A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » Improving Performance
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hard drive larger then 120GB question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 15th 07, 06:22 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
J. P. Gilliver
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 214
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE

i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this
way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive
apps.

[]
I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true
for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands
for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs have
been EIDE for many years.]


  #32  
Old February 15th 07, 11:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
ssome
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 85
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable will
have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD.
CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks.

Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6 GHz
machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD
operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited by
the old transfer speed of the HDs

ssome

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote in message
...
"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE

i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this
way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive
apps.

[]
I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true
for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands
for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs

have
been EIDE for many years.]




  #33  
Old February 15th 07, 11:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
ssome
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 85
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable will
have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD.
CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks.

Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6 GHz
machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD
operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited by
the old transfer speed of the HDs

ssome

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote in message
...
"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE

i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this
way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive
apps.

[]
I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true
for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands
for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs

have
been EIDE for many years.]




  #34  
Old February 17th 07, 12:35 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
ssome
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 85
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE hard
drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for the
controller card enable large drive support in the operating system, while
the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to recognize
the full drive capacity.

WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max.
the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again.

ssome

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote in message
...
"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE

i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this
way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive
apps.

[]
I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true
for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands
for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs

have
been EIDE for many years.]




  #35  
Old February 17th 07, 12:35 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
ssome
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 85
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE hard
drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for the
controller card enable large drive support in the operating system, while
the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to recognize
the full drive capacity.

WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max.
the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again.

ssome

"J. P. Gilliver" wrote in message
...
"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE

i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this
way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive
apps.

[]
I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true
for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands
for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs

have
been EIDE for many years.]




  #36  
Old February 20th 07, 08:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
J. P. Gilliver
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 214
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable
will
have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD.
CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks.


Ah, yes, that would still be true, even with EIDE devices.

Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6
GHz
machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD
operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited
by
the old transfer speed of the HDs

[]
Yes; I often have to despairingly tell people that buying a faster PC won't
make much difference to most of what they do, and know they don't believe
me. (Especially since it _will_ appear faster to start with when it hasn't
got anything on it - but they could get the same effect on their present
system by starting from scratch again.)


  #37  
Old February 20th 07, 08:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
J. P. Gilliver
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 214
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable
will
have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD.
CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks.


Ah, yes, that would still be true, even with EIDE devices.

Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6
GHz
machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD
operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited
by
the old transfer speed of the HDs

[]
Yes; I often have to despairingly tell people that buying a faster PC won't
make much difference to most of what they do, and know they don't believe
me. (Especially since it _will_ appear faster to start with when it hasn't
got anything on it - but they could get the same effect on their present
system by starting from scratch again.)


  #38  
Old February 20th 07, 08:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
J. P. Gilliver
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 214
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE
hard
drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for
the
controller card enable large drive support in the operating system, while
the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to
recognize
the full drive capacity.


Interesting, thanks.

WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max.
the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again.

[]
(I am now wondering: is the 128G [137 if you're a drive mfr.] limit in older
OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the
market?)


  #39  
Old February 20th 07, 08:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
J. P. Gilliver
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 214
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question

"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE
hard
drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for
the
controller card enable large drive support in the operating system, while
the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to
recognize
the full drive capacity.


Interesting, thanks.

WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max.
the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again.

[]
(I am now wondering: is the 128G [137 if you're a drive mfr.] limit in older
OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the
market?)


  #40  
Old February 22nd 07, 01:57 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.performance
ssome
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 85
Default Hard drive larger then 120GB question


"J. P. Gilliver" wrote in message
...
"ssome" wrote in message
. ..
For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE
hard
drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for
the
controller card enable large drive support in the operating system,

while
the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to
recognize
the full drive capacity.


Interesting, thanks.

WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max.
the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again.

[]
(I am now wondering: is the 128G [137 if you're a drive mfr.] limit in

older
OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the
market?)



....and that 30% of all computers still run win 98 SE because it is fine for
them since they are not into Gaming or Video or have 20 users on the system
and that they can easily load it into their other machine and can clean
reload and can add h/w and s/w to them without having to ask MSoft for
permission.

i bought another 512 mb of RAM (for 1 GB now) changed the system.ini file
$25
and bought a Sabrent HD cntrlr PCI card $20 that i hope will see the whole
250 GB HD and allow me to partition it into 2 ea 125GB drives that will then
be used by win 98 SE. i got the newer fdisk file. this will allow me to
add up to 4 more HD type devices in addition to the 3 HD and one CDR i have
now. Hope 120 GB drives drop in price fast.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
COLLECTED hard drive usage after XP NTFS MEB General 167 November 23rd 06 05:54 PM
Adding new hard drive for backup CdLSRN General 3 November 19th 06 09:05 PM
win 98 installation rc General 21 September 6th 06 09:04 PM
CD drives quit simultaneously ms General 47 December 18th 05 08:14 PM
How to upgrade to a larger hard drive? Richard G. Harper General 3 March 23rd 05 03:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.