactFlash, Secure Digital and all other ZIP drive or media card interface..." (ZIP drives do not use "media card interface"; and ZIP drives existed long before those features existed in ATA/ATAPI.)
"Luckily the SSD industry was smart to use media drives interface (e.g. CompactFlash) via the ATAPI DMA interface since, LBA, ECHS and PIO are way too old." (Compact Flash devices are not and have never been ATAPI devices. They look like disk drives with a few extra commands supported. And they do use LBA. How do you think they're addressed?)
"the documents you stated doesn't even exist." (I checked every link I gave you. They exist. They confirm what I have said, and they contradict your claims. Furthermore you questioned some of them by claiming they were stolen material from other sources. They are not, but how can you claim they don't exist when you must have read them to make that criticism?)
"The media drives interface such as CompactFlash, Secure Digital and other media drive interface aren't fully approved by the INCITS association." (Where do you find a statement that they are not "fully approved"?)
"SSD are still unstable in developement."
"(among SSDs) only non-violatile memory can be considered as a legitimate legalized product."
"IEEE, INCITS and W3C were NEVER confirm by anyone to be non-profit organization"(I think their tax accountants and the IRS will certainly be interested to hear that! W3C is irrelevant here. IEEE really is as well, but see [[8]]: "a nonprofit corporation, incorporated in the state of New York on March 16, 1896. Qualifies as a tax-exempt organization as described under U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), which is eligible to receive charitable contributions that are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes." For ANSI, see [[9]]: "Legal Status A 501(c)3 private, not-for-profit organization". INCITS operates under ANSI accreditation and rules.)

I could list many more of your unsupportable claims but I think this is more than enough to make my point. Provide references for them, please. Not your "logical arguments", but authoritative sources that say more or less exactly what you are claiming, for each specific point. Until you do that you have no room to complain about anyone else's lack of references. You also have no room to complain when anyone says that what you have written just isn't true. Jeh (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This evidence you provide doesn't even exist, and I am not complaining, I am only correcting it. Give linkable reference or I am deleting it. This the 3rd time I talk to you before.

The "CompactFlash Association (CFA) Feature Set", which "provides support for solid state 
memory devices." This was back in ATA/ATAPI 4 (section 4.10).

List 6 This is totally incorrect, a software can be written in a lower level programming (such as programming PLDs) that is burned onto the integrated 48bit LBA processor's scratchpad cache, which is also known as an interpeter. Firmware can be consider an element of program such as debugger or interpreter, thus it is also correct to called it a software or applicaton. It is just a different level of hiearchy.

List 7 ESDI & SCSI are not IDE devices, they are Host Controller Interface cards that utilize expansion slots storage. The current SCSI can't be considered IDE, because it is the card itself is only an add-on BIOS feature for SAS an NAS.

List 12 I never stated it was a new technology, I stated that developed a built-in processor for the LBA & ECHS technologies (48 bit LBA processor) (16 bit RISC HDD processor)

I am not providing evidence for the following list, as stated before the paragraph was only an extra information. (Because these are personal viewpoints) List 9 List 11 List 13 List 17 (Incorrect, SATA register-level interface could of been easily implanted in BIOS, there is no need for another HCI or they could implanted a processor onto the Southbridge for better management of all peripherials and flash drive related interface.) List 18 List 23

Toshiba Dynabook SSD (notebook) problem
Dell notebook using SSD (20~30% return rate) [10] --Ramu50 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

One, you will not delete or edit other people's text in talk pages. Please see WP:TALK.

Two - You have a small point in that I got the section number wrong—that is the section number in which that text appears in ATA/ATAPI-7. However if you will go to AT Attachment#ATA standards versions, transfer rates, and features, go to the table row for ATA/ATAPI-4, and click on the link for the document in the rightmost column... then go to section 6.13 (page 52), you will find the exact text I quoted. If you had searched for that text, you would have found it. If you had just searched for "CompactFlash" or "CFA", you would have found it. It's in section 6.16 of ATA/ATAPI-5 and -6. Section 4.10 is the right section number for ATA/ATAPI-7 vol. 1.

Three - no, the term "applications" does not usually include firmware on a device controller. Applications are things like a text editor, a web browser, a database. (See [[11]] As it happens I've written a bit of firmware in my day, and I've personally interacted with literally hundreds of other firmware developers, and I never once heard anyone referring to what we were doing as "writing applications." (Device drivers are not applications either.) So now you have yet another claim for which you need to provide references.

As I said in response to your messages on my talk page: What takes your demands for references from the merely ridiculous to the truly amazing is that it was not until several days into this trainwreck that you asked for the URL where you could find the T13 documents! (Even though they have been linked from the main article page all along.) Meaning that you hadn't read them, in fact you didn't even know where to find them, until that point! Yet here you have written thousands of words challenging long-established consensus as if you had some authoritative source for your position. How can you claim to have any expertise on a subject when you have not read, indeed, did not even know where to find, the basic defining documents for that subject? And you—you, who had been working until that point without this fundamental source material—you accuse me of posting unreferenced information? Please.

In short, you need to stop nitpicking at responses to your material and provide references for your own claims. All 25 of them. 26 if we include your claim that firmware on a hard drive's controller can be considered an "application." Really, you are in a very, very deep hole. My suggestion is that you stop digging. Jeh (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)