Hi all, this is one for the experts...it boggles my mind.
I have a GA board, it's a VIA 693A chipset, the board is GA6vxe7+, and connected to it are 288mb ram, 633 cel @790, TNT2 32 mb, one Fireball 10G, one Fujitsu 15G,one Aopen 52x cdrom, and Aopen 12x cd burner. I am running win2k on the system, and due to some problems I've experienced I've had to reinstall win2k. This means that I had to reformat and start from schratch.
This is what happened now: The two optical drives (the two Aopens) are connected to different IDE's, and I know that for a fact 'cos I connected them, abd checked it, and it worked before I had to reinstall. What happens now is that win2k sees the two drives as being connected to the same IDE!!! In other words, when I open the device manager, and double click the cd drives, it shows, for both of them (after the manufacturer, and device type) Location 1(1). Now if I understand this correctly this means second IDE, second channel (since the first IDE is 0). Now how can this be, to have two drives on the same IDE channel. Once again, in the properties of BOTH drives it says that their location is 1(1). What's even more strange is that for the HD's it says that they are Location 0(0) BOTH OF THEM!!!
This was not like this before, i.e. each of the 4 devices had it's own location!!! Physically they are connected like this:
IDE1 - Fireball hd, Cd Burner
IDE2 - Fujitsu HD, Cd ROm.
What;s going on? My computer has developed gremlins lately, and I don't know why???? I ran the virus check and nothing!!!
Thanks for the reply!
I know that each IDE can support a master and a slave, but you are missing the point. I am wondering how two devices can be on the same channel AND subchannel at the same time. AND, more importantly, if I have physically connected the hd's to DIFFERENT IDE channels, WHY the *&&* does Win2k see them on THE SAME IDE channel. It says that both HD's are at Location 0(0), which is plain impossible. Do you see what I mean?
To answer your qestions, yes, it does work, since my CDR has JustLink on it, but I get >10 buffer underruns per burn, which did not happen before.