Cable Select vs. Master/slave settings

[Mike McCarty]

Claude Jones wrote:
> On Mon August 8 2005 5:31 pm, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
>>............., yet!
>>
>>You would lose your bet. I advise against cable select, *ALWAYS*.
>>
> 
> The operative here is that 'yet' just above your declaration...

Good point! :-)


>>IMO, cable select is EVIL.
>>
> 
> This sounds like an emotional judgment...

To the extent that it is based on many frustrating attempts
to get other people's machines to work when they have
done the types of things you described, yes.

I see it as being no different from the old numbered slots
on the Apple ][ and the messes that created when a board
worked in one slot got moved to another and then failed.

>>When I advise against using cable select I presume that
>>the person doing the setup would not use "mix-n-match"
>>as you suggest.
>>
>>I can't imagine anyone suggesting "mix-n-match".
>>
> 
> You discredit yourself thoroughly at this point - I never suggested anyone do 
> such -

I suppose you don't think that you are "anyone". Here I
use a term which definitely includes you. So I definitely
stated stated that I didn't imagine you would recommend it.

Oh, I see. My statement is ambiguous! Sorry. I meant that
"the person doing the setup would not use 'mix-n-match'
as you suggest that he might." I didn't mean that you
were suggesting that people use mix-n-match. Of course not.
You were pointing out (some of) the problems that can cause.

> This thread has turned silly, now - if your method is working for you, that's 
> all that matters. Continue with it. My experience has been different...

Not so. "Standards are wonderful. There are so *many* of them!"

Having more than one way to accomplish the same goal is not
a good thing. Especially when people who just barely know their
way around their machines get to dinking around in them, and
then wind up with machines that won't boot.

The use of cable select is a reversion to the philosophy of the
"twisted cable" IBM came up with for floppies, which I think
almost everyone agreed was a terrible idea after the fact.

You specifically mentioned that having "two standards" is causing
problems. We had/have a way which worked fine. Better than the
way cabling works for floppies. Then someone came up with a "better"
idea to revert to the cabling scheme used for floppies. This is
a step backward, both on purely technical grounds, and on
epistemological grounds. Having "two standards" is actually
having none.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!