Win2k default IDE driver and ATA133?

[Col_Kiwi]

Apparantly, the win2000 pro default IDE driver doesn't support >ATA66 (correct?).

The UDMA driver that came with my motherboard (ASUS P4S533) causes registry errors when installed, so I don't install it.

I currently have an old 28GB ATA66 drive so it doesn't matter, but I want to upgrade to a Maxtor 40GB UDMA133 drive soon, so I'd like to be sure I'll be able to actually use its speed before I buy it...

Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

-Col.Kiwi

 

[llewelyn]

Intel doesn't support UDMA 133. You can download the latest IAA driver from their website which supports up to ATA 100 and enables two drives to run on the same IDE channel with different bandwidths. In your case ATA 66 and ATA 100.

Maxtor uses UDMA 133 as a workaround to build large drives. You are not loosing anything without it.

 

[HammerBot]

Maxtor uses UDMA 133 as a workaround to build large drives. You are not loosing anything without it.

Actually I think they just use it as a marketing trick since UDMA133 is NOT required to overcome the 28-bit LBA addressing limitation (128 GB limit). The ATA/ATAPI-6 rev 0b (october 2000) standard specifies ATA commands for 48 bit LBA addressing. No UDMA133 here. Further, the WD2000 drive is 200GB and uses UDMA100.

 

[llewelyn]

Yes you're right, especially about marketing, other companies use other solutions. There are quite a few posts in this forum about Maxtor and UDMA 133; nearly everyone can live without it.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

i believe the very first version of win2k didnt support beyond ata66.
however all 3 subsequent service packs do, and there was also a quickie patch released to fix the issue.


<b><font color=blue>I prefer to blend into the background, because it's much easier to sneak up on people and disembowel them that way. Arr!</b></font color=blue>

 

[Col_Kiwi]

I dont see what intel has to do with my mobo supporting or not supporting ATA133. the chipset is SiS645DX. The SiS website says that chipset supports ATA133...

Is it true that there's no performance difference in ATA100 and ATA133? If so, is there a difference over ATA66 in upgrading to either of the two?

LGHPooBaa, are you sure about the win2k issue? Maybe do you know where I could look it up?

Thanks to all for your responses.

-Col.Kiwi

 

[lhgpoobaa]

basically zero performance bonuses for a single drive yes. the only real advantages of ata133 are:
A. native support for big drives without any bios revisions or fiddling (not sure how the latest ata100 drives get around the 137mb limit)

B. 33% more bandwidth, possibly useful if you have 2 performance IDE drives on the same cable or are running some IDE RAID array.

as for the ata66 issue, its a known issue, so you may find stuff about it at microsoft.com, but just install the latest service pack and you will be right.

<b><font color=blue>I prefer to blend into the background, because it's much easier to sneak up on people and disembowel them that way. Arr!</b></font color=blue>

 

[Col_Kiwi]

Okay.

In my case, the old ATA66 drive will actually be going to another computer. No RAID for me. Just a single ATA133 drive. So it probably doesn't perform any better then a single ATA100 drive.

What about the difference between ATA66 and ATA100/133 (if those two are the same anyway, 100/133)?

-Col.Kiwi