IDE+Ethernet controller?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
this possible?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:21:41 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:37:11 +0200, Fabien LE LEZ
>> <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:55:41 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon>:
>>>
>>>> Just make sure the onboard IDE can support 48 bit hard drive
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, do all modern motherboards (i.e. motherboard that you can buy
>>> right now) support 48 bit hard drive?
>>
>>
>> I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
>> ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it
>> won't do over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt
>> everything when you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are
>> 160GB aTA-100 - how is this possible?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't confuse speed with addressing.

So it's half an ATA133 standard? Will my board take 160s on the regular (non promise raid) controller?



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:

> ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.
>
> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
> I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
> ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
> over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
> you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
> this possible?
>
>



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:52:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker"
<hucker@clara.co.uk>:

>Will my board take 160s on the regular (non promise raid) controller?

You'll have to look in your manual for "48-bit", not the speed (133 vs
100).
Besides, I've got a few low-end recent PCs at work, and I still wonder
if they support 48-bit: I've plugged a Western Digital 250 GB (cut in
three NTFS partitions) on one of them, and the 3 partitions are well
recognized by Linux (which I used to read the files that were on it),
but not at all by Windows 2000 SP4 (the disk manager only sees one 128
GB partition).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:39:18 +0200, Fabien LE LEZ <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:52:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker"
> <hucker@clara.co.uk>:
>
>> Will my board take 160s on the regular (non promise raid) controller?
>
> You'll have to look in your manual for "48-bit", not the speed (133 vs
> 100).
> Besides, I've got a few low-end recent PCs at work, and I still wonder
> if they support 48-bit: I've plugged a Western Digital 250 GB (cut in
> three NTFS partitions) on one of them, and the 3 partitions are well
> recognized by Linux (which I used to read the files that were on it),
> but not at all by Windows 2000 SP4 (the disk manager only sees one 128
> GB partition).

I've had some old controllers report the disk as smaller than it is, some write over the wrong part fo the disk when they exceed 128GB, and some just don't work at all.


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

Mary had a little skirt
With slits right up the sides
And everytime she crossed her legs
The boys could see her thighs

Mary had another skirt
With a slit right up the front
She never wore that one...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba68iylaiowgp@blue
> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?

Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.

What do you think that it means?

>
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
>
> > ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.

Actually, ATA-6 defines LBA-48 (end 2000) and ATA-7 defines
UDMA 133 (begin 2002). So there is at least a year between them.

> >
> > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
> > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
> > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
> > over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
> > you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
> > this possible?

Let's put that around: why should that be impossible?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba68iylaiowgp@blue
>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>
> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
>
> What do you think that it means?

It thought it also meant you can;t use anything over 128GB - so how do we know if the board does or not?

Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model. It seems people are misadvertising again.

>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
>>
>> > ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.
>
> Actually, ATA-6 defines LBA-48 (end 2000) and ATA-7 defines
> UDMA 133 (begin 2002). So there is at least a year between them.

As above, ATA-133 as specified by Maxtor states it can take large drives.

>> > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
>> > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
>> > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
>> > over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
>> > you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
>> > this possible?
>
> Let's put that around: why should that be impossible?

As above, ATA-133 as specified by Maxtor states it can take large drives.


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

The best parliament is a well-hung one?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
newspsbb2qxuoaiowgp@blue...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl>
wrote:
>
>>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>>
>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or
>> 133 MB/s.
>>
>> What do you think that it means?
>
> It thought it also meant you can;t use anything over 128GB - so how do we
know if the board does or not?
>
> Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model. It seems
people are misadvertising again.
>
Nonsense. Both were independently invented, then included in ATA-6, the
standard.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba0ikpgaiowgp@blue
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:21:41 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Peter Hucker wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:37:11 +0200, Fabien LE LEZ
> > > <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:55:41 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon>:
> > > >
> > > > > Just make sure the onboard IDE can support 48 bit hard drive
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > BTW, do all modern motherboards (i.e. motherboard that you can buy
> > > > right now) support 48 bit hard drive?
> > >
> > >
> > > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
> > > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it
> > > won't do over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt
> > > everything when you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are
> > > 160GB aTA-100 - how is this possible?
> > >
> >
> > Don't confuse speed with addressing.
>
> So it's half an ATA133 standard?

What is half an ATA133 standard?

> Will my board take 160s on the regular (non promise raid) controller?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:34 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>
> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba0ikpgaiowgp@blue
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:21:41 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Hucker wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:37:11 +0200, Fabien LE LEZ
>> > > <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:55:41 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Just make sure the onboard IDE can support 48 bit hard drive
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > BTW, do all modern motherboards (i.e. motherboard that you can buy
>> > > > right now) support 48 bit hard drive?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
>> > > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it
>> > > won't do over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt
>> > > everything when you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are
>> > > 160GB aTA-100 - how is this possible?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Don't confuse speed with addressing.
>>
>> So it's half an ATA133 standard?
>
> What is half an ATA133 standard?

Only the size but not the speed.


--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

How does an Italian get into an honest business?
Through the skylight.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl>:

>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>
>Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.

BTW, what's the difference between 100 and 133?
I mean, is there a situation where a 133 MBps IDE bus speed really
makes any program faster?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:10:35 +0200, Fabien LE LEZ <gramster@gramster.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
> <see_reply-to@myweb.nl>:
>
>>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>>
>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
>
> BTW, what's the difference between 100 and 133?
> I mean, is there a situation where a 133 MBps IDE bus speed really
> makes any program faster?

No idea, but I've seen drives that quote an internal transfer speed of 95MB/s, so it's almost required so as not to limit the drive's ability.

--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:43:59 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:

> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> newspsbb2qxuoaiowgp@blue...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl>
> wrote:
>>
>>>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>>>
>>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or
>>> 133 MB/s.
>>>
>>> What do you think that it means?
>>
>> It thought it also meant you can;t use anything over 128GB - so how do we
> know if the board does or not?
>>
>> Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model. It seems
> people are misadvertising again.
>>
> Nonsense. Both were independently invented, then included in ATA-6, the
> standard.

Not what I read on websites when it came out.

And every time I've bought a 133 controller, it'sa taken large drives over 128GB. 100 controllers always screw up when you fill the drive up.

--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

If the universe is everything, and scientists say that the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Fabien LE LEZ" <gramster@gramster.com> wrote in message news:gitkf058m076gpnmu9qmbfhv5utnvm3h35@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl>:
>
> >> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
> >
> >Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
> >To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
>
> BTW, what's the difference between 100 and 133?

33 MB/s difference?

> I mean, is there a situation where a 133 MBps IDE bus speed really
> makes any program faster?

No. Neither did any other increase in busspeed.

Why didn't you ask this question when we went from PIO-0 to PIO-1 to PIO-2 to ...
to MW-DMA-0 to DMA-1 to ..... to Ultra DMA mode 2 ... etc.

IDE Bus speed is increased every time that 2 drives on a channel can fill that channel.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbcc8hj9aiowgp@blue...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:43:59 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbb2qxuoaiowgp@blue...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
> >>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or
> >>> 133 MB/s.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think that it means?
> >>
> >> It thought it also meant you can;t use anything over 128GB - so how do we
> > know if the board does or not?
> >>
> >> Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model. It seems
> > people are misadvertising again.
> >>
> > Nonsense. Both were independently invented, then included in ATA-6, the
> > standard.
>
> Not what I read on websites when it came out.

And obviously the websites are correct and the standard is trash.

Live with parrots, become a parrot.

>
> And every time I've bought a 133 controller, it'sa taken large drives over 128GB.

> 100 controllers always screw up when you fill the drive up.

Utterly clueless.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>
> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba68iylaiowgp@blue
> > So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>
> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
>
> What do you think that it means?
>
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> >
> > > ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.
>
> Actually, ATA-6 defines LBA-48 (end 2000) and ATA-7 defines
> UDMA 133 (begin 2002). So there is at least a year between them.
>
> > >
> > > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
> > > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
> > > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
> > > over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
> > > you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
> > > this possible?
>
> Let's put that around: why should that be impossible?


Hello, Folkert:

Peter Hucker's cutesy signature lines are far more interesting, than
any of his "contributions" to this newsgroup; that's not really saying
anything, alas.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:53:33 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>
> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbcc8hj9aiowgp@blue...
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:43:59 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
>> > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbb2qxuoaiowgp@blue...
>> >> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>> >>>
>> >>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>> >>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or
>> >>> 133 MB/s.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do you think that it means?
>> >>
>> >> It thought it also meant you can;t use anything over 128GB - so how do we
>> > know if the board does or not?
>> >>
>> >> Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model. It seems
>> > people are misadvertising again.
>> >>
>> > Nonsense. Both were independently invented, then included in ATA-6, the
>> > standard.
>>
>> Not what I read on websites when it came out.
>
> And obviously the websites are correct and the standard is trash.

Maxtor lied?

> Live with parrots, become a parrot.

Cheap (oh dear) insults will get you nowhere you childish moron.

>> And every time I've bought a 133 controller, it'sa taken large drives over 128GB.
>
>> 100 controllers always screw up when you fill the drive up.
>
> Utterly clueless.

Utterly experience. What happened happened. Exceed 128GB, overwrites the first sector again.



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

Acupuncturists do it with a small prick.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 18 Jul 2004 23:44:26 EDT, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:

> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
>>
>> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba68iylaiowgp@blue
>> > So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
>>
>> Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
>> To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
>>
>> What do you think that it means?
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.
>>
>> Actually, ATA-6 defines LBA-48 (end 2000) and ATA-7 defines
>> UDMA 133 (begin 2002). So there is at least a year between them.
>>
>> > >
>> > > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > > newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
>> > > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
>> > > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
>> > > over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
>> > > you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
>> > > this possible?
>>
>> Let's put that around: why should that be impossible?
>
>
> Hello, Folkert:
>
> Peter Hucker's cutesy signature lines are far more interesting, than
> any of his "contributions" to this newsgroup; that's not really saying
> anything, alas.

Unusual, normally I get more complaints about the signatures. Wait till you spot a dodgy/rude/libellous/un-politically-correct/exceeding 4 lines one.



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

"The Ten Commandments contain 297 words.
The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words.
A recent federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words." -- Atlanta Journal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
newspsa7y72noaiowgp@blue...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:11:52 -0400, J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>
> > Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:46:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> <jclarke@nospam.invalid>:
> >>
> >>> The cheap solution though would probably be to get a big quiet IDE
drive
> >>> and replace your noisy old ones with it.
> >>
> >> Well, I've already got an ATX power supply, a Ethernet card and a
> >> video card. I suppose that I can get a complete PC (w/o hard disks of
> >> course) for $100 or so.
> >> How much would 650 GB worth of quiet IDE drives would cost?
> >
> > Samsung 160s, which are some of the quietest drives on the market, are
going
> > for about 93 bucks each so that would be $372. Hitachis, also quiet
except
> > for a very soft periodic (like every couple or three hours) "catcall" on
> > recalibration,
>
> You have calmed my nerves slightly - is that what mine are doing? I
thought of it as a "struggling squeaking noise", and assumed imminent death.
It sounds to me like it is having difficulty doing something - although
there is no delay in reading data at this point, and the PC appears happy.
>
> > go for about the same. Seagates, which were the quietest at
> > one time, are a couple of bucks more.
>
> And very unreliable! Great idea - shove them in sponge to make them
quiet, and don't let any heat out.
>
>

I think this works for many people..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:29:25 GMT, rstlne <.@text.news.virgin.net> wrote:

>
> "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> newspsa7y72noaiowgp@blue...
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:11:52 -0400, J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Fabien LE LEZ wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:46:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> <jclarke@nospam.invalid>:
>> >>
>> >>> The cheap solution though would probably be to get a big quiet IDE
> drive
>> >>> and replace your noisy old ones with it.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I've already got an ATX power supply, a Ethernet card and a
>> >> video card. I suppose that I can get a complete PC (w/o hard disks of
>> >> course) for $100 or so.
>> >> How much would 650 GB worth of quiet IDE drives would cost?
>> >
>> > Samsung 160s, which are some of the quietest drives on the market, are
> going
>> > for about 93 bucks each so that would be $372. Hitachis, also quiet
> except
>> > for a very soft periodic (like every couple or three hours) "catcall" on
>> > recalibration,
>>
>> You have calmed my nerves slightly - is that what mine are doing? I
> thought of it as a "struggling squeaking noise", and assumed imminent death.
> It sounds to me like it is having difficulty doing something - although
> there is no delay in reading data at this point, and the PC appears happy.
>>
>> > go for about the same. Seagates, which were the quietest at
>> > one time, are a couple of bucks more.
>>
>> And very unreliable! Great idea - shove them in sponge to make them
> quiet, and don't let any heat out.
>>
>>
>
> I think this works for many people..

People who live in Antarctica.



--
*****TWO BABY CONURES***** 15 parrots and increasing http://www.petersparrots.com
93 silly video clips http://www.insanevideoclips.com
1259 digital photos http://www.petersphotos.com
Served from a pentawatercooled dual silent Athlon 2.8 with terrabyte raid

I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> > I think this works for many people..
>
> People who live in Antarctica.
>
I have seen it where they have removed the HD from the case, fed the wires
through the back of the pc and then put it in a box, stack'd foam on top and
bottom and then taped the box up..
Fairly sure it wasnt in Antarctica.. I dont think it's a wise move but I
think that you could def do it if you bought the right kind of drives and
took care to make sure that it wasnt too hot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

rstlne wrote:

>> > I think this works for many people..
>>
>> People who live in Antarctica.
>>
> I have seen it where they have removed the HD from the case, fed the wires
> through the back of the pc and then put it in a box, stack'd foam on top
> and bottom and then taped the box up..
> Fairly sure it wasnt in Antarctica.. I dont think it's a wise move but I
> think that you could def do it if you bought the right kind of drives and
> took care to make sure that it wasnt too hot.

Just remember, pick any brand of drive and someone will claim that in his
experience it is horribly unreliable. Simple fact is they all need clean
power, proper mounting, and adequate airflow.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbb2qxuoaiowgp@blue
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:18:21 +0200, Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> > "Peter Hucker" <hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsba68iylaiowgp@blue
> > > So when a board says ATA-133 or ATA-100, this is meaningless?
> >
> > Obviously that depends on what you think it means.
> > To most people all it means is that the maximum IDE bus speed is 100 or 133 MB/s.
> >
> > What do you think that it means?
>
> It thought it also meant you can't use anything over 128GB - so how do we know if the board does or not?

We don't if they don't say.

>
> Maxtor invented ATA-133, and in it included the 48-bit model.

Nope. ATA133 is not a standard. It is part of a standard. So is 48-bit LBA.

LBA-48 was proposed to the ATA comittee for inclusion to the ATA/ATAPI-6 standard
by Pete McLean in September 2000.
Additions to ATA/ATAPI-7 for Ultra DMA mode 6 was proposed by Mark Evans in
September 2001
Both gentlemen happen to work for Maxtor, although I think mister Evans happened to
work for Quantum before that and Maxtor took over Quantum.

> It seems people are misadvertising again.

Yes, indeed you are.

>
> > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:32:21 -0700, Eric Gisin <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ATA-6 is a standard, which defines but does not require UDMA-133 and LBA-48.
> >
> > Actually, ATA-6 defines LBA-48 (end 2000) and ATA-7 defines
> > UDMA 133 (begin 2002). So there is at least a year between them.
>
> As above, ATA-133 as specified by Maxtor states it can take large drives.

Nope.

>
> > > > "Peter Hucker" hucker@clara.co.uk> wrote in message newspsbawevqraiowgp@blue...
> > > > I see a lot (for example my Gigabyte dual athlon GA-7Dpxdw+) that have
> > > > ATA-100! Surely everything should be 133 by now? Does this mean it won't do
> > > > over 128GB? It is happy with a 160GB, but it may just corrupt everything when
> > > > you write past 128GB. Also, I've seen drives that are 160GB aTA-100 - how is
> > > > this possible?
> >
> > Let's put that around: why should that be impossible?
>
> As above, ATA-133 as specified by Maxtor states it can take large drives.

Clueless. Parrot lover, parrot brain.