To: Ausdauer who wrote (12985 ) 7/17/2000 5:56:39 PM From: Allegoria Read Replies (2) | Respond to Ausdauer, first let me say that I appreciate your tireless effort and contributions to this thread and I am sure that everyone here feels enriched by your labor. Thank you from all of us. However, where you and I have conducted a public discussion I would ask that you be careful not to attribute to me words, agreements or assertions which I myself do not make and/or which I do not agree. I simply cannot participate otherwise.In essence you are describing SanDisk's technology as it relates to CF and MMC, only ADC is embedded. So exactly how do you claim that I was "describing SanDisk's technology as it relates to CF and MMC…"? Then we agree that for ADC specifically... NO, Ausdauer - we do not agree. Why do you say we do? 1) the "single-chip" claims are unsubstantiated (either Has it occurred to you that there might be other reasons besides lack of SSTI expertise, regardless of my confirmation with SSTI? I am starting to notice more and more that you deliberately phrase in a way which boxes out other valid arguments. Remember where the "single-chip" claim originated…SSTI specifically states that the ADC is a "multi-chip packaged device". 2) SSTI will create a 64 MB ADC (as you yourself posted). ssti.com 3) SSTI will not use high density flash to create the 64 MB ADC (your assertion, not mine). Please, if for only my benefit: point to the precise assertion you allude to. Where did I say that SSTI will not use high density flash to create the 64 MB ADC? This is the type of duplicity I have seen used on other threads and I want no part of it. PLEASE - just the facts. 4) that you are not really sure whether SuperFlash is used in manufacturing the controller, 5) That it has not been clarified whether the ATA/IDE functionality that ADC uses for its embedded flash requires licensing from SanDisk. "We believe the ubiquity of wireless data transfer to be enabled by the Bluetooth technology in
