From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 23 05:34:30 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id FAA10141 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 05:34:30 -0800
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA10135 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 05:34:25 -0800
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA05914
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:31:48 -0600
Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA13211; 23 Mar 95 07:21:24 CST (Thu)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id HAA13208; Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:21:23 -0600
From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com>
Message-Id: <199503231321.HAA13208@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: ata/ide sector translation modes c/h/s vs. LBA?
To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:21:23 -0600 (CST)
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, PVinci@ix.netcom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199503230933.BAA12284@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Mar 23, 95 01:33:38 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 276       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > >> Why does the ATA standard make such a big stink about LBA mode??	

I thought it was because by making a big stink they can maybe get the DOS
weenies to quit using bogus CHS when they write BIOSes and operating systems.

LBA is a marketing tool more than anything else.