Solve : IDE cable positioning?

1.	Solve : IDE cable positioning?
Answer» O/S = win98SE,IDE cables = 40 pin, Desired hardware installation = 2 harddrives + 2 optical drives.Without changing the cables to 80 pin what is the best configuration to install the above hardware? IE; primary IDE cable = master (O/S HDD) + slave optical drive? Or O/S HDD master + 2ND HDD slave on the same cable? truenorth P.S. Is the primary IDE motherboard position always the FARTHEST outbound from the floppy MB slot? P.P.S. I should have used the proper terms when referring to the IDE cables 40/80 "wire (not pins).Master HDD and slave HDD... Master CD and slave CD... Any reason you don't want to use 80 wire cable ? ?Thanks Patio--that is what i thought but wasn't sure. Reason is that i don't have any 80 pin cables kicking around and i am just rejuvenating another of my antiques to install an O/S i have had no experience with (win 2000) and do not care to invest any coin in the process if possible. truenorthGotcha... You'll LIKE Win2k...IMHO one of the most solid things ever to come out of Redmond Washington... How much RAM does that machine have ? ?Yes so i have heard re win 2000 --which is why i want to have a look at it. At the moment only 64MB but do intend to add/upgrade once i determine what is in it and what it can take (and what i have on hand).truenorthQuote from: truenorth on January 10, 2010, 03:06:06 PM Yes so i have heard re win 2000 --which is why i want to have a look at it. At the moment only 64MB but do intend to add/upgrade once i determine what is in it and what it can take (and what i have on hand).truenorth Win2k & WinXP are very similar. Some DIFFERENCES are no System Restore, Picture Viewer or WGA. Win2k is sometimes referred to as NT5.0 & WinXP as NT5.1, that's how similar they are. 64MB is BARELY enough for functioning, 128MB will just about double apparent speed.CC, Thank's for the info and i WILL try to get more RAM into it. truenorthIt's just about unusable with 64MB, but will boot after a very long wait. Memory requirements are about the same as WinXP. At 64MB Win98SE will be noticeably faster.Quote from: Computer_Commando on January 10, 2010, 03:27:02 PM Win2k is sometimes referred to as NT5.0 & WinXP as NT5.1, that's how similar they are. No, actually, they are referred to as NT 5 and NT 5.1 because those are their version numbers. In an interesting twist, the difference between Windows 2000 and windows XP is the same as the difference between Windows Vista and 7, or approximately so; this therefore brings up the question of why many people think that Vista is more useless then a chocolate teapot? ANYWAY... I ran windows 2000 with... 64MB, it was livable, but you had to be sparse with your demands.Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 10, 2010, 03:47:49 PM No, actually, they are referred to as NT 5 and NT 5.1 because those are their version numbers. And that makes Vista version NT6 & Windows 7 version NT7?no. Vista is NT 6.0 and Windows 7 is 6.1.

Answer»

O/S = win98SE,IDE cables = 40 pin, Desired hardware installation = 2 harddrives + 2 optical drives.Without changing the cables to 80 pin what is the best configuration to install the above hardware? IE; primary IDE cable = master (O/S HDD) + slave optical drive? Or O/S HDD master + 2ND HDD slave on the same cable? truenorth
P.S. Is the primary IDE motherboard position always the FARTHEST outbound from the floppy MB slot?

P.P.S. I should have used the proper terms when referring to the IDE cables 40/80 "wire (not pins).Master HDD and slave HDD...
Master CD and slave CD...

Any reason you don't want to use 80 wire cable ? ?Thanks Patio--that is what i thought but wasn't sure. Reason is that i don't have any 80 pin cables kicking around and i am just rejuvenating another of my antiques to install an O/S i have had no experience with (win 2000) and do not care to invest any coin in the process if possible. truenorthGotcha...
You'll LIKE Win2k...IMHO one of the most solid things ever to come out of Redmond Washington...

How much RAM does that machine have ? ?Yes so i have heard re win 2000 --which is why i want to have a look at it. At the moment only 64MB but do intend to add/upgrade once i determine what is in it and what it can take (and what i have on hand).truenorthQuote from: truenorth on January 10, 2010, 03:06:06 PM

Yes so i have heard re win 2000 --which is why i want to have a look at it. At the moment only 64MB but do intend to add/upgrade once i determine what is in it and what it can take (and what i have on hand).truenorth

Win2k & WinXP are very similar. Some DIFFERENCES are no System Restore, Picture Viewer or WGA. Win2k is sometimes referred to as NT5.0 & WinXP as NT5.1, that's how similar they are. 64MB is BARELY enough for functioning, 128MB will just about double apparent speed.CC, Thank's for the info and i WILL try to get more RAM into it. truenorthIt's just about unusable with 64MB, but will boot after a very long wait. Memory requirements are about the same as WinXP. At 64MB Win98SE will be noticeably faster.Quote from: Computer_Commando on January 10, 2010, 03:27:02 PM

Win2k is sometimes referred to as NT5.0 & WinXP as NT5.1, that's how similar they are.

No, actually, they are referred to as NT 5 and NT 5.1 because those are their version numbers.

In an interesting twist, the difference between Windows 2000 and windows XP is the same as the difference between Windows Vista and 7, or approximately so; this therefore brings up the question of why many people think that Vista is more useless then a chocolate teapot?

ANYWAY... I ran windows 2000 with... 64MB, it was livable, but you had to be sparse with your demands.Quote from: BC_Programmer on January 10, 2010, 03:47:49 PM

No, actually, they are referred to as NT 5 and NT 5.1 because those are their version numbers.

And that makes Vista version NT6 & Windows 7 version NT7?no. Vista is NT 6.0 and Windows 7 is 6.1.

Solve : IDE cable positioning?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment