Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)
Hey!
Thanks a lot for your advice!
From what you had told me I understood that if I have a UDMA/33 motherboard
and add a PCI ATA/100 controller card,then even though I won't get beyond
33MB/s (mainboard bottleneck),but still it would be closer to that
theoretical limit,than if I was using old UDMA/33 built in controller?
The reason why I don't feel like wasting an old HD has nothing to do with
space.I don't feel like wasting time to start everything again from the
scratch,nor do I want to use 3rd party software (that needs to be also
BOUGHT)
Partition Magic from Symantec now would cost me like $70 and a new HD like
80.So why bother?
2nd reason is that I'd rather have 2 different partitions- NTFS and FAT on 2
different physical disks.
The only unclear part is how to install Win 98SE on a second HD and to have
a multi boot enabled (after having XP already running).
Another question is....if I install that PCI card....what would happen with
master/slave scheme of ATA in my system? Meaning...I know that normally in a
system you have 2 IDE channels and you can have 4 units installed on them.So
if I add a new controller on a card-then what?I can have up to 8 units then
or not? (like 4 channels with 2 devices on each).And it also is unclear what
you meant exactly when you proposed me to experiment with my older HD to get
a better performance...Say if I have a newer one as a master on one channel
on a PCI card....then the older HD to put as a master on a 1st channel on
the motherboard?(same where it's now)
Or you meant that I should still put the older HD on a PCI card,but on a
different channel there (not the one with newer disk) and also put the older
disk as a master there?I would have like 3 masters in the system them
thanks in advance,
--
Yours truly,
Alon Brodski
"Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urKWUg4SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> My own experience with a similar upgrade may provide some answers, or at
> least some hope:My PC was a Gateway pentium 2, 450Mhz, 128 Meg RAM, win98
> first edition, ATA/33 (UDMA/33) on motherboard. I added a Maxtor ATA/100
> PCI card with two (2) controllers on it. I left the ZIP and CD on one of
> the motherboard controllers, since they are slow devices. I added two
> ATA/100 disks on the PCI board, both on the same controller, as master and
> slave. The second controller on the PCI board was not used. These disks
> performed far faster than the older ones, but then both were ATA/100.
>
> If you do not get the full speed form the new disk, try attaching the old
> disk to the motherboard. Or, get a PCI card with two controllers and
attach
> the old disk and a different controller from the faster one.
>
> Alternatively, use the disk imaging softtware that usually comes with new
> retails disks to transfer all the files (even system files) to the new
disk.
> Then boot wih only the new disk attached. Toss the old disk, perhaps
after
> doing a long format on it. I know that it seems like a waste to get rid
of
> a perfectly good disk. But, seriously, isn't the new one a lot larger
than
> the old one?
>
> As for the BIOS supporting the new disk, that is more of a function of the
> BIOS associated with the disk controller, not the BIOS on the motherboard.
> For example, the motherboard may have a BIOS limit of 32Gig, but the
> controller should be rated at least 127Gig (mine was, and that was almost
> three years ago). Newer controller s can go into the tera-byte region
(that
> is beyond 1000Gig). However, XP can not handle that big a disk, unless
you
> (a) have SP-1 installed, and (b) enable 48-bit LBA in the registry.
>
>
> "Alon Brodski" <abrodski@delete.012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:40c1a036$1@news.012.net.il...
> > Hello world!
> >
> > I have UDMA/33 HD as a primary master,CD-RW as a secondary master and
> CD-ROM
> > as a secondary slave.
> > The PC is Dell OptiPlex PIII.450 MHz,192MB,1999 edition.Interl BX
chipset
> > I want to buy a faster and bigger PATA HD and add it to the system.I
would
> > also buy a new controller PCI card and 80wire cable for it. So I have
few
> > questions to ask here:
> > 1)Are my 2 HD's would be on the same IDE channel? (I'm not going to
> connect
> > physically new HD to the motherboard,but to ext.card).
> > 2) If yes...Would my older HD make my newer one work as UDMA/33,instead
of
> > UDMA100/133?
> > 3)What could be a solution?
> > 4)Can My PC (BIOS,chipset,etc) actually support UDMA/100/133?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > --
> > Yours truly,
> > Alon Brodski
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Hey!
Thanks a lot for your advice!
From what you had told me I understood that if I have a UDMA/33 motherboard
and add a PCI ATA/100 controller card,then even though I won't get beyond
33MB/s (mainboard bottleneck),but still it would be closer to that
theoretical limit,than if I was using old UDMA/33 built in controller?
The reason why I don't feel like wasting an old HD has nothing to do with
space.I don't feel like wasting time to start everything again from the
scratch,nor do I want to use 3rd party software (that needs to be also
BOUGHT)
Partition Magic from Symantec now would cost me like $70 and a new HD like
80.So why bother?
2nd reason is that I'd rather have 2 different partitions- NTFS and FAT on 2
different physical disks.
The only unclear part is how to install Win 98SE on a second HD and to have
a multi boot enabled (after having XP already running).
Another question is....if I install that PCI card....what would happen with
master/slave scheme of ATA in my system? Meaning...I know that normally in a
system you have 2 IDE channels and you can have 4 units installed on them.So
if I add a new controller on a card-then what?I can have up to 8 units then
or not? (like 4 channels with 2 devices on each).And it also is unclear what
you meant exactly when you proposed me to experiment with my older HD to get
a better performance...Say if I have a newer one as a master on one channel
on a PCI card....then the older HD to put as a master on a 1st channel on
the motherboard?(same where it's now)
Or you meant that I should still put the older HD on a PCI card,but on a
different channel there (not the one with newer disk) and also put the older
disk as a master there?I would have like 3 masters in the system them
thanks in advance,
--
Yours truly,
Alon Brodski
"Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urKWUg4SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> My own experience with a similar upgrade may provide some answers, or at
> least some hope:My PC was a Gateway pentium 2, 450Mhz, 128 Meg RAM, win98
> first edition, ATA/33 (UDMA/33) on motherboard. I added a Maxtor ATA/100
> PCI card with two (2) controllers on it. I left the ZIP and CD on one of
> the motherboard controllers, since they are slow devices. I added two
> ATA/100 disks on the PCI board, both on the same controller, as master and
> slave. The second controller on the PCI board was not used. These disks
> performed far faster than the older ones, but then both were ATA/100.
>
> If you do not get the full speed form the new disk, try attaching the old
> disk to the motherboard. Or, get a PCI card with two controllers and
attach
> the old disk and a different controller from the faster one.
>
> Alternatively, use the disk imaging softtware that usually comes with new
> retails disks to transfer all the files (even system files) to the new
disk.
> Then boot wih only the new disk attached. Toss the old disk, perhaps
after
> doing a long format on it. I know that it seems like a waste to get rid
of
> a perfectly good disk. But, seriously, isn't the new one a lot larger
than
> the old one?
>
> As for the BIOS supporting the new disk, that is more of a function of the
> BIOS associated with the disk controller, not the BIOS on the motherboard.
> For example, the motherboard may have a BIOS limit of 32Gig, but the
> controller should be rated at least 127Gig (mine was, and that was almost
> three years ago). Newer controller s can go into the tera-byte region
(that
> is beyond 1000Gig). However, XP can not handle that big a disk, unless
you
> (a) have SP-1 installed, and (b) enable 48-bit LBA in the registry.
>
>
> "Alon Brodski" <abrodski@delete.012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:40c1a036$1@news.012.net.il...
> > Hello world!
> >
> > I have UDMA/33 HD as a primary master,CD-RW as a secondary master and
> CD-ROM
> > as a secondary slave.
> > The PC is Dell OptiPlex PIII.450 MHz,192MB,1999 edition.Interl BX
chipset
> > I want to buy a faster and bigger PATA HD and add it to the system.I
would
> > also buy a new controller PCI card and 80wire cable for it. So I have
few
> > questions to ask here:
> > 1)Are my 2 HD's would be on the same IDE channel? (I'm not going to
> connect
> > physically new HD to the motherboard,but to ext.card).
> > 2) If yes...Would my older HD make my newer one work as UDMA/33,instead
of
> > UDMA100/133?
> > 3)What could be a solution?
> > 4)Can My PC (BIOS,chipset,etc) actually support UDMA/100/133?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > --
> > Yours truly,
> > Alon Brodski
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram