Adding missing SATA connectors to motherboard

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
Click to expand...
DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).
 
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)
Click to expand...
Hundred layers?

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?
Click to expand...
Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.
Click to expand...
I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
Click to expand...
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.
 
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.
Click to expand...

Then quit posturing and show us!

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.
 
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:53:32 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:38:46 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


You lied previously, you're not even half my age.


Are you 86?


If you are 86 then your prior threats of violence are funny
as hell.
Click to expand...

Christ, you can't even do your own math now. YOu really are an idiot.
 
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong,
Click to expand...
I am neither.

but the above is simply bullshit.
Click to expand...
It is also nothing I ever said. The kony retard that thinks he knows
all about PCBs said it.

Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).
Click to expand...
 
krw wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.


DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).
Click to expand...
My first hands-on direct exposure to large multilayer real estate was
a 12 layer Control Data Terminal Systems CPU board which held about 400
MSI devices densely packed, made in 1970.

Michael
 
In article <69eom4tq6mrsjha27ao4d6t8hu2iamfn4i@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...>
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.


Then quit posturing and show us!
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.
 
In article <c5gom4tsvfb3fs3c96qd8oh74v0fiiuhmm@4ax.com>,
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org says...>
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong,

I am neither.
Click to expand...
You are, in fact, both.

but the above is simply bullshit.

It is also nothing I ever said. The kony retard that thinks he knows
all about PCBs said it.
Click to expand...
You're also CantRead.

Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).
Click to expand...
 
In article <paedncAP4u4C3PHUnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@posted.cpinternet>,
msg@_cybertheque.org_ says...>
krw wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.


DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).


My first hands-on direct exposure to large multilayer real estate was
a 12 layer Control Data Terminal Systems CPU board which held about 400
MSI devices densely packed, made in 1970.
Click to expand...
IBM mainframes. Our standard boards were 10 layer PWB + wirewrap
overflow and customization in the '60s. The plug-in cards
(nominally 18 per board) were usually 8 layer. Four were needed to
power the ECL. In the late '70s things shifted to 100 (then 121)
chip MCMs on huge boards (~3'x3', IIRC). These pretty much went
away with the ECL processors. CMOS packed more into the chips
without increasing the board wiring density much. The number of
layers on the MCM boards was dictated by timing and impedance
control required as much as density.
 
Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:49 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Oh, you mean you bought something as an end-user, and claim
that's knowledge, but you still can't wrap your head around
soldering a mere connector onto a PCB.

I used to make 7000 connections a day, and my work looks like that of a
machine. My soldering is easily an order of magnitude better than yours.
My knowledge of rework and retrofit procedures as well.

It's quite ridiculous.

You ridicule yourself.

This is a very simple soldering job
that you've blown out of proportion.

No. It is MORE than a mere soldering job, as I stated in my original
reply, which you likely did not read.

Ok, you made a mistake
underestimating the ability of people who have held a
soldering iron.

No. I have seen banks of dumb fuckheads like you that claim to be good,
but fail miserably when hundreds of thousands of dollars of company
assets are at stake. I have personally beat out a crew of 50 such
assholes for a chip removal task where their standard lab boys were
scraping pads. That was a $10M+ rework effort.

It's like billiards. You have to know a little bit about the nitty
gritty to be able to do the really tricky shots.

You, and nitty gritty have never met.

That part was not such a big deal but
continuing to insist you are right contrary to common sense?

You're an idiot. Your grasp of common sense would fit on the tip of a
molecular probe.

It's just amazing.

I'd even bet you don't know what *that* word means.
Click to expand...

kinell, what is it about usenet?


NT
 
krw wrote:
In article <69eom4tq6mrsjha27ao4d6t8hu2iamfn4i@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)
Hundred layers?
Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.
I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
Click to expand...
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
 
In article <V_6dnRguUPpTUPHUnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@supernews.com>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...>
krw wrote:
In article <69eom4tq6mrsjha27ao4d6t8hu2iamfn4i@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)
Hundred layers?
Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.
I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:
Click to expand...
I didn't work on the 'z' series (left for BTV during the ES9000 to
'z' changeover).

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.
Click to expand...
Thanks Phil. The 3081-ES9000 boards were much larger and had more
layers (lower integration by several orders of magnitude). I did a
search on the ibm.com site and didn't turn anything up on the older
stuff ("Clark Board" was some sort of philanthropic organization,
or something).
 
Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:46:13 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jamie wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:


On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:00:08 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:



Eeyore wrote:



Archimedes' Lever wrote:




I know more about soldering and connections between metals than you
ever will.


Jolly Good for you. I doubt you know much else.

Graham


You're opening your self up for a big one Graham, get prepared
for the aftermath.



You're both spewing more shit into the group than I ever have.

Donkey ass, with his less-than-peanut-gallery commentary, and you, with
your retarded link-to-self on each post. You're a joke.

You're both pretty fucking pathetic.

Thank you.

Your comments are duly noted and dropped into the suggestion box.

Have a horrible day, and may it rain on your parade.
-


May your head explode from your continuing hatred.



Hey, at least I got the dope to strip that stupid link away.
Click to expand...
Speaking of being mentally incapacitated, your name arose out of
discussion.

--
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:49:52 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bullshit.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.


Then quit posturing and show us!
Click to expand...
Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

I doubt that you even know what a VME backplane is, much less have any
grasp of circuit board manufacturing technology. You obviously have no
clue as to how many layers modern boards have, much less how many were
available to be had in 1975. Your grasp of PC boards is limited to that
which you ever saw. That is proven by the inane remark about what YOU
think was available at the time.
Granted, there's not one second I buy this,
Click to expand...
We know... but that is because you're an absolute fucking retard.

but let's see
what you come up with.
Click to expand...
You really are one brainless little bitch.
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:43:53 -0800 (PST), meow2222@care2.com wrote:

kinell, what is it about usenet?

Go back to the kook group, ditz.
Click to expand...
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:25:17 -0500, Meat Plow <meat@petitmorte.net>
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:39:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org>wrote:

spewing more shit

We know...
Click to expand...

Yes... you know... NOTHING.
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:26:54 -0500, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Speaking of being mentally incapacitated
Click to expand...

Talking to and about yourself again.
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:22:22 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs
Click to expand...
While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top