Depending on the manufacture some cables are likely missing the pin, while others aren't and what the manufacture does it put a piece of plastic into the hole to cover it. How I know this is because in my 30+ years of working in IT I have managed to destroy a few IDE Ultra 133 cables in my time which allowed me to take a look at the connector from a manufacturing level, 95% of the time the pin was there and the cable was punched down. Yes you can show all the pictures you want and draw conclusions based on your assumptions but until you do the actual leg work you are still only assuming the actual pin behind the hole that is blocked isn't there.
IDE standard recites:
5.3 I/O connector
The I/O connector is a 40-pin connector as shown in figure 4, with pin
assignments as shown in table 4. The connector should be keyed to prevent the
possibility of installing it upside down. A key is provided by the removal
of pin 20. The corresponding pin on the cable connector should be plugged.
(see http://www.t13.org/documents/UploadedDocuments/project/d0791r4c-ATA-1.pdf)
Update:
This gets back to what I was saying about pin 20 being covered, see the blue connector and the black one not missing a single pin? Only the beige connector which is used for the secondary hard drive is missing a pin, the cables I am looking at buying are ultra 133 Black to Blue no beige in between and pin 20 isn't blocked on either end of the connectors from the outside.
Ultra 133 cables purpose was to cut down on the cross talk, which is something possibly the Avalon could benefit from but I will have to test it.
[/img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/PATA-Connectors-exposed.png[/img]
Pin should be missing and covered. There's 2 places the pin should be missing and in 1 place it should be covered (pin hole) for 'conductor pin 20'. I know you never said it was missing. I'm saying it is missing and you corrected someone in suggestion that it isn't missing when it is missing.
Then again cable implementation is dependent on manufacturer ... to me it looks like both of us were right and wrong (while not being right and wrong) with probably a better understanding. Apparently the 'standard' doesn't distinguish between a 'pin hole being covered' and a 'pin being covered'. Then again it writes 'pin on the cable connector' so it's somewhat ambiguous as the cable connector doesn't have pins but does have pin holes.