WP:COMPUTING Tagging ( False Postive ?? ) :(Plugin++) Added {{WikiProject Computing}}.
|
|
||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
A CIS describes the card on which it resides. For the PCMCIA bus and the Cardbus what is analogous to the [[PCI Configuration Space]]? Perhaps this can be mentioned somewhere in the article. Can a Web page with details of the CIS and of the bus be cited in the references? Expansion of this section seems appropriate. Thanks, [[User:PeterEasthope|PeterEasthope]] ([[User talk:PeterEasthope|talk]]) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
A CIS describes the card on which it resides. For the PCMCIA bus and the Cardbus what is analogous to the [[PCI Configuration Space]]? Perhaps this can be mentioned somewhere in the article. Can a Web page with details of the CIS and of the bus be cited in the references? Expansion of this section seems appropriate. Thanks, [[User:PeterEasthope|PeterEasthope]] ([[User talk:PeterEasthope|talk]]) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Type 1 memory cards - limited to 16 mb maximum capacity? == |
|||
Are PCMCIA type 1 memory cards (3.3 mm thickness) limited to a maximum size of 16 mb? I don't think I've seen any that are larger. |
|||
Also, do these cards normally have an internal battery? |
Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
I had generally understood that PCMCIA originally stood for "Personal Computer Memory Card Industry Association", and was later changed to "International". However, I cannot find a good citation for this. There are still many links on the web that refer to "Industry Association", including hits from Sony, Cisco, Seagate, and others, but none provide definitive source for this. As well, I had not heard the use of "Peripheral Component MicroChannel Interconnect Architecture" before - is there a citation for this being an orignal use? Or is this merely a secondary use (a web search seems to indicate that this is an IBM (the company) specific acronym). I think this needs to be verified. GGG65 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally it was "Personal Computer Memory Card Interface Adapter" and can be seen in old manuals (such as for the Amiga 1200) and even in patents [1]. - 72.87.188.33 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please verify this before moving back article
They were originally invented by the IBM in the 1980s, as a portable version of their (at the time) fast MCA bus[dubious – discuss].
I moved the sentence about the cards originating from the MCA bus up to the top so it would be easier to spot as applying to PCMCIA, not ExpressCard (which it was originally under).
Still, does anyone have verification that this is true? Jleq 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Pccard standard and Cardbus whitepaper links are broken :(
Deleted. I couldn't acces this. What is it, anyway? -- Merphant
This article was a stub from FOLDOC
Gee, and all this time I though PCMCIA stood for "People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms". You learn something new every day, I guess! ClockworkTroll 05:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Xircom XJack cards were not Type III cards. They were double height type II cards, so while they were as thick as a type III, they used the electrical interface of a type II. Lostchicken 20:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems a Type IV PCMCIA also existed, although I only know of one device that actually implemented the slot.
The ancient ThinkPad Dock II (3546)
Can anyone contribute a picture showing the two types of ExpressCards? -- Bovineone 07:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just heard about PCMCIA-to-PCI adapters. I don't know much about that (does devices need specific drivers?, is there Linux support?), but I think this could be an interesting topic for this article. Best regards --surueña 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no mention of when (year) new PC card types were introduced, perhaps this should be worked on. NEMT 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soundcards were made in 16 bit PC Card, in Type I and Type II. I know they were made in Type I because I used one in a Dell Latitude XPi P75D. (Most of them only support Windows through 98 or 98SE due to only having VXD type drivers.)
Video capture cards have been made in CardBus, usually Type II.
The Megahertz/3-Com/USR/Xircom X-Jack cards are Type II. The Type III card shown in the article is a Xircom RealPort, looks like it could be an Ethernet card. (Much 'fun' was had getting support for a dead USR 28.8 modem with X-Jack, originally bought in Scotland and brought to the USA before the company started selling USR products here with X-Jack.)
I've seen some older laptops with support for "Type IV" by having the upper slot extend higher than required to fit a Type III.
Quite uncommon are laptops which mount the slots side by side, allowing for at least one Type III card without blocking the second slot. (Toshiba made some laptop docking stations in the late 1990s with two Type III compatable CardBus slots.)
There's no mention of the many PC Card and CardBus adaptors made for desktop computers. Single slot ones (in PC Card for ISA, CardBus for PCI) are still used to adapt laptop wireless network cards for desktops, though dedicated PCI wireless cards are displacing them. Some of them use internal cables to connect to slots which mount in a drive bay. (I have an old ISA one that uses four 40pin ribbon cables to connect to a dual Type III slot dock in a 5.25" bay.)
There's no mention in the article of the complexity of software support for PC Card prior to Windows 95. DOS/Win 3.x required a driver for the controller chip and a 'Card and Socket Services' driver to enable the device drivers to communicate with the controller driver. Then for each device that would be used, either a 'Class Driver' or a 'Point Driver' was required. A Class Driver supported multiple devices of the same type, like memory cards or IDE hard drives. A Point Driver supported one specific device and a seperate Point Driver had to be loaded at boot for each device.
The drivers were not dynamically loaded and unloaded, they took up memory all the time. It wasn't practical for a user to have more than 3 or 4 devices to swap without creating a custom boot menu to choose which PC Card driver(s) to load for that session.
The complexity was to make it easier to write Class or Point drivers. The controller driver and Card and Socket Services were developed to create a uniform API on all PC compatable systems.
Windows 95 introduced dynamic driver handling where any number of PC Card devices could be inserted and drivers installed, then only loaded into memory as required, then unloaded when the user stopped the device. Ejecting the device without stopping it usually worked OK, but was (still is) not recommended for file storage devices with write access.
Not long after the release of Windows 95, PC Card chip makers ceased development of the DOS drivers, so it's not possible to get the PC Card slots to work with Windows 3.x on most laptops made from late 1995 on.
What about to inform here something about ExpressCards? It's going to replace PCCards, right? I just bought a new notebook with this connector. The same size of my old PCMCIA, what confuses the end user. I was thinking that I was with something inside the notebook blocking my card. Then I looked inside and I could see something totally different. I went to the Internet and I could see that's actually a expressCard slot, which is different. Here, at Wikipedia, in this session about PCCard, I could not see a reference to ExpressCards. I'm not comfortable to write about it. So... here is a tip for people involved on this topic.
The typo correction by Hydrargyrum (unusually -> unusual) may be a matter of American versus British English! It doesn't sound right to my ear now. So I will reorder the sentence to avoid the issue. --Dermot Smith 09:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "expand" tag from the article to the talk page. What part of "This template may be found on the article's talk page" do you not understand? xompanthy 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that good idea is creating an article about PCMCIA (Association) instead of redirecting to PC Card. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silkmann (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The present article appears to be three or four articles in really bad English mashed together. I've attempted a rewrite. Please re-add any important glossed-over detail - David Gerard 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my Cisco college notes they told us that the profile of cardbus and PCMCIA are different and we had to identify them by shape. I don't have either to look at here and I can't remember the differences but a photo of both might be instructive. Secretlondon 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of hot-plugging? They support it, don't they? Did all types support hot-plugging? MrG (03 DEC 06) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.215.41 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
"All are 85.6 mm long"
Yeah? Except for the ones that aren't! ;) WiFi, USB and 1394 cards with attached antennas or extentions to house standard port connectors while still keeping the rest of the card thin enough to fit the Type II size are pretty common.
The result of the proposal was not moved -- enochlau (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PC card → PC Card — The right name as used in official documents [2] [3]. Armando82 14:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links provided are not official links. The only serious reference is the official site http://www.pcmcia.org/pccard.htm. Here you can read: "Please note that the PC Card Standard is closed to further development" and this is not an all capitalized setting. Armando82 12:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Notmoved--Stemonitis 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I should have checked the discussion first, but I went ahead and fixed a lot of this confusion. The reliable sources (e.g. these books, with the exception of the "Complete Idiot's" guide) all indicate the PC Card is that successor name for PCMCIA, not that PC card is a generic term for a PCMCIA card. I think they blew in choosing a term that sounds so generic, but it's what they did. We ought to base the article on reliable sources, so does anyone have a source that says it should be the other way? Dicklyon 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PC card → PC Card — because that's the proper name, according to all the official materials of the PCMCIA, and because it looks like there was a consensus last time, which didn't get acted on. —Dicklyon 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.The discussions above had only one serious oppose, and it appears to have been well answered. It looks to me like there was a consensus to move to the official name "PC Card". So, try again? Dicklyon 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming evidence in reliable sources (books) may be seen here. – Dicklyon 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been renamed from PC cardtoPC Card as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or XIP. Was it not a notable feature of PC Card architecture? I don't see anything here about it. 216.152.209.73 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says there are no general-purpose PCMCIA-Express adapters, which I think is wrong. Without deleting the article's original sentence, I wrote another one underneath noting that there now seem to exist such adapters, and for references I put a Google search and the first result which points to an actual adapter from a shop (both of which are bad references but do their basic job of proving that the existence of said adapters). I have no much time now and I hope someone with more free time can step in to help find a better reference. NerdyNSK 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A CIS describes the card on which it resides. For the PCMCIA bus and the Cardbus what is analogous to the PCI Configuration Space? Perhaps this can be mentioned somewhere in the article. Can a Web page with details of the CIS and of the bus be cited in the references? Expansion of this section seems appropriate. Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are PCMCIA type 1 memory cards (3.3 mm thickness) limited to a maximum size of 16 mb? I don't think I've seen any that are larger.
Also, do these cards normally have an internal battery?