Re: More Zoomer experiences
Anthony J Stieber <starnet!apple!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!anthony>
From: Anthony J Stieber <starnet!apple!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!anthony>
Message-id: <9310252036.AA05945@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: More Zoomer experiences
To: zoomer-list-1993@grot.starconn.com
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 15:36:33 -0500 (CDT)
In-reply-to: <9310251629.AA11082@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> from "Lonnie Smith" at Oct 25, 93 12:21:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23beta2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2892
Status: OR
-> From: Lonnie Smith <smithh@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com>
-> I believe that is incorrect. Here is my understanding of the conventions.
-> The 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, etc., refer to the version numbers of the PCMCIA
-> specifications and/or protocols. The roman numerals of I, II, III refer
-> to the physical configuration of the card itself. I think it is the case
Everything I've seen indicates that Type is card thickness, or card
cavity thickness, nothing else. The special SunDisk cards for use in
PCMCIA 1.0 machines do not comply to the PCMCIA 1.0 standard and need
special drivers for each PCMCIA 1.0 machine. Apparently they do comply
to the PCMCIA 2.0 standard.
-> that the number of pins *or* their signal definitions changed going from
-> the 1.0 to 2.0 PCMCIA specification.
The number of pins didn't change, if they did there would be some
problems allowing a PCMCIA 1.0 card to physically fit into a 2.0 slot.
PCMCIA 2.0 is fully backward compatible with PCMCIA 1.0 so any pin
changes are handled as a superset of PCMCIA 1.0.
-> The 2.1 PCMCIA protocol is either released or very close to release.
It was released in July.
-> Thus, to be perfectly obscure, one could have a type III card (a hard drive
-> say) with a 2.0 pinout specs, but, which uses the 2.1 PCMCIA protocol.
I'm under the impression there is PCMCIA Relese and Type, and that's
it. I think Release 2.1 merely corrects some errors and adds some new
specifications over 2.0. PCMCIA is both a hardware and a software
standard so a device originally designed to the 2.0 standard that
didn't comply to 2.1 could be perhaps be shipped with new firmware to
comply with the 2.1 standard.
-> careful. Some of these 'descriptors' are separable and not at all
-> intiutive. Maybe we should find a new vocabulary to describe the physical
-> characteristics such as full height, double height and triple height cards.
-> That might prevent confusing size with protocol.
The main problem has been confusion between Release and Type. Using
arabic numerals with decimals points for Release, and roman numerals
for Type hasn't worked well. In retrospect letters may have been a
better choice for Type, or perhaps the actual thickness in millimeters
instead.
-> Maybe someone (the PCMCIA?) should prepare a chart enumerating exactly
-> which combinations of pinouts, protocols and physical size are 'legal'
-> under the association specs. It should be a do-able thing since the
I am under the impression that all permutations are allowed in the
specification. If someone can actually make a Type I hard drive they
are welcome to do it. Several Type I modems, ethernet adapters, SCSI,
etc, cards already exist.
Has anyone here actually read the PCMCIA specifications and know
what's really going on? The PCMCIA wants $300 for the full set.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony