Talk:Parallel ATA/Final Archive

"List of media drives interface (SSD)"
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)


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

I am rewriting the Storage Media Interface and placing them back on. Go read the evidence that I provided and if you disagree provide sufficient, logical evidence to backup. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The burden is on you to provide evidence of your claims. You have not done so. Jeh (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Major Solutions to AT Attachment; 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)

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


 * Really, you should not delete material from article talk pages, except to move it to an archive of the same article talk page. Please see WP:TALK for policies and guidelines in this area. I will let this stand for now per your wishes but in the future if you don't want things preserved forever on article talk pages, don't post them there in the first place. Everything you post is always retrievable anyway from the page histories whether you move it to your own archive page or not, you know. Jeh (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Solid State Drives Criticism
If you think I am wrong on SSD, then at least I am on the right track according these recent news reference.


 * No. As I will show below, absolutely nothing that you have written, and none of your references, support your claim that SSD are not supported by the ATA spec.


 * Yes, you have found a few references for performance and reliability issues, but even if these are true, the ATA/ATAPI standards have never not supported a device because it wasn't reliable: consider ZIP drives, for example... or did you never hear of the "click of death"?


 * Accordingly I have again removed your speculation from the article. I must ask you to refrain from disrupting this article in the future. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your inability to provide sufficient reference has nothing got to do with me. From the beginning I try to help, but apparently you constantly didn't care so I don't give a fuck of your suggestions. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My inability to provide references? That's a laugh. In the first place, as I have told you several times before, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that SSDs are "not really supported" by ATA, therefore it is up to you, not me, to provide extraordinary proof. In the second place, I have supplied more than sufficient references that you are wrong about your claim, in the form of the ATA documents. The ATA documents explicitly mention solid state drives! It is incumbent upon you to provide references to the contrary. Not claims that SSD are slow or unreliable, because that says nothing about ATA support, despite your equally unfounded ideas about governments and liability and so on. In insisting on putting your unfounded opinion into the article you are not "helping", you are being disruptive, and furthermore you are in violation of WP:POINT. Jeh (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) edited: Jeh (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Relative performance is not a concern of the ATA spec. Just because one device is slower than another does not mean the slower device is not supported by ATA. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SSD has no stability or reliable technologies such as RAID, TCQ, NCQ...etc.


 * RAID is not a concern of the ATA spec for any device, as RAID arrays are built from collections of ATA devices; RAID is not mentioned in ATA at all. Incidently it is quite possible to build a RAID array of ATA SSD (as mentioned in the white paper YOU linked!) just as it is of ATA hard drives.


 * Command queueing a) has nothing to do with "stablility or reliable"; it's a performance feature and b) didn't exist on ATA hard drives until quite recently, and still is in no way required, yet ATA supports them; so what does this have to do with whether or not a device is supported? Is it your claim that all PATA hard drives that don't support TCQ or NCQ are unsupported by ATA for that reason? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * All of this is well below the level at which ATA is concerned. ATA defines an electrical interface and a signaling protocol over that interface. It really doesn't care how the device stores the data, or how the data is moved between the actual storage mechanism and the ATA interface. If it meets the recommendations for the electrical interface and the signaling protocol, and if it acts like a disk when you send disk commands to it, then that's all ATA cares about. It could be using core memory for all ATA knows or cares. Sorry but these claims of yours are really unsupportable in light of what the ATA spec is actually about. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a concern. First I stated SSD is not a good choice, but if some corporation want to go against I am ok with it. However, if ATA want to take responsibilities for the documentation they are required to include these concerns for safety measure, also they need to mention this (maybe not every detail about the technologies such as RAID), because each manufacturer can choose what technology to implant. ATA apparently didn't achieve that minimal task, so what makes ATA so reliable? --Ramu50 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are simply wrong. The ATA documents are not at all involved with the reliability of the storage medium. The fact that one medium may be less reliable than another does not mean that the less reliable one is not supported by ATA. Jeh (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This info is only showing the disapproving SSD (since it was an introduction only I didn't plan on referencing this any further so don't discuss this. It was much more of a satire.) You can delete this if you want to

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.


 * I see no claims there that SSD is not supported under ATA. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * So "it sucks" because it's not big enough for you? It's big enough for a lot of people, you know. Anyway, how does this support your claim that ATA does not support SSD? Are you now claiming that no hard drive smaller than 1 TB is supported by ATA either, because according to your storage needs anything smaller than that "sucks"? Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing this info, because this was my unncessary satire


 * Please do not remove material from article talk pages. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I provide 2 evidence before I move by article to my own user page that SSD causes more problem. * Toshiba Dynabook SSD (notebook) problem


 * That article speaks only of a production lag in the needed SSDs. This does not say anything about reliability. There is certainly nothing there to support your claim that SSD are not supported by ATA. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am rechecking on the Toshiba Dynabook I think provided the wrong links. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Did you actually read that article? Beyond the first sentence? I think you meant to refer to the earlier article linked in the first sentence: . But even there I see no evidence or even claims that ATA does not support SSD. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Dell's Camden, the customers seem to be pleased with the benefits of the solid- state storage technology and especially their reliability. Moreover, market analyst Gartner reveals that the use of hard disk drives is one of the two most important factors that lead to system failure. Given the fact that solid-state drives have no moving parts, they are increasingly resistant to mechanical shocks and vibrations. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dell notebook was a reference to reliability problem. As previously stated that SSD is not a good solution (this is personal viewpoint don't argue.) Also whether or not it is a good solutions, nevertheless the ATA are responsible for all SSD product. Look at IEEE, whenever a router is produced they have to verify by IEEE in order to state it is IEEE compliant. Did ATA/ATAPI took that responsibility, no it didn't. Is ATA/ATAPI responsible, of course they are responsible. Was ATA/ATAPI wanting the best for SSD, yes it was, but it clearly wasn't sufficient. By the way even if ATA/ATAPI was reliable Dell give absoultely no proof in any of their site that Hard Disk system failure was due to shocks and vibrations. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One, the Gartner Group is a completely independent organization. Two, everybody knows that some hard drive failures are caused by shocks and vibrations; this does not require proof. If you insist on proof, look at the shock "g" ratings on hard drives vs. SSDs. Three... sorry but you are completely misunderstanding the roles of industry standards bodies such as IEEE and ANSI T13. The IEEE publishes standards such as 802.11*, but they are not an enforcement body and they do not issue certificates of compliance or anything like that for wireless routers or APs. (The FCC does, but only for frequency spectrum compliance, they have nothing to say about the protocol as it is not in their purview.) Similarly, ATA/ATAPI is not responsible for anything a manufacturer might design with an ATA/ATAPI interface. They publish a set of specs for that interface, and it is up to manufacturers to meet it... but the T13 committee, ANSI, or INCITS do not in any way approve or certify devices and therefore are absolutely not responsible for devices' behavior or problems. If they were, legions of ZIP and JAZ drive users could have sued the T13 committee over "click of death" problems. There is not even anything in the ATA documents that asserts or even implies "if your device complies with these recommendations it will work." The reason there is no such assertion is exactly the point that there is so much outside of the purview of these interface specs that T13 and similar standards bodies simply cannot guarantee performance or reliability. Now you can take the opinion that they should take that responsibility, but the fact is that they do not. Neither does the IEEE. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Where do you come up with this stuff? Nothing in ATA requires the presence of a buffer cache on the drive, so this does not support your claim that ATA does not support SSDs. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Nothing in ATA requires any of these technologies, so this does not support your claim that ATA does not support SSDs. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(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.


 * This doesn't support your claim either. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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))


 * I wish you would comply with standard talk page formatting. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * I'm afraid your "baseline of foundation" does not appear at all solid in this field. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * But some CF devices do have wear leveling. Generally if you buy a no-name or store-branded one at a bargain price it will not; but modern high speed name brand units do. In any case nothing here says "and therefore, CF is not really supported by ATA", nor anything remotely similar. i.e. it does not support your claim. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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).


 * Well really, "next decade" in this context would not mean "ten years from now", it would mean "in the next calendar decade", which means anything from 2010 or 2011 to 2019 or 2020. If they meant "in ten years" they would have said that. And if they did mean that, ten years from 2006 would be 2016, not 2018. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again: ATA doesn't really concern itself at all with how the data is stored. SRAM, DRAM, NOR, NAND, magnetic cores... ATA doesn't care. Heck, the device beyond the ATA interface could be a block-addressable tape drive. ATA does not concern itself at all with the underlying storage technology, only with the behavior of the device at the ATA connector. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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 Q2 2003 and released to OEM manufacturer in Jan 2005 which generated pressure towards ATAPI.


 * I really don't see how anytyhing there makes me "so wrong." ATA-4 came out in August 1998 so how this buyers guide dated 2003 could have put "pressure towards ATAPI" is beyond me. Nor do I see any statement that can be construed as even slightly supporting your claim that SSD are not supported by ATA. In fact they never mention ATA or PATA, other than in the picture at the top, captioned "2.5" 128GB industrial PATA SLC flash SSDs". Now maybe I am just foolish or stupid this morning but this seems to me to be saying that these SSDs are PATA devices.  Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Well at least that paper is from 1997. But I see no evidence there of "pressure from" these companes to the T13 committee. In fact I don't see why any "pressure" would be needed. Again: ATA doesn't care about the storage technology! If your device acts like a disk at the ATA connector, then it meets the requiremnts of ATA. CFA asked for a few new features, and after due consideration, the T13 committee added them to ATA-4. Where is your evidence for "pressure" being applied? And even if it was applied, why would this support your claim that SSD are not really supported? However section 6.13 got into the spec it is extremely clear that SSDs in general are supported by ATA. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Two, far from "doubting SSD futures", it says things like

Moving these files to SSD can dramatically improve user level response time.


 * It also says, by the way,

SSDs operate exactly like magnetic disks and can be configured as a RAID rank for the ultimate in performance.


 * which counters your claim above about RAID, and supports my claim that as long as it acts like a disk, it's a disk as far as ATA is concerned. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Uh, yeah. Like I said. Again - NONE of the above supports your claim that ATA does not support SSD. How you think it does support your claim is really quite beyond my imagining. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see it for your self that ATA/ATAPI-4 didn't even clarify on CompactFlash specification

6.14 Removable Media Status Notification and Removable Media feature sets This section describes two feature sets that secure the media in removable media storage devices using the ATA/ATAPI interface protocols

Why is the name of the protocol not mentioned?


 * They did name the protocol, "ATA/ATAPI". That section is not specific to CompactFlash. In fact it has nothing do with with CompactFlash. Section 6.13 is the one that defines the CFA feature set, which has nothing to do with "Removable Media Status Notification and Removable Media feature sets". 6.14 just happens to follow 6.13. 6.14 could apply to any ATA device with removable media -- typically, for example, an optical drive or ZIP or JAZ drive that can be told to ignore the eject button. As a matter of fact this could not apply to CF because if you remove a CF card you are removing the device (along with the media, of course). 6.14 applies to devices that support removal of the media while leaving the device connected and still responsive on the ATA interface. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If ATA/ATAPI-4 recognized CFA association they would of mentioned please refer to (CF+ and CompactFlash Specification Revision 4.1, publication date 02/16/07) which they never did.

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


 * Actually yes, they did. From the "definitions" section:

3.1.9 CFA: The CompactFlash Association that created the specification for compact flash memory that uses the ATA interface.


 * And in Annex D, "Bibliography":

CompactFlash Association Specification Revision 1.2


 * All of the above are from ATA-4. Later versions of ATA make additional references. In ATA-5, see section 2.3 and A.6, for example. Jeh (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to SSD criticism points from the article (now removed)
Do you mind asshole Jeh, I just separate them for better reading, and you revert them back unncessarily. Hey I open this discussion, so use my format not your own. By the way your lack of skills of providing evidence by separating my words is possibly the user in the entire Wikipeida that uses that dumb method, yet you called yourself you understand about ATA/ATAPI, what a laugh, can't even write a good technical writing format to refute to others and you give nearly no evidence at all except the ATA/ATAPI documentations. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about you try following the guidelines set out in WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL? Jeh (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How about no, ever since I started the topic its always been you, you and you complaining me being off topic and evidential problem or what not. Now I provide the evidence you still got a problem? Hell no, I am organizing into better archive, I give you enough legitmacy onto providing info this and apparently you are still not satisfy, so since your method doesn't work. You start following my method for a change. Yea other people disagree with my with viewpoints, and they can attack altogether and I don't care, it is reality and I am willing to face it and in the end at least learn something rather than being you all negative. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not provided any evidence that supports your claim. Absolutely none of the references you provided contained anything that could in any way be interpreted as even hinting that solid state drives are not supported by ATA. The ATA documents state explicitly that SSD are among the devices that are provided for; they even have a few features, the "Compact Flash Association Feature Set", for operations specific to SSD. Those documents represent the ultimate authority on this question, and they thoroughly disprove your case. In response you have provided nothing that says anything about ATA not supporting SSD. Your claims seem based on some nebulous ideas about "pressure" being applied to T13 (you have provided no evidence of that) or of legal liability over reliability issues (but it has never been part of T13's job to require or enforce claims of reliability; witness the "runs" of ATA drive failures over the years, the ZIP and Jaz drives' "click of death" problems, etc., etc.). You have not provided any evidence of those ideas either, other than your own words. That leaves us (still) with the ATA docs as having the final say: SSD are supported by ATA. The End. Jeh (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I answer claim by claim because you make a great many claims and if I were to respond to them all at the end of your text I would have to do a great deal of quoting, which would vastly increase the size of this page, which has already gone on for far too long already. I put them back because preserving the order within a discussion is important. They are your words, you should stand by them. If your claims can't stand up to this sort of point-by-point rebuttal that is probably a good sign that you shouldn't have made them. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for evidence, I really don't need to give any evidence at all. You are the one challenging the status quo therefore it is up to you to provide evidence. You have not done so. I know you think you have provided evidence but nothing in any of the references you provided states "solid state drives are not supported by ATA", or anything that can be interpreted in that way. I know, I read all of them and even followed links within them. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have provided some evidence supporting SSD reliability concerns, but that is not a reason to think SSD are not supported, despite your beliefs about "pressure" or "government responsibility". T13, ANSI, INCITS, etc., are not government organizations nor anointed by any government, other than in terms of their tax status. Note also that nothing in the ATA docs guarantees any level of performance or reliability. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now again, I do not need to provide any evidence, but as "the best defense is a good offense" I will once again point out that the ATA docs explicitly a) say that "a device" could be anything that meets their interface requirements, so it is not required to be rotating magnetic media; b) make provisions expressly for solid state drives; and c) mention solid state drives by that exact name. The ATA documents are the final authority on what ATA supports or allows. So this is absolutely compelling evidence against your position and you have provided nothing that even hints at making claims, let alone evidence, to the contrary. Jeh (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Point # 1 Throughout the history of SSD from 1970s RAM SSD (DRAM & SRAM based) and Flash SSD (NOR-flashed based).


 * This sentence no verb. Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is one of your buisness, you are off-topic. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Point being that I can't respond when you don't say anything intelligible. When you don't say anything intelligible you are not supporting your case, either. Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The ATA/ATAPI and INCITIS doesn't support any of the media storage interface such as SATA-I/O, PCMIA, CFA, MMCA, SD Card Association, SD Card Association and CE-ATA as they only provide the general conceptual knowledge of the specification. .They don't refer back to any of the details such as I/O Output (Read & Write) Timing Section, IDE PIO mode, MWDMA, Ultra DMA...etc thereof.


 * SATA didn't exist in ATA-4 time. PCMCIA was not referenced in ATA-4 but is referenced in ATA-5 (section A.5). The CompactFlash connector is also referenced in ATA-5 (Section A.6). MMC and SD don't matter as these connectors are not designed for direct attachment to ATA, whereas CF was. There is no need to "refer back to any of the details" in the CF or PCMCIA connector descriptions because they are already in the document; they are assumed to apply to these connectors just as they do on the familiar 40-pin ATA connector. Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In the SSD industry, as of Q1 2008, the interface being used are Infiniband, Fiber Channel, CompactFlash and ExpressCard.


 * So what? InifinBand, FC, and ExpressCard have nothing to do with ATA. CF does and is clearly supported by the spec.


 * Apparently there is every reason to refer back the documents that the association made, such as if you use CompactFlash, then you follow CompactFlash association. The government body lay trust on the association for the consumers' safety, if documentation are well organized and accident happen the association can be fined or put in custody. Apparently Jeh, assumptions in the society is not accepted as part of the computing ethics concerns.


 * Your notions about the role of the government and these "associations" are pure fantasy on your part. ANSI, IEEE, etc., have no government-defined position as standards-setting bodies. They are indpendent organizations, not part of the government, and their recommendations and other documents do not carry the force of law. Now it is true that the government may adopt certain of those recommendations, and require compliance with those recommendations for products bought by the government (such as the US Government does re. Posix), but that is a different thing and still does not imply any legal liability on the part of the IEEE or ANSI or whatever, only on the part of the vendors who assert that their products comply with the recommendations. Jeh (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding InfiniBand, FC. Explain and prove to me to why AoE, FCoEe existed (ATA over Ethernet, Fiber Channel over Ethernet). --Ramu50 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does this have to do with your assertion about SSDs? Nothing. Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Point # 2 The lack of referencing and approving the association is possible that pressurize by the doubting of many publications from marketers such as StorageSearch & large corporations such as Quantum, Imperial Technology and SEEK Systems Solid Data Systems as seen in the thier white paper.


 * There is completely sufficient "referencing and approving." Your claims about "pressurize by the doubting of many publications" makes no sense. I have seen nothing in any of the papers you have linked any evidence of "pressure"; that seems to me to be pure speculation on your part. Even if proven, claims about "pressure applied to ATAPI" (not that ATAPI has anything to do with SSDs) would still not mean that SSD were not "really" supported by ATA. Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nor have you presented anything substantive to support that claim, other than spews of mostly inapplicable and irrelevant acronyms and buzzwords that serve only to prove that you don't really know what ATA is all about or what it is really specifying. Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat: Anything that connects to an ATA connector (or, as of ATA-5, a CF connector or a PCMCIA connector) and acts like a disk drive as defined in the ATA spec, is ipso facto supported by ATA. In fact ATA does not care one whit about reliability, or performance (except as concerns the waveform timings), or any details of the implementation beyond the ATA connector. These are all red herrings you have introduced. Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The burden is on you to prove your extraordinary claim. All you have done so far is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) there are a few people expressing concerns about SSD reliability and b) you really really don't like SSD. Neither of these points supports your claim that ATA does not support SSD.  Jeh (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well since you have the stated the obvious that ATA doesn't care about reliability, then critism can be made, because obviously they don't care about the law and this has been happnening ever since Optical, various PC Card interface and some magnetic tape drive have been introducted. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can make all the criticisms you like... in your own blog, perhaps. But nothing here supports your claim that SSD are not supported by ATA. And, what law are you talking about? Again, ATA's documents do not carry the force of law and do not imply any legal liability on the part of T13, ANSI, etc. Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my claim that ATA doesn't care about the storage technology is completely and sufficiently backed by paragraph 3.1.7 in the "definitions" section of ATA-2, and similar paragraphs in all subsequent versions:

3.1.7 device: Device is a storage peripheral. Traditionally, a device on the interface has been a hard disk drive, but any form of storage device may be placed on the interface provided it adheres to this standard.


 * Even ATA-1, although titled "AT Attachment Interface for Disk Drives", included this definition:

3.1.1 ATA (AT attachment). ATA defines a compatible register set and a 40-pin connector and its associated signals.


 * You see? Not a word there about rotating magnetic disks. ATA is only concerned with how you talk to the storage device, not with the technology of the actual data storage.


 * That has nothing got to do with me, my topic is about ATA responsibility, reliability towards SSD interfaces. Even if my I did stated before that ATA isn't a peripherial I already told you I am not using that information. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you can find something in the ATA docs that says something like "a device not meeting the following performance and reliability standards is not considered supported..." then you will have a case. (You won't find it.) Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This question is settled unless you find a way to authoritatively refute these sections of the ATA documents. Not with your speculations and inferences about "pressure" or unreliability, but with an authoritative source—actually, considering the extraordinary nature of your claim, I think at least three independent, authoritative sources are required—that expressly state that SSD are in some way "not really supported" by ATA. Verb. Sap.: Just because you don't like SSD, even if you find compelling reasons to not like SSD, does not mean ATA doesn't support it. Jeh (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then my criticism viewpoints can be less directed to ATA for respect, then it is SSD that they aren't responsible for. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're saying here but if you are saying that ATA does not support SSD, you are flatly wrong and you have provided exactly no evidence that can in any way be interpreted to support your claim. Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The following content I will be deleting soon, it is totally off topic Do not separate my quotes from my paragraph, it is takes too much time to go back and reorganize it. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE DO NOT DELETE MATERIAL FROM ARTICLE TALK PAGES, except to move it INTACT to an archive page under the talk page (not to your own). Once you write it, it's here. Please see WP:TALK for policies. (And I will respond as I please.) Jeh (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reason for removing SSD citation.
I am almost done with the reason why I removed the SSD citation. It is nothing like an essay length, it short and precise and I don't intend on making it connection with the current unfinish ATA/ATAPI criticism. These are 2 different things.

Note: I only look at this discussion, 1 time every week on average. 5~10 times to view and planning, only 6 hours max on writing, usually take 2~3 so it will take a while, sorry about that. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussing one thing at a time is a very good principle.


 * Let me save you some time. I have restored SSDs to the lede with a slight rewording. Note that it now says that ATA is "used to connect" hard drives, SSDs, etc. Regardless of what you think the ATA standards support, and regardless of what you think about SSD reliability, it is absolutely beyond question that ATA is "used to connect" SSDs inside PCs. After all, several of the links you provided describe such products. i.e. the lede is describing reality. Jeh (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You do understand that all of the interfaces use by SSD currently wasn't design for SSD at all do you. You stated several in previous archive CFA set support SSD, but none of the standards was design for SSD. So you cannot directly state it support SSD, there was no physical support, the citation you provided are all interface and BIOS related mechanism (similar to LBA), but again none of them was design for SSD so you cann't state that in the article.

However, previous archive mention was only an example, I do not expect to go back and provide citation for outdated stuff, just provide the citation for the current talk pages. Also I have decided to let you read what I've write, but since I didn't paste the info on Talk:Advanced Technology Attachment (section), you cannot use this information. You can only use it as an example, like what I did with the archive, but not with any other purpose.

My suggestion is you can put it support SSD (but you have to have a bracket or footnote that says something about PC Card, Magnetic Tape Drive interfaces if it was used. The footnote will require citation like so

Because AT Attachement support standard interface of CF, but it didn't support SSD, it suggest what you should do if you want to use it for other devices (but since it didn't say what devices) SSD & PC Card, Mangetic Tape drive...etc. can be connotated. Nowhere in the document did they use the word solid state (read the new archive I provided) the list that have ? in front of it, ignore it.

AT Attachment with Packet Interface (ATA/ATAPI) is a standard interface used to connect storage devices such as hard disks, solid-state drives/disk (1a b 23)

, and CD-ROM drives inside personal computers. The standard is maintained by X3/INCITS committee T13.

Superscript words are footnote
 * 1 = interface # 1
 * 2 = interface # 2
 * 3 = interface # 3


 * 1a
 * a = interface # 1, citation link

? New Archive --Ramu50 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Latest version of ? New Archive is 20:59, 21 July 2008 Ramu50


 * I'm not talking about "support" any more. The lede of the article says ATA/ATAPI is a standard interface (true, there are documents that describe it and that are widely accepted by industry) and that it is used to connect "storage devices such as hard disks, solid-state drives, and CD-ROM drives" (obviously true, there are many products in each category, and some of the links you provided confirm the existence of products called "solid-state drives" or "solid-state disks" with ATA interfaces). That is all the documentation needed to support the article lede. The issue of "support" is irrelevant to the statements of the article lede. Jeh (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also irrelevant is the issue of other interfaces such as SecureDigital, MediaCard, etc. - none of those are used by ATA SSDs so the ATA documents don't need to mention or describe them. ATA was "designed for" anything that could act like a hard drive at the ATA connector. ATA does not care if the storage happens to be magnetic disk, or flash memory, or SDRAM, or anything else, so does not need to mention let alone "support" any specific storage technology. Your claim that ATA does not "support" SSD because it doesn't describe them is equivalent to claiming that ATA doesn't really "support" hard drives with perpendicular recording, since it doesn't mention them and those were developed after ATA came out. But that doesn't matter, because ATA doesn't concern itself with the means of data storage. If a device follows the ATA signaling and command protocol at the ATA connector, as described in the ATA documents, it's a "device" as far as ATA is concerned. Jeh (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of ATA/ATAPI standard
Then lets try to change the article to be more correct, ATA/ATAPI support interface communication standard, there is nothing standard about the what storage device it relates to. As said in the very first sentence of the article. Since ATA/ATAPI never said things like AT Attachement is a standard interface for whichever type of HDD or any type of product they are just defining the how the communication should works then I suggest there should be a major change of what point of view are you guy using. For example,

History and Terminology, ATAPI (viewpoint problem) The interface was originally designed for use with hard disks, and originally worked only with hard disks and devices that could emulate them. Statement doesn't have citation, where is the citation for the interface was design for HDD.

(standard problem) AT Attachment with Packet Interface (ATA/ATAPI) is a standard interface used to connect storage devices such as hard disks, solid-state drives, and CD-ROM drives inside personal computers. The standard is maintained by X3/INCITS committee T13. Incorrect, should of said ATA/ATAPI is an standard interface for AT Attachements (cable) communicationR. These devices may include HDD, SSD, CD-ROM drive and inside PCs. Various other association have made their own version of ATA/ATAPI, however, the official documentation of the ATA/ATAPI standard is maintained by X3/INCITIS committe T131

R = Reason. Did ATA/ATAPI said you can't use the interface for anything else other than storage, LBA is part of the BIOS mechanism supported in ATA/ATAPI too. The sentences is too generalizing. 1 = citation --Ramu50 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramu50: "ATA/ATAPI support interface communication standard, there is nothing standard about the what storage device it relates to."—Well, there is nothing in the ATA standard, but there are certainly other standards that define how e.g. hard drives, CD-ROMs, etc., work, are built, etc. Consider for example that there is a standard size form factor for "3.5 inch hard drives", but all the ATA docs care about is the connector on the back. However the fact that ATA does not define things outside of ATA's scope does not in any way diminish the "standard" aspect of what ATA does define.


 * Ramu50: "Since ATA/ATAPI never said things like AT Attachement is a standard interface for whichever type of HDD or any type of product they are just defining the how the communication should works then I suggest there should be a major change of what point of view are you guy using."—The article is already congruent with what the ATA documents do and do not describe, as I've been telling you for some time.


 * Ramu50: "Statement isn't have citation, where is the citation for the interface was design for HDD."—In the first two subsections under "History and terminology". Read reference (1), cited in the section on IDE/ATA-1. Quick summary: IDE, which became ATA-1, was originally designed by Western Digital for hard drives. Look also at reference (2). Also, look at this from ATA-2, which is quoted in the article section on "EIDE and ATA-2" and which I've quoted to you several times now - it's from the "definitions" section of ATA-2:

"3.1.7 Device: Device is a storage peripheral. Traditionally, a device on the ATA interface has been a hard disk drive, but any form of storage device may be placed on the ATA interface provided it adheres to this standard."


 * from the existing article lede:

AT Attachment with Packet Interface (ATA/ATAPI) is a standard interface used to connect storage devices such as hard disks


 * Ramu50: "Incorrect, should of said 'ATA/ATAPI is an standard interface for AT Attachements (cable) communication. These devices may include HDD, SSD, CD-ROM drive and inside PCs.' Did ATA/ATAPI said you can't use the interface for anything else other than storage, LBA is part of the BIOS mechanism supported in ATA/ATAPI too."—One, Google says: No results found for "AT Attachments (cable) communication". That is not a valid string of words. The wording in the lede is fine as it is: ATA/ATAPI  is indeed a standard interface, and it is indeed used to connect storage devices such as...etc.


 * Two, yes, ATA/ATAPI has always expressly, in so many words, referred to storage devices... as I showed above and will show again below.


 * The provision for LBA in ATA further demonstrates this: A command protocol including "logical block addresses" and allowing reading and writing of data blocks stored at those logical block addresses is pretty obviously designed around hard drives.


 * On the other hand your claim about "the BIOS mechanism supported in ATA" is not correct; ATA does not define the "BIOS mechanism", though it does have a feature or two to help the BIOS code do what it needs to do. BIOSes of course do exist that allow BIOS "users" to access hard drives, but that is not within the ATA standard's scope. You will not find a description of e.g. the INT13 interface in the ATA documents.

Statement Agreed by ramu50 (Only the paragraphy below herein are stated.)Ramu50 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramu50 (continuing with proposed change to lede): "These devices may include HDD, SSD, CD-ROM drive and inside PCs."—This sentence is essentially what is there already. "May include" is semantically the same as "such as". "inside PCs" is covered in a later paragraph in the lede.


 * Ramu50 (continuing with proposed change to lede): "Various other association have made their own version of ATA/ATAPI,"—No, that is not true. (Even if it was true it would not belong in the lede.) Some organizations (like T10) have cached copies. Some of these may be of older revisions. Some device manufacturers may have violated the standard. But nobody can "make their own version" of ATA/ATAPI. ATA/ATAPI is what the T13 committee says it is.

Statement Agreed by ramu50 (Only the paragraphy below herein are stated.)Ramu50 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ramu50 (continuing with proposed change to lede): "however, the official documentation of the ATA/ATAPI standard is maintained by X3/INCITIS committe T13"—It says that now, just in different words. The T13 committee maintains the standard, therefore what they publish is ipso facto the official version. And there's already a link to the T13 committee's home page. Anyway, the lede is supposed to be a summary of what is said elsewhere in the article. The lede of an article does not normally require citations since they are in the rest of the article.


 * Ramu50: "Did ATA/ATAPI said you can't use the interface for anything else other than storage"—They've certainly said repeatedly that ATA is for storage devices and the entire command protocol (LBA or CHS, read blocks of data, write blocks of data, etc.) is certainly, obviously designed for hard drives -- more generally, for block-oriented, non-removable-media storage devices. It says so right in the docs:


 * From ATA-1: "This standard defines an integrated bus interface between disk drives and host processors."


 * From ATA-2: "This standard defines an integrated interface between devices and host processors.", and "﻿3.1.7 Device: Device is a storage peripheral. Traditionally, a device on the ATA interface has been a hard disk drive, but any form of storage device may be placed on the ATA interface provided it adheres to this standard." (emphasis added-- jeh)


 * But to make the point more clear, I have added "as described in the previous sections" to the section that introduces ATAPI.


 * ATAPI is another matter. ATA/ATAPI doesn't put any limits on the device class for ATAPI devices. In theory if there's a SCSI device class for a device, you could turn it into an ATAPI device by putting an ATA/ATAPI to SCSI converter on it. So... if you can find a reliable reference to an ATAPI device that is not a storage device, please provide it and we'll see what we can do with it. Re the lede, though, the most that is needed there would be to add a word like "usually" or "commonly". The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and should not list every little special case (if it did, then the lede would become redundant with the article). Until an example of such a device can be found, though, no such qualification is needed or warranted; in fact, such a qualification would be incorrect.


 * Also, it seems to me that a bit more information on just when T13 became part of INCITS (accredited by ANSI) instead of just part of ANSI would be useful, probably down in the "history and terminology" section. It seems to have happened between ATA-3 and ATA/ATAPI-4. That would be a good place for the ref links to T13, ANSI, and INCITS. Jeh (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First ATA can only set the communication standards, it can't set the AT Attachement cable standard. ATA/ATAPI didn't invent the At Attachement cable so it can't tell manufacture, force manufacture, suggest manufacturere how they should design it, they don't have the right unless the inventor allow them.

The congruency you state in your second paragraph doesn't apply, as I have proved onto the quote before your reply was submitted.

The citation you mentioned, doesn't comply. Whoever that added section CHOOSE not to use it. Also google search result apparently you are wrong does give you result, the phrase was not final decision. Jeh:''The wording there is fine as it is. ATA/ATAPI is a standard interface, and it is used to connect storage devices such as...etc.'' I told you already ATA/ATAPI doesn't have the right to say to define what is standard, there was not evidence that the authority of the inventor give ATA/ATAPI association to define what is standard.

The provision for LBA in ATA further demonstrates this: A command protocol including "logical block addresses" and allowing reading and writing of data blocks stored at those logical block addresses is pretty obviously designed around hard drives.

ECHS, Int 13h are also considered logical block addresses deriatives and they doesn't necessarily have to comply with consumer Hard Disk Drive storage. I stated before ATA/ATAPI can be use as other hard drive purpose such as AoE, you told me AoE was off topic, now you are telling me it can comply? You are self-contradictory, so now are you saying yes it can be use for other HDD purpose or no it can't be use for other HDD purpose, make a choice?

Yes I agree with the BIOS mechanism not supported, because after all AT Attachment cable was design for power, but I need to tell you that ATA-2 Working Draft have approved that even though specific documentation aren't supported, but it does need to recognize LBA, as seen in Table 12 - Identify device information ATA-2 Working Draft.

Statement Agreed Ramu50 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Ramu50 (continuing with proposed change to lede): "These devices may include HDD, SSD, CD-ROM drive and inside PCs."—This sentence is essentially what is there already. "May include" is semantically the same as "such as". "inside PCs" is covered in a later paragraph in the lede.

Regarding about various other ATA version, I will check with that though some people does publish their draft as a seemingly to try to scam people on ATA/ATAPI behalf. If you look at their table, they requested info from ATA-2 when ATA/ATAPI doesn't support EIDE, that is questionable as a scam, trying to request (or use info in which it isn't design for)

PIO mode    Cycle time   transfer rate (ns)           (MB/s)

0          600            3.3         ATA 1          383            5.2         ATA

2          240            8.3         ATA 3          180           11.1         ATA-2, IORDY required 4          120           16.6         ATA-2, IORDY required 5           90           22.2         vaporware



Lastly I didn't request for SCSI support. I am still verifying about T10 committee authority right to do anything towards the ATA/ATAPI documents. I am going to home, see you. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ATA most certainly sets the standards for the cable - read the documents. Starting with a very brief description (ATA-1 section 5.4) they became more and more detailed. See "Annex A" in ATA/ATAPI-6, for example, in particular sections A.1.1 and following. YOu will find detailed descriptions, tables, and illustrations of the cables as well as the connectors. You are correct that they can't tell cable makers what to build, but they can and do say that a cable must meet certain requirements (dimensions, impedance, capacitance, etc.) in order to work right with the interfaces on the devices and on the host. Of course they did not invent the cable, suitable cables already existed. In at least some cases the docs even specified particular make and model of cable (e.g. "3M 3365-40 or equivalent").


 * The congruency I state... if you have specific examples where the article goes beyond what ATA defines, please say what they are. We always want to improve the article. Jeh (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The citation I mentioned" - I don't know what you're referring to. (See why I like to provide context with replies?)


 * I know you "told me already that ATA/ATAPI doesn't have the right to define what is standard", but you are simply wrong. Really, they have the same right to publish anything and call it a standard as you or I do - this is called "free speech" and "freedom of the press".


 * However what gives T13 the recognition needed to publish recognized standards is that they are a committee of INCITS, which "coordinates technical standards activity between ANSI in the USA and joint ISO/IEC committees worldwide. This provides a mechanism to create standards that will be implemented in many nations." I guess you don't think they have the "right" but they, and all of the industry that builds things compliant with INCITS's standards, seem to disagree with you.


 * Your theory about "authority of the inventor" is incorrect. INCITS is an industry standards association. Note I did not say "government standards agency", as they are not that. I said "industry standards association" as these are in fact trade organizations, not government agencies. Companies like Western Digital, which created the original IDE drives and the IDE interface, have representatives on the committees.


 * WD created this new storage device interface, then provided the specs and brought it to the X10 committee in an effort to get their interface recognized as a standard... so more computers would be built that support it... so as to increase the market for their products. This is much the same way that Shugart (now Seagate) worked: they invented SASI, which became SCSI. Same with Xerox, which with Digital and Intel got Ethernet adopted as a standard by the IEEE (again, a trade/professional organization, not a government body).


 * There ARE government standards bodies, like NIST in the US or CSA in Canada, but they don't have anything to do with T10 or T13 or INCITS or the IEEE. They're more concerned with basic things like weights and measures and time.


 * Re INT13, no, INT13 is only for storage devices. If you disagree, please provide proof (but you might read the INT 13 article here first). "Proof" would be in the form of a reliable reference to a product that I can add to a computer that is not a storage device, but accessible via INT13. Similarly for ECHS. Just what would a "cylinder, head, sector" address mean to anything but a storage device, specifically a hard drive? Please supply an example of a device that supports either ECHS or LBA addressing and is not a storage device. Or drop the matter.


 * Re AoE, you misunderstand. AoE is off topic because it is for Serial ATA, not parallel ATA. I never mentioned AoE again, so I don't know what you mean by "now you are telling me it can comply." Since yuo brought it up I will tell you, though, that AoE does not change the fact that Serial ATA is, like parallel ATA, an interface for storage devices. Here's how AoE works: Serial ATA commands are encapsulated in Ethernet packets, go through the Ethernet to another machine, come up the network stack, are "unwrapped", and then sent to a Serial ATA device on the other machine... i.e. to a storage device. Read up on Serial ATA and ATA over Ethernet right here on WP.


 * Of course ATA-2 recognizes LBA. LBA was in ATA-1, too. From ATA-1. "3.1.5 LBA (Logical block address). This term defines the addressing mode of the drive as being by the linear mapping of sectors from 1 to n." What's the point?


 * "Regarding about various other ATA version" - please be careful when accusing people of trying to scam, you could be accused of libel. Maybe they just made a mistake. Or maybe you just misunderstood something (that is possible, you know?). The table you copied is describing ATA-2, so what is the problem there? ATA-2 did include most of the features of "EIDE" at the time.


 * Re SCSI, I mention that because I'm trying to be inclusive. ATAPI can support anything for which there is a SCSI device class, and not all of those are storage devices (e.g. scanners, printers). But if you can find an example of an ATA or an ATAPI device that is not a storage device (not a theoretical example, a reliable source citing a real, shipping product), please say so. Otherwise this point is settled. Jeh (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re T10 - originally there was no T13, T10 was responsible for ATA through ATA-2. T13 was split off from T10 sometime along the way to ATA-3. After that T10 has nothing directly to do with T13 (SCSI docs are products of T10, ATA docs of T13) but they do work closely with each other (note that both SATA and SASI use the same connectors and cables) and I imagine some of the same people are on both committees. At that time T13 was part of "American National Standard of Accredited Standards Committee X3." As of ATA-4 X3 had became NCITS, so T13 was then published under NCITS's banner. NCITS had become INCITS before the currently available rev of ATA-7. Evidence - read the document numbers and the first page or so in each doc. I haven't checked every case but I believe the only revisions of ATA docs available at T10.org are the same revs as the latest ones of each from T13. Jeh (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculation, Critism on ATA/ATAPI topics (Focus:SSD)
author: ramu50 If you are wondering why they are so many talk section from me (ramu50) I will explain in brief. I first propose the talk page to be organized and I provided a reference wrote by myself to try to help better improve the article. Much of the works failed due to directing the topic to very controversial Wikipedia citation policy, which was resolved in section Purpose of this article.

Archive Index.
 * Proposal: Propose Organization Page
 * Plans: Turn it to Talk:AT_Attachment/archive1

Purpose: improve the article
 * How? Using references written by ramu50
 * Status: Since it created more problem then expected, I turn my plans to a smaller focus, SSD. Because it is a current controversial technology for a very long time, therefore I wish the article states very clearly about SSD to remove anybody viewpoint, speculation, illegitimate, incorrect statement...etc and not be misleading.

What happen later?
 * Writing SSD Criticism (already planned when references was given, but I didn't announce it)
 * "List of media drives interface (SSD)" (responded)
 * Further dicussion occured in: Purpose of This article (Off Topic)
 * Status: The topic was too far off topic, due to personal attacks, however, issues was later focus on citation viewpoint and Wikipedia Policy which was resolved. (Current Status: resolved)
 * When issues is resolved, I provided a short paragraph about my initial plans, which the opposition wasn't able to see. This is to prevent further attacks on personal issues which is irreleant to the topic. However, the opposition intend on claiming other works is Additional comments by Ramu50 (intentionally sacrasting and disrespecting other users by using bias connotation toward other users).

In Summary? further dicussion (however, it turn into citation & wikipolicy clearify, issue is solved). Now improving the article and turning back to SSD & SSD citation controversay (currently discussed in Reason for removing SSD citation.) --Ramu50 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * reference removed, SSD criticism planning, contribs (unapproved by ATA/ATAPI users --> revulation)

Further SSD discussion
This is part 2 of Purpose of this article (the reason why articl title was different because Jeh initally claimed the title should be Additional comments by Ramu50, when I already had a laid out plan. Don't make assumptions and guessing. See full details Purpose of this article (both part 1 & 2) --Ramu50 (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism
In your formatting, now in archive you intentionally divide my sentences into different section, which changes the original meaning that I have written that is a form of vandalism I am reverting that back to normal. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof Vandalism 10:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * my final contrib is at

when Jeh move to inline style the following vandalism is made Original (now archive) 

Original Content ATA/ATAPI doesn't have the right to say to the document is the final version, because these association are trusted by government bodies. Judges in the court will need to look at them to understand the ethics and morality of the industries to prevent bias towards other people viewpoint. ATA/ATAPI is not being fined, because USA laws allow it, other countries doesn't. ATA/ATAPI is unlike other association such as IEEE which enforce the documentation, update the documents, therefore I won't challenge them, because they are responsible, reliable...etc. -- Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalize content (now archive)
 * 

Jeh's Vandalism (first my statement is has the reasoning and support, separating them make change the purpose of paragraph into conversation.) This isn't conversation, conversation statement doesn't necessarily require support, examples are 'Watch Out that for that poisonous ivy, it can make your body itchy if you touch it. (A statement, but no support).

Line 1 & 2 are an directly related statement that support each other, yet Jeh ignore it remove my original work, focusing only the content he wants. You reply accordingly to other people repsonse, you can choose not to answer it, but you can't change eliminated the statement I've said. Removing it make both statement stand alone, that is NOT what I've written.

Line 1 Ramu50: "ATA/ATAPI doesn't have the right to say to the document is the final version..."

jeh: T13 committee are the document authors! How can you claim they don't have the right to say "ok, we're done with this version"? The rest of your claims here about government, judges, trust, etc., are simply handwaving on your part. You seem to think that because the ATA/ATAPI docs might be cited in a court case (which is plausible, though unlikely), the T13 committee has no right to say which document is the final version? Why do you think that makes any sense at all?

I've never heard of a case where the T13 committee was put on trial for anything. If you think the T13 committee should be responsible for the reliability of anything attached to the connector they define, why weren't they sued over the failures of the IBM Deskstar 75GXP hard drives? If I plug a toaster into a NEMA 5-15 power receptacle, and the toaster sets the house on fire, do I sue NEMA? Nonsense, I sue the manufacturer of the toaster.

And btw, IEEE does not "enforce" anything either. If you're thinking of things like the "WiFi" logo, which you can't get unless you pass approval by (and are a member of) the WiFi Alliance, you should know that the WiFi Alliance is a trade group, not part of IEEE. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Line 2 Ramu50: "...your works are an original research."

jeh: WP:V sets the standards for what is "original research" and what is not. WP:V disagrees with you. It wins.

My "work" in this case is exactly supported by, indeed is, a direct quote from the primary source on the topic. That is not "original research", it is a proper and sufficient citation as per WP:V. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50: "The ones I use aren't original research..."

jeh: As I have pointed out before '''the sources you have cited don't support your position.''' I've said this at least three times now and you just refuse to respond. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50: "Ok when the works are finished I will placed a Critism section, because Wikipedia is being self-contradictory. How come article can have criticism. Criticism is  personal viewpoint whether or not it is supported by original research, nonetheless it is a  viewpoint."

And btw, IEEE does not "enforce" anything either. If you're thinking of things like the "WiFi" logo, which you can't get unless you pass approval by (and are a member of) the WiFi Alliance, you should know that the WiFi Alliance is a trade group, not part of IEEE. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC) --Ramu50 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved this section here because it did not belong in the "Technical criticisms" section of the talk page. That section refers to the "criticisms" section that was in the article. I moved it to the talk page after you pointed out that it seemed to violate a principle I had raised, namely that of "original synthesis". I agreed. However that section is not for criticisms of another user.


 * I have also added a new subsection heading above, since the SSD discussion seems to be closed.


 * Now, about this "vandalism" issue:


 * If you cite cases where interspersing my paragraphs with yours changed the meaning of what you were saying, please show them. The only reason I do that is to establish context, to show what am I replying to in each case. You post with a great many relatively separate points. I reply to each point. If I reply to them all in a bunch it is difficult to see which of my replies go with each of your points. This is not "vandalism" as I am not deleting or modifying any of your words. If you had posted just one of your points, and then I replied to just that, and then you posted just one more,and I replied to just that, it would look exactly the same. So what is the great harm?


 * Anyway, WP:TALK specifically says that replying point by point is allowed (though they recommend a small font style, I don't see that there is an effective difference).


 * However, since you objected so much to that style (which by the way I am far from the only WP editor to use - not that you can possibly have certain knowledge that no other WP editor uses it), I switched to leaving your entire post intact and then quoting only enough of each of your points to give context. This is not "vandalism" as, again, I left your entire post intact. I did not delete or modify any of your words. It is not "focusing only the content he (I) wants" because I in fact replied to and considered everything in your original post. True, I only quote a bit of your post, just enough to show which of my replies go with which of your points, but I consider and reply to everything you wrote.


 * We could do something similar by numbering the paragraphs... maybe that is a good idea (use the # sign in front of each paragraph). I hope you would not consider my putting a number in front of each of your paragraphs as vandalism?


 * I also note that in your "proof" above you did not post my actual reply to your "Ok when the works are finished..." My reply to that began "You have a valid point!" In fact several times you have made valid points and I have said "yes, you're right" and adopted them into the article. (If I was biased against you as you have previously claimed I would not be doing that.)


 * Again, if you have a specific case where I appear to have taken something you wrote out of context and "won" the point by replying only to the small quoted bit, not considering the rest of what you wrote, please cite it and I will attempt to clarify it. Please remember that on Wikipedia you have an obligation to assume good faith on the part of the other eidtor.


 * I accordingly request that you follow WP:AGF and withdraw your accusations of vandalism.


 * If after considering WP:AGF you still consider my acts "vandalism" then I would refer you to the procedures for dispute resolution. The first step is to get a third party opinion, either via you or I requesting help (see WP:EA or a third party opinion to both of us (see WP:3).


 * In fact I would greatly appreciate a third party to come in here and sweep a great deal of the cruft here onto archive pages, as much of it is clearly not about improving the article, but as I am involved in the discussion I don't think I can ethically do that, not at least until the discussion has gone dormant. However the third party page says that the process requires good faith on both of our parts, and that seems to be lacking.


 * Your call as to how to proceed here. I have other things to do for a while and will not be editing much on ATA for at least a few days.


 * However I put in a lot of thought on the talk page reorganization and I would appreciate it if you would take care as to how you move things, and where you put new sections. You recently made several edits that caused the organization to make little sense in several places. Also, your frequent archiving of portions you don't want to discuss any more (in one case to your own talk space) has left a great many "stubs" of discussions that make no sense. For example, the subsection titled "Solid State Drives Criticism" now begins with your "How about no, ever since I started the topic...", a reply with nothing left that it replies to because you "archived" what had come before somewhere without apparent care as to what you were leaving behind.


 * Speaking of archiving: please do not archive sections of the page until you brush up on the guidelines given at WP:ARCHIVE. Your archive pages do not follow any standard naming convention and you are breaking up topics among multiple archives, making following the archives difficult. Also, archiving is normally only done when a discussion thread has been dormant for a while, at least 30 days.


 * I do not call this "vandalism", but what you have been doing to this talk page's organization is, I feel, bordering on disruptive. I have restored the organization as best I can while leaving all of your text in the talk page... in some cases leaving other nonsensical stubs of discussion, but I think that is probably better than simply deleting the stubs at this point. Again, perhaps a neutral third party would be willing to come in and clean things up a bit. I'd certainly appreciate it. Jeh (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

notice
I am officially not thinking of contributing with ATAPI any longer. I have decide to turn the work into a draft summaries or something like a White Paper as oppose to the constantly arguement. If you look at my contributions your probably notice I contribute to a lot more article, template than ATAPI, such as Intel, AMD, Sun Microsystems, Linux Distribution template and disambiguation, citation format corrections...etc. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)