Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
Posts: 152

The best of both worlds?

Here's a thought:

If PI Technology's MemPlug CF is just a take off on Dave Kessler's flashadapter design, as has been speculated in the Yahoo flashadapter forum, and is electrically compatible with it, couldn't we buy the MemPlug CF, buy Kopsis' software, then we would legitimately have both MemPlug's support and suite of software(PiDirect, GMovie, etc.) and Kopsis' support, VFS and otherwise?

I'm not sure either would be too crazy about the idea, and I'm not even sure they *are* electrically compatible. Does anyone have definitive word either way?

Registered: Jan 2001
Location:
Posts: 278

Yes, this would be the case. The Mempug and other devices like it are the same as Dave Kesslers flashadpater. He says this on his page when he tells you that if you don't want to build one you can buy one.

--David

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Plant City, FL
Posts: 385

Re: The best of both worlds?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dvIceT
If PI Technology's MemPlug CF is just a take off on Dave Kessler's flashadapter design, as has been speculated in the Yahoo flashadapter forum, and is electrically compatible with it, couldn't we buy the MemPlug CF, buy Kopsis' software, then we would legitimately have both MemPlug's support and suite of software(PiDirect, GMovie, etc.) and Kopsis' support, VFS and otherwise?

---

Assuming the MemPlugCF is hardware compatible with the FlashAdapter reference design (I suspect it is but have no evidence), your biggest problem would be "dueling drivers" [insert dueling banjos music here ]. We've already had to deal with this in the VFS beta (since the beta comes with a new version of the FALib drivers).

It's tough to describe the problem without getting too technical. But imagine the following scenario: The MemPlug drivers have read a sector (let's say a directory sector) into RAM for the drivers to use. Now the Kopsis drivers go ahead and modify that same sector. The MemPlug drivers don't have any way to know that happened, so they just keep using the copy they have "cached" in RAM. Then if they make any modifications to that sector and write it to CF, the changes the Kopsis drivers made get clobbered. Obviously there are dozens of variations on this scenario - all of them bad. The FAT filesystem is not very robust and it wouldn't take much to get the format on your CF card badly screwed up.

quote:

---

I'm not sure either would be too crazy about the idea, and I'm not even sure they *are* electrically compatible. Does anyone have definitive word either way?

---

Actually, I'd love to see people running our software on the MemPlugCF, but the only way to safely do it would be to get rid of the MemPlug software and who's going to want to do that? The best solution would be for us to create a version of our software that uses the native MemPlug drivers. But since MemPlug has promised their own VFS support, I can't see investing a lot of development time in a product that would probably have a pretty short shelf life. Now, if MemPlug wanted to license our VFS software, that would be a different story. PiDeveloper, I'm sure you're reading this If you're intrigued by this idea, drop me an email at [email protected].

__________________
<ul><li>Dave Kessler<br>President - Kopsis, Inc.</li></ul>

Registered: Mar 2001
Location:
Posts: 159

Re: Re: The best of both worlds?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkessler


Assuming the MemPlugCF is hardware compatible with the FlashAdapter reference design (I suspect it is but have no evidence), your biggest problem would be "dueling drivers" [insert dueling banjos music here ]. We've already had to deal with this in the VFS beta (since the beta comes with a new version of the FALib drivers).

It's tough to describe the problem without getting too technical. But imagine the following scenario: The MemPlug drivers have read a sector (let's say a directory sector) into RAM for the drivers to use. Now the Kopsis drivers go ahead and modify that same sector. The MemPlug drivers don't have any way to know that happened, so they just keep using the copy they have "cached" in RAM. Then if they make any modifications to that sector and write it to CF, the changes the Kopsis drivers made get clobbered. Obviously there are dozens of variations on this scenario - all of them bad. The FAT filesystem is not very robust and it wouldn't take much to get the format on your CF card badly screwed up.



Actually, I'd love to see people running our software on the MemPlugCF, but the only way to safely do it would be to get rid of the MemPlug software and who's going to want to do that? The best solution would be for us to create a version of our software that uses the native MemPlug drivers. But since MemPlug has promised their own VFS support, I can't see investing a lot of development time in a product that would probably have a pretty short shelf life. Now, if MemPlug wanted to license our VFS software, that would be a different story. PiDeveloper, I'm sure you're reading this If you're intrigued by this idea, drop me an email at [email protected].

---

MemPlug CF is hardware INCOMPATIBLE with FlashAdapter.
This mean that you won't be abled to run MemPlug's software on FlashAdapter or vice versa.

MemPlug's File System APIs is open to public, any developers interest to develop applications for MemPlug are welcomed to download them from our webpage. In fact, many developers already include support for MemPlug in their latest version. eg. TealMover, TealMovie, gMovie, Noah Lite Pro, LauncherIII etc.
We are welcomed any 3rd party developers develop applications for MemPlug users.

Dave, thanks for your offer about VFS licensing, however, our team member already making great progress in VFS support. And this support will be *FREE* upgrade for all MemPlug users and support all versions of Visor devices. We will release public beta once it is available.

PiDeveloper

Registered: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 16

It is very interesting.

Kopsis want to license their VFS software but the fact is that PIT has its own ability to develop their own VFS software.

Dave, although you can't license the VFS software to PIT, you can try to license the other software! However, I don't think PIT will need your help.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Plant City, FL
Posts: 385

quote:

---

Originally posted by eeist
It is very interesting.



Kopsis want to license their VFS software but the fact is that PIT has its own ability to develop their own VFS software.

---

__________________
<ul><li>Dave Kessler<br>President - Kopsis, Inc.</li></ul>

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Them Twin Cities
Posts: 1758

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkessler
We just figured that PIT might want to take advantage of an opportunity to license a working solution so their developers could spend their time innovating instead of "re-inventing the wheel".

---

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Registered: Mar 2001
Location:
Posts: 159

quote:

---

Originally posted by dietrichbohn


Not to mentioned standardizing the code across differing platforms. We don't want "PiDirect VFS" vs. "Everybody else VFS"

---

Registered: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 16

"I never doubted PIT's ability to create VFS drivers"

That's why I said some impolit post before. Your post always *seem* to carry out a message < PIT can't do it, but I can >.

In fact, i am not stand on PIT side.

Registered: Mar 2001
Location:
Posts: 67

Looks interesting

PiDeveloper, if VFS support going to be free upgrade, then what the reason to buy PiDirect? With fully compatible VFS driver (as you said) we will be able to run MSMount...

Could you explain advantages of PiDirect vs. VFS + MSMount ?