Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: RLL vs IDE Message-ID: <2574@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 18 Oct 90 02:39:22 GMT References: <40552@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <15206@cbmvax.commodore.com> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 28 In <15206@cbmvax.commodore.com> brim@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mike Brim - Product Assurance) writes: >BTW, the subject of this topic should not be RLL vs. IDE since most AT >interfaced IDE drives use 2,7 RLL data coding. The subject of *any* topic should not be "RLL vs IDE". There is no contradiction between the two. And this conclusion is independent of whether or not the IDE drive uses 2,7 RLL encoding. An IDE drive can use RLL encoding. An IDE drive can use MFM encoding. An IDE drive can use bubble memory. An IDE drive can use FM encoding. Or, for that matter, AM. An IDE drive can be a CD-ROM drive. IDE means "integrated drive electronics". It tells you where the controller lies. It doesn't tell you how the controller works. IDE drives look like standard AT bus drives -- because, on ATs at least, that's what they are. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi