View Single Post
  #24  
Old December 19th 17, 01:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN

In message ,
writes:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:01:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[]
I hesitate to ask, but when you say "the old drive" above, do you mean
the CD drive that failed years ago, or do you mean the HD-that-was-G/H/I
whose failure started this whole saga? If the latter, I wonder if
setting that to CS might have cured the original problem )-:!

There is no CD drive involved in any of this. In fact the CD drive in
this computer died years ago. I really dont have any need for one on my


That was the one I was thinking of - I thought maybe you'd kept it, if
only to block the hole in the front, so you could have a look to see if
it was set to be slave or cable select.
[]
Anyhow, I was referring to my old 2nd drive / Slave (G: H: I.

[]
Does anyone know whether using master/slave jumpering with a cable on
which CS works might cause problems?


(I think I've answered my own question: no, no problems; if jumpered as
master/slave explicitly, the drives will ignore what the cable's telling
them. If one was jumpered as master or slave, and the other as CS, _and_
they were in the awkward position on the cable, then they'd either both
respond at once or not at all, which might harm them.)
[]
Ah, I've just looked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Cable_select says it is done
using pin 28 - often just by omitting the contact from the middle

[]
and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but
according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first
drive (which seems backwards).

No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was
connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of
cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently
for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just
left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle
connector).


I better understand this now. I know I have the cable right now, and
since I changed that jumper to CS, it looks like everything works fine
now. (At least so far). I have copied and deleted files and defragged
and scandisked, and ran Norton Dick Doctor. I even ran scandisk from
Dos. Everything checks out ok.

I sort of am wondering if the problem on my old slave drive may have
been caused by the jumpers being incorrectly set, but I had them drives
that way for at least 2 years. I'd think that would have shown up a lot
sooner.

I too am wondering that, but I agree it seems unlikely that the problem
would show up after a while - I'd have thought it would be there from
the start, or not at all. And the fact that it only showed up in one
position (partition) does sound like a surface fault. (The fact that
reformatting now shows no fault _may_ mean the drive's electronics are
"sparing out" the dud bit, and the drive is usable again, but like you I
wouldn't use it for anything important.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)