This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

The order of the following title have been place consecutively to prevent newcomers confusion of what has actually happen, when I was here. DO NOT TRY TO SEPARATE them please.

2 Reorganization and archiving of talk page
3 Ongoing, open, and unresolved discussions and questions
Major Solutions to AT Attachement; Discussion page
-New questions and suggestions (even though this is a subtitle, but for convience sake, I will place it as a subtitle, because it is a head start for me to fully improve my previous work and bring it back anew if possible, even though this was a intermediate issues that has been quite a while.

You can delete my message after a week if you so wish, it is unnecessary.
--Ramu50 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(really, requested revert of move)

Background and status

This article was originally (and for quite some time) named "AT Attachment". User The Anome (talk) moved it to "Advanced Technology Attachment", its present name, with the justification given in the next subsection. My response describing my arguments for moving it back to "AT Attachment" follow his comments. Jeh (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization: Since some of the threads here have gone on for a while, I have created subsections for the thread started by each user who has contributed to this discussion. In some cases opinions on the issue were on users' talk pages and I have copied them here (with links to diffs to establish authorship).

The current status of the discussion appears to me to be: No consensus for requested new name ("AT Attachment") but there is less consensus (if such a concept even exists :) ) for the current name, i.e. for the recent move from AT Attachment to the current name, "Advanced Technology Attachment":

If you have an opinion on this, please contribute. And of course please sign with ~~~~

The Anome

"AT Attachment" is not a good name for this article, since it's neither the common usage, nor the official name.

The Wikipedia naming convention is that we should in general use the common name of a thing as its article title, or, if there is sufficiently good reason, or a class exception to the general rule, the official name.

For example, the article on North Korea should either be called North Korea (which is the name almost universally used by others), or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the full official name of the country in English). "DPR Korea" would not be a good name, since it is neither.

Thus, we should either call the ATA article "Advanced Technology Attachment" (common name), or "AT Attachment with Packet Interface" (official name). Even though it's officially incorrect, almost everyone reads ATA as meaning Advanced Technology Attachment -- not unreasonably, since "AT" originally stood for "Advanced Technology". I believe the article should stay with that name, according to Wikipedia policy.

To try to clarify this, I've now started the intro in the article with: "AT Attachment with Packet Interface, commonly known as Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA)..." -- The Anome (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that is correct. "AT Attachment" (Google: 173,000 hits) seems to me to be far more common than "Advanced Technology Attachment" (61,000 hits). This is also my personal experience, not that that means anything.

Ok, I have to confess that I made a stupid error regarding the Google search. Since Google does not preserve case "AT attachment" produces a large number of false hits. However "Advanced technology attachment" is pretty darn specific. "AT attachment" while excluding "drive", "interface", and "cable" yields 124,000 hits. I propose that the difference between this number and the previous number (246,000) gives a decent approximation to the pages using "AT attachment" in the way we're interested here: 122,000. "Advanced technology attachment" with these same exclusions yields only 5270 hits, leaving 58,000 hits by the same rules. So "AT attachment" still wins, by two to one instead of three. I'd be interested in seeing what results others find from other searches. Jeh (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the term "AT Attachment Interface" (note, without the "packet interface" part - more on this in a moment) occurs in many places in the spec document. The term "advanced technology" appears nowhere.

I think most people will use "ATA" in preference to either of these. (Google for "ATA drive": 246,000; "ATA interface", 417,000; and there are many others; of course there is overlap.) But "ATA" would not be a good name for the article as it is imprecise (there are many other things abbreviated "ATA").

I believe this leaves us with "AT Attachment" as the best compromise between correctness and common usage. It is also the name this article had for many years with no complaints.

I'm afraid you have introduced further confusion and error regarding "ATAPI". The full title of the specification document is e.g. "AT Attachment with Packet Interface - 6 (ATA/ATAPI-6)", but that does not mean that "ATAPI" may be used to refer to the entire specification, as you have done in at least one place in your recent edits.

The formal "short name" for the entire spec is "ATA/ATAPI-6" (the 6 is the version number). Note that the "ATA" part is not omitted, even though it seems redundant. "ATAPI" by itself does not provide what in the OSI model we would call the physical and data link layers; in "ATA/ATAPI" devices, the ATAPI commands and responses are sent and received via the ATA interface and protocol.

The spec describes the ATA physical interface, signaling protocol, and ATA commands and responses. An ATA hard drive uses only this portion of the spec. The spec also describes the "packet interface" protocol used by ATAPI devices to send and receive SCSI commands and responses over the ATA interface.

So... any ATAPI device (such as a DVD-ROM drive) that uses the "ATA" 40-pin connector and interface described here is also an ATA device - you can't officially call it just "ATAPI" even though that is very common. Technically it's an "ATA/ATAPI" device.

On the other hand an ATA hard drive is most emphatically not an ATAPI device.

Therefore using the term "ATAPI" as if to refer to the entire spec is incorrect. Writing out "AT Attachment with Packet Interface" as if to refer to the entire spec would be correct, but misleading.

I will try to come up with a reasonably succint way to explain all of these points and bring the whole article into alignment with these usages, pending further discussion here.Jeh (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done that, but I still think we need to move the page back to "AT Attachment". According to WP:Requested moves this should be treated as a controversial move (since it was recently moved in good faith, etc.) so I am following the procedure given there.

Does anyone else have any comments about the name? Jeh (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OSI model that I mention was an example for the broadcasting infrastructure network, which is only a reference and has no relevance to ATAPI.(I never stated that ATAPI used it, read carefuly before you start posting nonsense.) --Ramu50 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu, my mention of OSI was in response to The Anome's comments, not to yours. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User The Anome (talk), who renamed it from "AT Attachment" to "Advanced Technology Attachment" in the first place, has said renaming it to "AT Attachment with Packet Interface" is "fine with me" (him): [[1]]. To me this is better than "Advanced Technology Attachment" but worse than "AT Attachment". Jeh (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electron9

I think the article on "ATA" should be named 'Advanced Technology Attachment' and the reason for that is that almost all other technical terms are expanded to their full meaning to avoid future name collisions when new acronyms becomes established. ATA/AT attachment etc.. is just redirect linked to the article with fully expanded name. If there comes a new technology like "Arbitration Test Attachment".. should that also be named "AT Attachment" ..?.. *problem*. Electron9 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "Advanced Technology..." is not the "full meaning" of "AT Attachment". It is just "AT Attachment". Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also beware of using google or any other search engine as a reference. It's all to easy to get suckered into 1000 flies can't be wrong, shit must be good ;-) Electron9 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the spec can't be wrong about its own name. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see ATAPI as extension to the original 'Advanced Technology Attachment' specification. Note that I do not call ATA a standard. Because ATA has always been a royal mess in all aspects. Electron9 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Advanced Technology Attachment" isn't the "full meaning." It's never spelled out that way in the dcouments. Not even in version 1. It's always been just "AT Attachment". So that is the fully expanded name. But... thank you for your input. Jeh (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom94022

User Tom94022 writes (on my talk page, User talk:Jeh) [[2]]

FWIW the T13 committee home page begins "Technical Committee T13 is responsible for all interface standards relating to the popular AT Attachment (ATA) storage interface utilized as the disk drive interface on most personal and mobile computers today." so the article probably should be "AT Attachment" and not "Advanced Technology Attachment." While version 7 of specification is "AT Attachment with Packet Interface," historically it hasn't always been so and it looks like it will revert to "AT Attachment" in version 8. I think most people will better understand AT Attachment (ATA) as the article title and we should drop "with Packet Interface" except where relevant. JEH, BTW see my other comments on my talk page Tom94022 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JEH, thanks for posting my talk - Just to make my position clear, the page should be reverted to AT Attachment title. Advanced Technology is just plain wrong. Tom94022 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu50

How about just renaming to IDE specification and redirect Advanced Technology Attachement, ATA and ATAPI to IDE specification. We can explain what is ATA (the cable), AT(cable material), ATA(specification), ATAPI. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to "IDE" is not an option in this discussion. Once this question (rename back to "AT Attachment", or not) is resolved, you can bring that up as a proposed rename if you like. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But "Advanced Technology..." is not the "full meaning" of "AT Attachment". It is just 
"AT  Attachment". Jeh (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong Jeh, at the time period when IDE HDD was invented it can be considered. Actually Advanced Technology, ATA or Advanced Technology Attachment is synonymous to each other. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not wrong. At the time the ATA standard was first created it was called "AT Attachment". Not "Advanced Technology Attachment". Download the various versions of the spec for yourself and see. In fact the word "advanced" does not even appear in the ATA-1 spec, let alone "advanced technology"! Whether or not it was actually considered considered "advanced technology" as a descriptive term (as opposed to being named that, which it decidedly was not) at the time is a different question, not relevant to the name of the page. But that question would probably be answered "no": It was not particularly "advanced," since SCSI already existed and SCSI was considerably more advance: SCSI had, for example, DMA capabilities before ATA existed, and years before ATA's DMA mode existed. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "Advanced Technology Attachment" isn't the "full meaning." It's never spelled 
out that  way in the dcouments Jeh (talk) 
06:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says by who --Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says the specification documents, all the way back to version 1. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, which website is the official specifications, I am getting confused after searching numerous websites. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.t13.org . For the specs themselves, see the "FTP" button in the left column. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why ATAPI was not used until UDMA came out was because of the reason (Note: I wrote days last week, was thinking of posting it, but still not quite sure). -- Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you were trying to say here, but I will say again: ATAPI and UDMA really have nothing to do with each other. In particular an ATAPI device can work just fine (although slowly, of course) using PIO modes. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe that we should name it to IDE Device, because there is a lot of problem regarding ATAPI. ATAPI (AT Attachment Packet Interface)-there is quite a confusion in the word “packet,” because initially packet is describe compress form of data (since military require communication, packet was generally accepted as a compress data) --Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Packets" in this context have utterly nothing to do with compressing data. If you're thinking of "packet radio" (used in ham radio, btw, as well as in military comms), that was developed long after the use of packets in computer communications, and doesn't necessarily compress anything either. Please read Packet (information technology). You will find that compression is incidental to the packet concept. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is also very controversial that whether or not AT uses packet or not.--Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spec doesn't think it's controversial at all. It's very unequivocal about the matter. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to know the actually instruction code to determine if they uses. So I think this is probably what the INCITS committee came up (a prediction)

Packet---compress data (for processor request through Southbridge) Packet---contain compress data or thread only 　　　(if on-board 48 bit LBA or built-in ECHS exists on the HDD) ATAPI-6 http://en.kioskea.net/pc/ide-ata.php3 Packet---contains data only, due to management software or some form of interpreter existence

If contain header, then it is for SANs not consumer product (because nowadays they are still insufficient understanding of how storage management really works, placing a specification wouldn't be wise, because DBMS is still being mapped out) and they are currently absoultely no understanding or any explanation as to why Connectivity such as JDBC or ODBC results in faster speed performance. -initially ANSI was going to place specification on IRQ, but it didn’t happen, because unprecedented of header were found. I predicited this, because in Pentium 4 systems, almost all computers avaliable IRQ are quite synonymous to each other Packet---contain binary header (IRQ) Packet---contain MAC address (for network packet)

Packet---contain loosely instruction code, for Southbridge to process (the simplest processing can be achieve the same way as the first Pong game console architecture (most people called it discrete form of processor, even though it is accepted, but everybody knows it is not the best term, because discrete of processor has a connotation of copying of processor). However, processor didn't exists at that stage of history, therefore you shouldn't accuse people of wrongdoings for the things they never done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the T13 committee came up with is what's in the spec: Packets in ATAPI are used for encapsulation. Not for compression. There are "headers" in the packets because these packets carry SCSI commands and responses and SCSI commands and responses have headers. There isn't any doubt or ambiguity about it, no need to try to "predict" anything. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions, why does Wikipedia force me that I have to use br tags = =

I suppose because the automatic formatting rules that apply to talk pages do not take into account the way you would like your text to appear. Would you mind trying to conform to the standards of talk pages? It would make things much easier. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeh arguments and ramu50 is moved to Jeh's user page discussion. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Jeh (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeh, do you mind stop being an asshole. Stop using the discussion as your own page, I deleted your testing section.--Ramu50 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put that "testing" section there as a demonstration to the IP user who complained about the page reorg that "new section" wouldn't work. This has nothing to do with "using the discussion as my own page". Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally (and for quite some time) named "AT Attachment". User The Anome 
(talk) moved it to "Advanced Technology Attachment", its present name, with the following 
justification. My response describing my arguments 

Wikipedia is a user friendly page Encycloepdia, stop posting things as if you are bias on a user, you make everything sound like as if you want to post a legal threat. Who the hell cares it was originally named, people don't stupid things, just because you don't understand what other is thinking doesn't mean you are king. They understand their common sense, stating it that was originally named seems to be is more accusing ones' wrongdoing, what did you contribute to this discussion? --Ramu50 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proceeding with the formal procedure for a possibly contested rename—even though this is simply a revert of a previous rename that was not done through the formal procedure; I feel that going through the procedure will add legitimacy and permanence to the final decision, whatever it is. The Anome (talk) is fully aware of this process and of my text. He apparently does not think there's a problem with any of this; we had a perfectly civil exchange on his talk page. So I don't know why you're taking so much offense on his behalf. The material you quoted is there for information for newcomers to the discussion, and it is factual. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might care what it was originally named because this shows that the name "AT Attachment" is not a new name we're trying to apply now, but the long-standing name of the page for several years. Given that, I do not believe that the rename to "Advanced Technology Attachment" should have been done without at least some discussion. The history provides background for that opinion. You are free to disagree with that opinion, but the facts remain as they are. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of formal procedures - and "user friendly" - several times now you have engaged in ad hominem attacks against me. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I am being civil with you; please reciprocate. Please do not take personal offense (or think that I am trying to provoke such a response when I point out that you have posted wrong information; it is not meant that way. I'm not saying anything about you personally, only about things you currently think you know that are not so. Fortunately you can easily learn better, but you will have to first admit that you have been mistaken, and second, make the effort to put aside your preconceived notions and do the necessary research. Actually downloading and reading the specs you're trying to write about would be an excellent start. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the only attack I done in Wikipedia, because you are being illegitimate. You and Anome (2 users doesn't represent a person idea), you guys DIDN'T openly discussed, you guys did the action without user agreement. So what if I openly attack, you are not being legitimate, so why should anyone be respecting you. Also both of us didn't give any facts of evidence at all, so you don't have more authortiy over other users, be mature idoit. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly am I being illegitimate by proposing a change and starting a discussion? How is this not an open discussion? I think TheAnome should have done the same, but that he did not does not make his action "illegitimate" either; he simply assumed there would be no objection. I have provided a large number of references to the true history of the names in the main article. No, I have no authority over other users—however, regarding personal attacks, I am following the rules under WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK while you are not. Please do not continue in this manner. Jeh (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your illegimiacy includes the following

• personal discussion between 2 users doesn't represent the majority decision
• providing facts that doesn't have links, when resource is avaliable is not accepted in Wikipedia. Wikipedia require you to either cite it or link it. ATA 4 was clearly avaliable.
• attitude towards other users as if posing a legal threat is not accepted, deal the legal system yourself. This includes implying a synonymous statement that is accusing a user' s wrongdoings without proof.

Change it! --Ramu50 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. To recite the history yet again - I created a move proposal at WP:RM and in accordance with the guidelines I created a corresponding discussion page at talk:Advanced Technology Attachment#Requested move. As it says in the template at the top of that page, that section is for "discussion." To get the discussion started I related the history behind the proposal. My discussion with user The Anome was part of that history.

I never said that it "represented the majority decision," nor said anything that could be interpreted that way. I invited discussion, meaning that the question was still open (and so it remains). Any sense that I am purporting to "represent the majority decision" is, as far as I can tell, purely your interpretation.

Indeed, if I thought that my discussion with The Anome represented a "decision" I simply would have renamed the page back to "AT Attachment". The fact that I did not do so, but created a move proposal and set up the discussion section instead, belies your entire premise.

Exactly what did I say that you interpreted as saying I was promoting The Anome and my discussion as a "majority decision"?

2. The references you're talking about (to the ATA specs) were in the main article all the time. I've added more since then that document the history of IDE and ATA, per your request - you are therefore in a very poor position to claim I'm providing unreferenced information. To refresh your memory, here is the statement in question:

Furthermore the term "AT Attachment Interface" (note, without the 
"packet interface" part - more on this in a moment) occurs in many 
places in the spec document. The term "advanced technology" appears 
nowhere. 

See? It says "in the spec document" and the specs are linked from the main page. They've been linked from the main page all along. That is all the "reference" that is required in this case. Nevertheless I added more references from the main page that provided further documentation for the history of the names.

Exactly how can you claim that MY claim (quoted above) was unreferenced, when I referenced the spec, and the specs have long been linked from the article page? How can you continue to claim this when I have since provided more references? And how can you maintain such a position while providing no references at all in support of your views? Particularly your recent addition to the article page?

3. I have no idea what you mean by "as if posing a legal threat". If you mean the things I wrote regarding the rename, I have addressed that already above. If you mean something else, what is it? Please be specific. Jeh (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(above text, starting from Ramu50's edit of 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC), moved back here from my talk page, by me. Ramu50 had moved it there, minus my edit of 01:40 28 Jun. I was going to continue that thread there, but I've changed my mind; Ramu50 has no right to dictate that a discussion be moved from this page. Ramu50: please note that moving things from article talk pages, other than for archiving purposes, goes against WP guidelines -- see WP:TALK. Jeh (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Frnknstn

All the arguing about procedure in the world won't resolve this issue. ATA is the AT Attachment; the attachment for the AT computer. Expanding the acronym is not nessisary, and wrong in my opinion (unless we also expand AT (form factor) to 'Advanced Technology (form factor). ATAPI is also clearly out, as it does not refer the the topic as a whole. I support renaming this page to 'AT Attachment'. Frnknstn (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization and archiving of talk page

I have organized the open discussions and not-yet-addressed requests for edits, following somewhat the idea presented by Ramu50 below, but also archiving the long-dead discussions and suggestions that have either already been applied, or rejected, or addressed in another way. The archive is here: Talk:AT Attachment/archive1

Thanks Jeh, but please sign your post next time. If I got time I will try to update the ATA vs IDE confusion, I just notice that I miss something important. The schedule of how we should re-arrange, organize, add, take off...etc. actions I will read further into each discussion and suggests final request. The categorization was looking at every single discussion title. I provided the info to once and for all make a big clear up and give fully substanial knowledge that includes recent notes. It took me 5 hours to write it, so I didn't have time to go through each discussion, but with all due respect I will try to finish reading the discussion hopefully before the end of June. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a horrible talk page. It is not organized like any other. Adding new discussions will not work properly in the current format. 70.51.10.4 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not true, there are other large talk pages in which the upper-level organization overrides chronological order. In TALK:MOSNUM, for example, there are several ongoing discussions running in parallel at any time, and it's very common for entries higher on the page to be made later. 2) I just tested the "new section" button. It works fine. 3) The order in which contributions are made to the talk page is not necessarily worth preserving at the expense of a higher-level organization. It's impossible to maintain chronological order as long as there are several different categories with several subsections in each. I think this makes it much easier to see what needs to be done. When items are completed we'll move them to the archive page, so eventually (I hope sooner rather than later) there will be very few entries here, few enough that we can go back to chronological order. (But the archive page isn't chronological either...) While you are here, do you have any comments on the renaming issue? Jeh (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... in the few sections where they were not already, I arranged the subsections in order by the first entry in each. Within each subsection the entries are in chrono order, as they always have been. BTW some of these questions and suggestions were outstanding for a year or more before replies showed up, this probably added to the overall impression of a random order. Jeh (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the IP's note above, "New questions" section is now at the end. The "New section" button will now do exactly the right thing. Jeh (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Talk Page Organized (Talk:AT Attachment/archive1)
Ramu50's removed reference material

Ongoing, open, and unresolved discussions and questions

The following sections contain discussion threads that are still here (and not archived) either because questions are still extant, or the article page has not been checked to see if the points raised have been addressed. When such checking (and, if necessary, editing) of the main page is done, then if the relevant section here receives no more comments for a reasonable time, that section should be moved to the archive page.

Individual threads have been gathered into higher-level categories. This should make it easier for subject matter experts to address them. Jeh (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Solutions to AT Attachement; Discussion page

So ever since when I try to contribute to Advanced Technology Attachment article, the only thing that I have done legitimately is the proposal of organizing the page (now in archive page). My attempt to try to provide additional info, it is totally too narrowminded and based on my idea only, therefore it has cause many unncessary problems. Sorry for the cause.

Jeh DO NOT REVERT the info back, because my contents are wrong and I don't want people using incorrect info, so I am going try to improve my article to the best of best, if all goes well I will place the new version, but for the time being I will try not to contribute to this discussion (self-evulation). --Ramu50 (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info have been move to this page. Do not turn it into an archive page. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure where to put a new question or suggestion or discussion, create it as a subheading in this section. The "New section" button at the top of the page will do the right thing. We may move the new subhead to one of the categories above.

Please note that WP is not a Q&A forum, however, questions that the article page "really should answer" are welcome as they do provide suggestions (even if only implicit) as to how the article page can be improved! Jeh (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think too many people in the industry are seemingly ignoring, they seem to only evulate whenever things go wrong, while when new ideas that people never thought of pop up, and question about how they are responsible for certain things, they always refute, go to lawsuits.

The fact is a lot of industry keep repeating the same mistake and they are not willing to admit it, Intel is one of the worst companies in the industry who NEVER admits things. Apparently they keep having the same problem over and over again, like they invested only a small part on Instruction Level Parallelism (Itanium)

Wikipedia

The architecture is based on explicit instruction-level parallelism, with the compiler making 
the decisions about which instructions to execute in parallel. This approach allows the 
processor to execute up to six instructions per clock cycle. By contrast with other 
superscalar architectures, Itanium does not have elaborate hardware to keep track of 
instruction dependencies during parallel execution - the compiler must keep track of these at 
build time instead.

When it doesn't work well, they say it sucks and it doesn't work. But Sun Microsystems already prove them wrong before in MAJC (aka UltraJava). When Atoms fails, they didn't re-evaluate, instead they try to find new partners to help them. When CPU is going downhill they don't try and make it better, instead they try to look for new roads in graphics, software and Intel CISC-RISC 386 which they are not expert on.

The same thing is happening with the Consumer Storage Industry, it just most people don't understand it that well. Also on the virtual part of the scheme, we don't understand much about management system of relational, distributed, parallel and connectivity relationship, therefore info is often hard to backup.

I think only the following companies are quite responsible Sun Microsystem, Via and maybe IBM, for the storage companies such as Western Digital, Hitachi, Fujitsu and Seagate its hard to say Samsung & Toshiba (= = I will add them just for the credits)

Yea I can say most part I am wrong, except for Host Controller Interface and SSD. If you think I am wrong on SSD, then at least I am on the right track according these recent news reference.

SSD read and write speed is in no way comparable to HDD, considering the amount of read/write head being developed, they can easily surpass SSD. SSD has no stability or reliable technologies such as RAID, TCQ, NCQ...etc. For the current stage they can only depend on the legacy technologies such as FPM, BEDO, DDR, QDR. Also even SSD utilize QDR, it won't help at all, because in Hard Drive when you send a request the on-board processors can already direct into any of read/write head responsible for each platter, what SSD have to go through bus lane, wasting time (which ultimately means latency issues). Also SSD is very dumb in selecting DRAM and SRAM which are violatile, and unable to store informtaion, they only they manage to store info is based on the SLC/MLC design architecture and speed is achieve through the NAND gates. When it is store at non-violatile layer and instantly go throught NAND gates to become violatile, the state change will not be stable when stored in storm. Because violatile information are heavily depedant on request, not instant state changes. Even scratchpad caches rely more on partitioning as seen on Intel Larrabbee, that utilize share scratchpad partitioning.

Mtron SATA II SSD, world fatest SSD, transfer rate they have develop no technology at all, which they should of, since they uses a bus.
read 130MB/s
write 120MB/s
19,000 IOPS
by the way, SSD developement didn't start recently.

You may argue Samsung 2.5" 256GB MLC SSD is better, so here is the spec
read 200MB/s
write 160MB/s
MTBF 1 million hours
-it sucks, considering nowadays many computer developer need 1TB and require things like RAID. Even most of my friend who played a lot of games or people who just like to do a lot of streaming media, easily use up 750GB.
Note: I am not referring to enthusaist, just those highschool junkies.

Also I provide 2 evidence before I move by article to my own user page that SSD causes more problem.

* Toshiba Dynabook SSD (notebook) [http://news.softpedia.com/news/Toshiba-039-s-128-GB-SSD-
Notebook-Goes-Missing-83387.shtml problem]

* Dell notebook using SSD (20~30% return rate) [3] --Ramu50 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also they don't have buffer cache (I don't think I need reference for buffer cache, everybody know this).

Also since supermagnetism is a natural properities of nature in some rare earth metals, therefore it uses less power. As seen the following 2 article

• SSD are not power efficient.
• Western Digital, GreenPower series technology

the technology I refer to are IntelliPower, IntelliSeek and IntelliPark developd by Western Digital
Note: there I think there was 3 article on Greenpower series technology, I will try to fetch the other two.

(At this stage of technology, we are actually having more problem, as mentioned in biometrics architecture in National Geographic. (e.g. solar panels architecture actually came from the mosquitos retinal architecture ability to capture more light than any technologies that we current have). Moreso, we barely even understand about how the elementary particle works, thus the proven evidence may still be theories only.

Note: biometrics architecture is an incorrect term, I can't recall it, but I would update the reference by the end of this week.
Note: I am not good with IOPS and MIPS = = ... --Ramu50 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            2008 June 5 revision of Ramu50's talk content
            Main title: Major Solutions to AT Attachement; Discussion page
                Subtitle: New questions and suggestions
            (proceeding signing --[User:Ramu50|Ramu50]] (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To Jeh, yesterday while reading SSD history I have found 2 proof in regards to my previously references information that includes ATAPI intention towards CompactFlash, I would try to give the info today. Jeh, in the society I have a lot social experience (in companionship relations) technical and buisnesse orientation, my words of previous reference may sound stupid and idoic for sure. But I can tell that for I have change more people than you, such as Logan (a famous reviewer) of YouTube's TigerDirectBlog. 15 YouTubers (each with at least 10,000 subscribers) have come to me to ask for me opinions as advising. Several marketing and gaming companies have requested more than 5 survey wanting my viewpoints. My baseline of foundation is well-solid rounded, I think you should try to be more openminded, and so should ALL of the people in this discussion. Have a great day, to all. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously in my statement about CompactFlash Card, I hinted that that ATAPI only include CompactFlash for safety protection. The evidential proof is here section October 2007

Addonics Technologies launched what it called a "low cost large capacity SSD" platform. It's a 
PCI card that can be installed with 4 Compact Flash cards with inbuilt RAID support. The risk 
with this approach is that most CF cards aren't designed for intensive write operations and 
don't have wear levelling controllers. That means if a user installs such a product in a 
server application - as a lower cost alternative to a true SSD - the storage media may fail in 
under a year.

SSD are currently divided into 2 types: RAMD SSD (SRAM & DRAM) & Flash SSD (NOR-flash) -however, since SRAM & DRAM can't store things non-violatility they require SLC, MLC (meaning layered storage), but the technology of NAND gates invented by Intel & Mtron together didn't help the transistion of Storage (in the past considered as slow speed) to high speed thus resulting unstable (such as likelihood of crashing, self-locking, bugs, non-respondant looping) ATAPI choose not include most of the specification. And when Samsung invented a new type of flash memory called PRAM in Sept 2006 predicted to replace in next decade.

• The term next decade was used at Sept 2006 so it would be (2018).

Jeh you previously state that there is nothing preventing ATAPI from including CompactFlash, well you are so wrong, because the evidence provider (StorageSearch) was the leader of SSD marketing, they provide several publication on the SSD. Including: Solid State Disks Buyers Guide released in [http://www.storagesearch.com/chartingtheriseofssds.html Q2 2003] and released to OEM manufacturer in Jan 2005 which generated pressure towards ATAPI.

Also there was pressure from (Quantum, Imperial Technology and SEEK Systems Solid Data Systems) who published the Concept White Paper doubting SSD futures as stated

Most I/O bottlenecks are caused by unusually active files as indexes, authorization files, job 
controller, common code libraries, operating system commands, etc. They receive a  
disproportionate percentage of a system's overall I/O requests . According to a study by 
Princeton University and Digital Equipment Corporation, less than 5% of the data is 
responsible for 50% of the disk accesses.

--Ramu50 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent features and developments

It might be nice to see at least some mention of the HPA and DCO features added in later ATA revisions. -- TDM 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone know the meaning of these acronyms ..? , and their more specific context. Electron9 06:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Host Protected Area and Device Configuration Overlay are features which allow one to hide areas of the physical disk from the operating system (and in the case of DCO, hide device features). I'm not an expert on these things and would love to see detailed articles on them. I see that HPA is now a separate article and is linked to, so that's a good start. DCO is newer and more mysterious and could definitely use more exposure. TDM 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCO now seems to have an article as well. Both should be mentioned and linked from this article. Jeh (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page says, about PATA that "[i]t provides the most common and the least expensive interface for this application". In light of motherboards sold currently (08/2007) and introduced in the past year, I'd say this is no longer true. Most of the motherboards sport only a single PATA connector, meant for DVD drive, and hard drives are expected to be attached to the SATA connectors. Also PATA versions of new drives have for some time been a bit harder to come by, and often a bit more expensive, or at least equal in price to SATA ones.

Thus I propose we'd change the page to reflect this. Something like "From 199x all the way to 2006 it provided the most common and least expensive.."

Zds 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P-ATA was in use before 199x. Also P-ATA will proberbly be used by embedded products for a long time. Since S-ATA interfaces are hard to find in a single chip (S-ATA PHY). Electron9 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. What do you think now? Jeh (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for clarification

OK...so this means once this mode is entered, the only way to use this 

other than a heater and doorstop is to erase the media and start again? I don't know the specification...do you mean instead "if the password is provided incorrectly too many times?

(text added by Rchandra to the article on 24 May 2008. Copied here by Jeh (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparent conflict between article page and other reference

From this article:

In Maximum security mode, you cannot unlock the disk! The only way to get the disk back to a usable state is to issue the SECURITY ERASE PREPARE command, immediately followed by SECURITY ERASE UNIT. The SECURITY ERASE UNIT command requires the Master password and will completely erase all data on the disk. The operation is rather slow, expect half an hour or more for big disks. (Word 89 in the IDENTIFY response indicates how long the operation will take.) [3] [4]

From the article in c't:

When setting his or her password the user can choose between the security levels "High" and "Maximum." When the level "High" is chosen the disk will accept either the user or the master password to unlock the disk or disable the protection function. When "Maximum" is the choice only the user password will provide access to the data. Should it get lost then the administrator with his or her master password will only be able to unlock the disk after forfeiting all the data stored upon it. Which step is accomplished by the command Security Erase: It erases all the information by writing zeros onto all sectors of the hard disk before again allowing access to it.

These seem contradictory.

Ealex292 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is c't? Jeh (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the newest ATAPI version describe
-MWDMA & SWDMA, PIO, DMA and UDMA?

By the way anybody know how these 2 works MWDMA (Maxiumum Multi Word DMA) SWDMA (Single Word DMA) (My guess)---not sure on this one

Assumptions
I think MWDMA is use for MLC NAND FLASH via other interfaces, like via IDE and other types of Media Cards. And SWDMA is probably for SLC NAND FLASH I think. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't use those abbreviations, but they do spell them out as "Single word DMA" (SWDMA) and "multi word DMA" (MWDMA). SWDMA modes 0, 1, and 2 and MWDMA mode 0 were in ATA-1. ATA-2 added two more MWDMA modes and ATA-3 dropped the SWDMA modes. ATA-4 added the first UltraDMA modes and of course more followed in later versions. See [[4]]. None of this has anything to do specifically with any sort of flash RAM or media cards, though of course such devices can and do use these modes, but these modes were not created to support such devices - they existed for the very first IDE drives. Jeh (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connectors, cabling, physical interface

On my monitor I can't see any difference between the "80 conductor cable" and the "40 conductor cable" (second picture), except that the connectors are colored. I think we should find a picture that better shows the different conductor spacing. All of you others, get right on that. ;) Seriously, I'll see if I can't take one myself. Jeh 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this passage is confusing or inaccurate:

"With the 40-wire cable it was very common to implement cable select by simply cutting the pin 28 wire between the two device connectors. This puts the slave device at the end of the cable, and the master on the "middle" connector. This arrangement eventually was standardized in later versions of the specification. If there is just one device on the cable, this results in an unused "stub" of cable. This is undesirable, both for physical convenience and electrical reasons: The stub causes signal reflections, particularly at higher transfer rates."

I would've fixed it myself, but I'm not sure I understand it. If early users were hacking ribbon cables to have an open pin 28, that would only work by cutting between the second and third connection. This would put the master to the middle connector, as the passage says. It says this arrangement was standardized in later versions, but all the ATA ribbon cables I've seen put the black master connector at the end, and the gray slave in the middle. I think what the passage means to say is that these early hacks had the opposite configuration of modern cables, which just leave gray pin 28 with no wire contact. Someone who understands what this paragraph is trying to say should probably fix it so someone doesn't put their cables on backward. --Loqi T. 02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as saying

• The most common way of implementing cable select prior to the 80 conductor era (though cable select back then was bloody rare anyway) was to cut one wire between the two device connectors (that is between the master device and the slave device). This put the slave connector in the middle which was undesirable.
• This was standardised in some later version of the ATA spec (not having read the spec I can neither confirm nor deny this), it would also be usefull to know which version.

The next paragraph then goes on to say that this was changed with the introduction of 80 conductor cables which do indeed put the master device at the end.

Personally I have never seen a 40 wire cable that supported cable select.

Size limits

according to http://discountechnology.com/Seagate-160GB-IDE-ATA-100-Hard-Drive:

• windows 2000 up to sp3 have a limitation of 137 GB
• windows xp up to sp1 have a limitation of 137 GB

so we could add it asomewhere
GNUtoo 12:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some further info at seagate d17 sata product manual google cache in section 3.8.1:
W2000 Sp3 + XP Sp1 needs "Big Drive Enabler"
Maxtor Knowledge Base Answer ID 960
MS KB 303013
Electron9 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, but too bad it does not list all the size boundaries. This article seems excellent, mentions the Win98 64GB boundary: [5] -69.87.199.99 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that restrictions imposed by operating systems belong in an article about the ATA interface and standards, since the ATA interface and standards have nothing to do with these restrictions. Jeh (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a page summarising the common PC storage size limits and what part of the system (hardware, bios, OS etc) imposed them. Then linking to the appropriate articles for further details. Plugwash (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology: IDE, ATA, ATAPI, EIDE, etc.

I learned today that at least for 2.5" laptop drives, EIDE is incompatible with SATA, despite apparently being a different version of the same protocol. Could someone explain, in general, which of the protocols in the table are compatible with which others (in either direction)? -- Beland 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for 3.5" drives too. What is commonly called an IDE or EIDE drive uses a parallel interface. SATA is a serial interface. They are not electrically compatible, even though the commands and responses carried over the interface are the same. Jeh (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table says on ATA/ATAPI-7 (ATA-7, Ultra ATA/133) that there is SATA/150. But where is SATA/300 ? It is not listed. -- Frap (no timestamp...)

It's certainly in the Serial ATA article. I'm not sure why SATA/150 is in the table in this article at all. Jeh (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT/ATAPI doesn't describe physical interface anymore - it could be Parallel ATA, Serial ATA or eSATA (and FireWire or USB for that matter), and any ATA/ATAPI drive will still respond to commands defined by the ATA/ATAPI standard (what's more, Serial ATA can also be used to interconnect SCSI devices as in Serial Attached SCSI). --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 21:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a standard describing the physical connection. As a practical matter a "parallel ATA device" still follows the physical connection standards described in ATA/ATAPI 6. Jeh (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a laptop with an ATA-4 hard drive. I would like to place a drive with an ATA-6 inside instead. Is that possible? Thanks! (no timestamp...)

Yes. However, assuming that the laptop's interface is ATA-4, your new drive will run no faster than ATA-4 allows and it will be subject to other ATA-4 limitations. A laptop old enough to have an ATA-4 interface may have BIOS issues preventing the use of larger drives, too. We should probably make this clear in the article. Jeh (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer speeds

The speed presented in this article is in MB/s, generally accepted as the abbreviation of Megabyte per second. In the SATA and USB aritcles the speed is presented in Mbits/s (Megabits per second). Could someone check the speed of ATA in Mbits/s please? it is possible it is alredy in megabits but somone did not write it properly. --Iamcon (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speeds quoted here are the correct numbers for megabytes/second (where mega = 1,000,000). For example, UDMA 5 runs at 100,000,000 bytes/second. I hope this is unambiguous enough.

The reason SATA and USB quote in bits per second is that they are serial protocols: one bit is sent at a time. Parallel ATA is not like that; it sends 16 data bits at a time. In each case these are the "natural" units, according to the respective technologies. They are also the same units and numbers quoted in industry standard specifications and sales information for these interfaces.

You can't just take the PATA number and multiply by eight to get a number comparable with serial protocols, either. SATA uses an encoding involving 10 bits on the wire for eight bits on the disk. The "1.5 Gbit/sec" figure for the original SATA is the bit rate on the wire, not on the disk, and translates to 120 megabytes/second of actual data read or written. USB uses a "bit-stuffing" protocol in which the ratio is not even constant. Jeh (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bits may be transferred by different means, it still boils down to effective transmission capacity per second. And associated latency. It's much harder to make comparisions when the same thing is noted in different units. Electron9 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that "effective transmission capacity per second" is, at least, more accurate for PATA's "133 MB/sec", than for SATA's "1.5 Gb/sec": All issues of latency, inter-block delays, etc., aside, it is possible that there could be periods of time during which PATA would be transferring 133 MB/sec of end user data. This can't be said of SATA's "1.5 Gb/sec". Yes, switching units makes things even more confusing, but it would also be confusing to cite specs for these buses using units other than those commonly quoted. Adding corrections for e.g. 10 physical-layer bits to 8 transport-layer bits would simply compound the confusion, and would likely result in frequent "corrections" by new wiki editors who didn't stop to read the explanations.

I do think it would be worthwhile to "rationalize" all of these specs so that useful comparisons could be made (perhaps in a separate article pointed to by the PATA, SATA, USB, etc., articles), but this should be done in addition to, not instead of, cites of the "official" numbers using the usual units for each. Also it should be done with a LOT of explanation. Jeh (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest then to add a seperate value "effective transfer rate". Electron9 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure I'm not the only person that doesn't understand what the hell this section is supposed to mean... The title says it's a list, speaks about the mostly unrelated SD and CF formats, mentions the responsibilities of a democratic government regarding the definition of SRAM and DRAM and volatile memory, and so on... I can't see anything at all that can be "saved" so I'm deleting the entire section. 195.23.218.249 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you're not the only person. Thank you! Jeh (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]