Posted: Pioneer counter proposal
daviburg at windows.microsoft.com
Mon Jan 7 19:17:52 PST 2008
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* David Burg <daviburg at windows.microsoft.com>
This proposal is highly different from Microsoft-Toshiba proposal and you
mention "Pioneer and its partner companies do not receive any request of the
above items from PC manufactures."
I believe however that David Walp already shared with the committee at the
previous meeting the following from Dell in a response to a similar comment
you made at the Las Vegas meeting. It case it slipped through, let me repeat
" From: Lee, Kah Soon
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 3:04 AM
To: David Walp
Cc: David Burg; Lo, James; Sellers, Sabrina
James and I have reviewed the new Mt. Fuji proposal on speed detection and
control commands update.
We have no concern on the proposal and this is aligned with our goal in
acoustic noise issue. We agreed with the proposed solution.
Regards, Kah Soon"
This person from Dell later added:
"Thanks for sharing with us on the status of this proposal.
Please let us know whether you need any help from us to work together with
our optical drives suppliers, especially the prototype drives/firmware.
Just keep us posted on the progress."
I observe that there is here a disconnect between Pioneer's statement and
what Dell communicated to Microsoft (and allowed to share as their
I further cannot concur with Pioneer's claims with regard to "A minimum
average data rate for HD content on DVD is guaranteed already. So new scheme
is not necessary." As a matter of fact Microsoft and partners have prototyped
HD DVD Video content on Red laser DVD and due to insufficient average data
rate the playback is badly jittered. Work is required!
Multiple other host software companies already joined Microsoft in the
request for reporting logical unit performance capabilities to the end user
and few even sent representatives to the committee meeting. I am amazed that
Pioneer still denies the existence of this request!
Pioneer claims that reporting precise execution time for an I/O operation
does not have any relationship with Real Time Streaming issue. However it is
exactly the misunderstandings around the existing Real Time Streaming feature
and fabrication of inaccurate respond data to performance command associated
with this feature that cause execution time for an I/O operation to be
reported imprecisely (the device performing actually at different speed than
it was instructed and different than it is reporting)!
I just returned yesterday to US and I am not able to attend the 1/9 SWG
meeting in Japan. I ask however that you consider the feedback we have
From: owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com [mailto:owner-mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com] On
Behalf Of keiji_katata at post.pioneer.co.jp
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:06 PM
To: mtfuji5 at avc-pioneer.com
Cc: T10 Reflector
Subject: Posted: Pioneer counter proposal
I posted a counter proposal for 1/9 SWG.
ftp.avc-pioneer.com/Mtfuji_7/Proposal/Jan08/SWG/Pioneer Stream Model.doc
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
More information about the T10