Best configuration of drives?

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

At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the best
arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
opticals as slaves?
TIA

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

Great, thanks for the info

"Toshi1873" <toshi1873@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b06d147410a648f9898b5@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article <Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win>,
> gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com says...
> > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the
best
> > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> > opticals as slaves?
> > TIA
> >
>
> Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along
> with an optical drive. Not sure if master/slave really
> matters. Try to put your burner optical on the other
> cable from where you place the files to be burned.
>
> So:
>
> Cable A: HDD + optical
> Cable B: HDD + optical
>
> I used to think that you shouldn't have two drives on a
> single cable, but apparently that's no longer an issue
> (according to those who have corrected me about that
> here in the discussion group).

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

"GTS" <gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Qt4nc.16$44.14@newsfe1-win...
> At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the
best
> arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> opticals as slaves?

The 2nd HDs as master and opticals as slaves unless one of the opticals is
illbehaved.

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

"Slug" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:e4vu90dks2r5js4jjr5lk2jfs2cbq0a7fm@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:13:50 -0400, Toshi1873 <toshi1873@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Cable A: HDD + optical
> >Cable B: HDD + optical
>
> That would be a cabling nightmare. In fact it is practically
> impossible to do due to the physical placement of the drives in the
> case. HDD's usually go in the bottom of the case in 3 1/4" brackets
> and cdrom drives in the top of the case in 51/2" brackets. How are you
> going to cable all those drives using your configuration without
> moving the HDD's to the top of the case?

So you're gonna pack the HDs next to each other where they'll burn each
other up???
The cabling problem is tractable.

> Personally, I put my two
> HDD's on primary IDE as master and slave and then put my DVD and CDRW
> drives on the secondary IDE as master/slave. I expect if there is a
> perfromance hit, and I do emphasize "if", it is negligible.

That is likely true for most cases.

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
>that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.

Why?

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a01f7b.10534277@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
> Why?

Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.

>

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

In article <40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
><see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
>>> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
>>> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
>>> Why?
>
>>Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
>>the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
>Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
>optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
>instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
>things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
>up is idiotic.
>
>

You're dealing with hardware made to be just good enough for the mass
market, and an OS that is lagging behind what the best hardware can
do. 99% of the PCs have one HD and one CD. That's the target for
"good enough".

You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
to that.

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

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

In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>>to that.
>
>I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
>That's 4 devices.
>
>

yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.

Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is
doing. There's no way to tell, otherwise.
--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

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

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >
> >> You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
> >> to that.
> >
> > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
> > That's 4 devices.
> >
> >
>
> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

Obviously not.
When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything, obviously.

If and how much slowdown is experienced is decided by the duty cycle of the 2
devices, the bandwidth that they actually need and at what busspeed they run.

>
> A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.
>
> Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
> your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
> like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is doing.

And what will that tell you?

> There's no way to tell, otherwise.

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

In article <2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
>> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>> >> to that.
>> >
>> > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
>> > That's 4 devices.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
>> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.
>
>Obviously not.
>When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything, obviously.

If you put a DMA and a non-DMA capable device on an interface the drivers
dumbs down to the lower one, right ? That's what I'm refering to.

>
>If and how much slowdown is experienced is decided by the duty cycle of the 2
>devices, the bandwidth that they actually need and at what busspeed they run.
>

An optimal system/application configuration wuld spread disk activity
across both disks. One way to do this is to set them uup as RAID0
(striping).

>>
>> A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.
>>
>> Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
>> your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
>> like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is doing.
>
>And what will that tell you?
>

Perfom will allow you to determine where the bottleneck is in your
system when you are running your application and wishing it would go
faster. It may be that you need a faster CPU, more memory, or
faster disk I/O. If you have more than one disk it will show you
which disk is working hardest.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
> <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> >> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> >the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
> Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
> instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
> things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
> up is idiotic.

And therefore likely isn't happening.

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

"Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
news:2gd2g0F1e6vmU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > >> > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
> >
> > >> Why?
> >
> > >Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> > >the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
> >
> > Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> > optical drive.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.
>
> > I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up instruction
> > and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other things.
>
> No such command, I'm afraid (AFAICT).
>
> > Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin up is
idiotic.
>
> Well, IDE has known overlapped commands for a while now but it is hardly
> implemented by any devices and also needs driver support for it to work.

Don't confuse command queuing and disconnect/reconnect with the spin-up
issue.

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

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7rmig$81q$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de>,
> Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
> >
> >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
> >> In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> >> Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> >> > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical
disks
> >> >> to that.
> >> >
> >> > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
> >> > That's 4 devices.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
> >> device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.
> >
> >Obviously not.
> >When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything,
obviously.
>
> If you put a DMA and a non-DMA capable device on an interface the drivers
> dumbs down to the lower one, right ? That's what I'm refering to.

Generally no. There are almost no non-DMA devices around anymore anyway.
If they won't do UDMA then they likely'll do DMA2.

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40a1909b.21186184@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> What you have just said explains why optical disk makers insist you
> >> use the master channel and nothing on the slave - they take over the
> >> entire channel. Dumb and dumber.
>
> >They do no so insist. Cite a reference.
>
> Here's direct correspondence with Mitsumi tech support:
>
> +++++
> The CDR usually works best alone as master on the 2nd IDE port.

That's far short of "insists". That is the appropriate place to attach a
CD[R[W]] in a system with just a single HD.

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

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1973a.422537@news-
> The tape, it turns out, had buggy drivers.

Tape is just another word for bug in any case in my opinion<g>.

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

On 11 May 2004 13:12:26 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:


>yea, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
>device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.

You sure about that? I read that issue is solved on today's mb's.

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 01:47:14 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net>
wrote:


>The cabling problem is tractable.

Not when the cable has only about six inches of space between master
and slave and your HDD's and optical drives are 12" apart.

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

Try and read my original unsnipped message.

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:_Zdoc.80106$Xj6.1337229@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:2gc3btF11nq6U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a01f7b.10534277@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > > On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:59:15 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
[unsnip]
> > > > > > At present I have an ATA133 on IDE 1 and two optical drives on IDE2.
> > > > > > Want to add a second ATA133, but I have always been led to believe it is
> > > > > > best for speed not to have anything sharing with a HDD. So what is the best
> > > > > > arrangement? HDD 1 & 2 on IDE1, or HDD as master on IDE 1 & 2 and the
> > > > > > opticals as slaves?
> > > > > > TIA
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'd put the HDDs on seperate cables along with an optical drive.
> > > > > Not sure if master/slave really matters. Try to put your burner optical
> > > > > on the other cable from where you place the files to be burned.
> > > >
> > > > That's probably not important.
> > >
> > > > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > > > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because it may block the source drive for several seconds,
>
> That's not relevant if the burner hasn't spun up yet. What makes you think
> anything is blocked during spin-up?
>
> > spinning-up the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
>
> Only after that does the HD have to UDMA burst data to the host's buffers to
> maintain an unbroken stream of maybe a paltry 4-8 MB/sec.
> Nevermind burn-proof technology.

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

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@att.net> wrote in message news:h%doc.80113$Xj6.1341630@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a0eb32.62686268@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 15:36:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Actually, it can be problematic when you access the opt. drive
> > > > > that is on the same cable with the source drive while burning.
> >
> > > > Why?
> >
> > > Because it may block the source drive for several seconds, spinning-up
> > > the motor/disk to speed and seeking to the desired data and transfer.
> >
> > Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
> > optical drive. I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up
> > instruction and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other
> > things. Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin
> > up is idiotic.
>
> And therefore likely isn't happening.

Or in other words, you 'likely' have no clue at all, just speculation.

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

In article <2gentfF21vbkU4@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7rmig$81q$1@panix3.panix.com
>> In article 2gd2g1F1e6vmU2@uni-berlin.de, Folkert Rienstra <xxxxx> wrote:
>
>Please, setup you newsreader correctly.
>You are posting reply addresses all over the net.
>
>> >
>> > "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message news:c7r1hq$df6$1@panix3.panix.com...
>> > > In article <40a1053f.69354816@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
>> > > Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> > > > On 11 May 2004 11:22:14 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > You can buy a PCI IDE card with 2 channels and put your optical disks
>> > > > > to that.
>> > > >
>> > > > I thought modern computers came with 2 IDE channels on the mainboard.
>> > > > That's 4 devices.
>> > >
>> > > yeah, but it's not 4 channels, and if you mix a fast and a slow
>> > > device on a channel it slows down to the speed of the slower one.
>> >
>> > Obviously not.
>> > When the slow drive has the bus the other drive isn't doing anything, obviously.
>>
>> If you put a DMA and a non-DMA capable device on an interface the drivers
>> dumbs down to the lower one, right ?
>
>Nope.
>
>> That's what I'm referring to.
>>
>> >
>> > If and how much slowdown is experienced is decided by the duty cycle of the 2
>> > devices, the bandwidth that they actually need and at what busspeed they run.
>> >
>>
>> An optimal system/application configuration wuld spread disk activity
>> across both disks. One way to do this is to set them up as RAID0 (striping).
>
>A bit hard to do with opticals, wouldn't you agree?
>Or in other words: *what the hell has that got to do with opticals* ?
>
>> > > A PCI IDE card is only a few bucks.
>> > >
>> > > Contention between two disks on a channel might be a bottleneck for
>> > > your application, but the only way to tell for sure is to use a tool
>> > > like perfmon.exe (part of NT) to see what your system is doing.
>> >
>> > And what will that tell you?
>> >
>> Perfmon will allow you to determine where the bottleneck is in your system
>> when you are running your application and wishing it would go faster.
>
>And what has that got to do with establishing available or lacking bandwidth
>on the IDE channels?


perfmon will tell you if you are bandwith-limited, or not.

>

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:15:51 -0700, Slug <slug@no_email.here> wrote:

>I use cdrw as master and DVD as slave on same channel. No problems -
>ever.

The problem I described was on an NT4 installation in the days when
NT4 was considered too new to write bug-free drivers for.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:32:20 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
<see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

>> Even Microsoft did a better job of implementing the floppy drive than that.

>Floppy drives a Microsoft invention, are they?

Uh, the drivers are.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

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

In article <2gentaF21vbkU2@uni-berlin.de>,
Folkert Rienstra <folkertdotrienstra@freeler.nl> wrote:
>"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:40a1598a.7089394@news-server.houston.rr.com
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:42:01 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > > Hmmm... Doesn't sound like a very intelligent way to implement an
>> > > optical drive.
>>
>> > Welcome to the wonderful world of IDE.
>>
>> > > I would have assumed they could issue a spin-up instruction
>> > > and wait for a "ready" interrupt while they do other things.
>>
>> > No such command, I'm afraid (AFAICT).
>>
>> > > Holding the IDE channel up while waiting for the disk to spin up is idiotic.
>>
>> > Well, IDE has known overlapped commands for a while now but it is hardly
>> > implemented by any devices and also needs driver support for it to work.
>>
>> Even Microsoft did a better job of implementing the floppy drive than that.
>
>Floppy drives a Microsoft invention, are they?
>

Oh Young One. Invented by Alan Shugart while at IBM in 1971. At the
time they were 8 inches dia. First used as the boot media on 70's
vintage IBM mainframes (million dollar machines). They also were the
way IBM distributed new CPU microcode (think of flashing a new BIOS on a
PC). I had a drawer full on them. They shortly were also used to
eliminate punch cards as data-entry media. These held about 100KB.

Early microcomputers used 8 inch disks, and 5.25 disks took
over after 1976. None of this has anything to do with IDE.


>>
>> What you have just said explains why optical disk makers insist you
>> use the master channel and nothing on the slave -
>
>> they take over the entire channel.
>
>So do all IDE devices that do not support command overlap or lack driver-
>support for it.
>

The problem is there is some huge specification for something like IDE
and a company that developes an IDE device gets to pick what optional
parts of the specification to implement and for the mandatory parts
gets to decide what functions are in the driver and what's in
hardware. If it's a performance feature it becoms a cost/benefit
issue. The comsumer doesn't care, as long as it works. There's
relativility little incentive for "high performance" IDE since the
people that buy high-performance systems pick SCSI, for good reasons.
Low cost rules for IDE.


If the manufacturer of some gadget that needs a driver submits the
driver to Microsoft and it gets put in the next Windows setup the user
might not even know there's a driver.

The Linux folks that reverse-engineered the drivers for the "thumb
drive" devices found that what was in hardware and what was in
software was all over the map. It made it a real pain to make
something universal. The same goes for WiFI cards, soft modems, and
software-based printers.

Toshiba (I think) has just shown a tiny hard drive, the size of yoru
thumbnail that's going to cost under a hundred bucks. It's got NO
controller on it, just the electronics for the heads. All of the
controller functionality will be in the drivers. For cell phones and
PDAs that's fine. They'll be too slow for cameras, at least for a
while.











--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

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

On 12 May 2004 12:01:39 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>Oh Young One. Invented by Alan Shugart while at IBM in 1971. At the
>time they were 8 inches dia. First used as the boot media on 70's
>vintage IBM mainframes (million dollar machines). They also were the
>way IBM distributed new CPU microcode (think of flashing a new BIOS on a
>PC). I had a drawer full on them. They shortly were also used to
>eliminate punch cards as data-entry media. These held about 100KB.

>Early microcomputers used 8 inch disks, and 5.25 disks took
>over after 1976. None of this has anything to do with IDE.

I bet only 1 in 10 people on this forum have ever held an 8" floppy
disk in their hands.

We used to tease well-endowed women about their "8 Inch Floppies", but
we were careful to do that only to women who were in the computer
profession.

They usually took it as a compliment. One women didn't because she was
better endowed than mere 8 Inch Floppies, so we decided to tease her
about her "20 Inch DEC Packs". She seemed to like that.

Those were the good old days before politicial correctness and
feminazi mania set in.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:44:12 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:


>I haven't heard that one. Can you provide some reliable vendor
>information to support that. If it were a real problem then I would
>imagine vendors would not be able to sell it.

The theory is that because the wires are closer together in rounded
cables that it can impede signal quality. I think with the shielding
they use now though on better quality cables it is no longer an
issue.