Hi,

I have a Dell Pentium 3 PC that I'm thinking about upgrading. I found
a website that builds barebones machines, and I'd like to use my
existing SCSI hard drive. The problem is, all of the motherboards
they offer seem to only be compatible with ATA hard drives.

So my main two questions:
Let's say I buy a new system with an ATA drive...is there an easy way
to move all my files from my SCSI hard drive?
and,
Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
to the new system?

Also, is SCSI not a common interface anymore? Is it not unexpected
that a new motherboard would not be compatible? I notice this site
only sells serial ATA / UDMA drives.

Sorry if this is a stupid question. All info & suggestions welcome.

Thanks!
Matt

"Matt" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I have a Dell Pentium 3 PC that I'm thinking about upgrading. I found
> a website that builds barebones machines, and I'd like to use my
> existing SCSI hard drive. The problem is, all of the motherboards
> they offer seem to only be compatible with ATA hard drives.
>
> So my main two questions:
> Let's say I buy a new system with an ATA drive...is there an easy way
> to move all my files from my SCSI hard drive?
> and,
> Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
> system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
> to the new system?
>
> Also, is SCSI not a common interface anymore? Is it not unexpected
> that a new motherboard would not be compatible? I notice this site
> only sells serial ATA / UDMA drives.
>
> Sorry if this is a stupid question. All info & suggestions welcome.

Matt, what a stupid question. No, it isn't ;-). SCSI isn't used often
anymore in normal desktop computers (the price will be the reason I guess).
It is a pity that those prices remain so high, there is no technical reason
for that. Perhaps some patents matter, I don't know.
You can use programs like norton Ghost to completely move the contents of a
drive to another one. I don't think it will be a problem but when You buy
much new hardware, I do not consider it very wise to do it like this; a
complete reinstall of the OS is what I would do.

I do not know whether Dell computers are that easy to upgrade. Quite often
there are those small incompatibilities in real brand computers (like
compaq; they will only work with Compaq memory sticks)(which are, You may
have guessed already, a bit more expensive). I vaguely recall that Packard
Bell computers are terrible when it comes to upgrading, but it might have
been Dell as well.. For example the power supply may be non-standard. I
think it won't cost You much more to buy an entirely new computer instead
of upgrading. I know what option I would choose.
Beware that a good SCSI-controller is very expensive!

Greetings,
Rene

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:15:00 GMT, Matt
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have a Dell Pentium 3 PC that I'm thinking about upgrading. I found
>a website that builds barebones machines, and I'd like to use my
>existing SCSI hard drive. The problem is, all of the motherboards
>they offer seem to only be compatible with ATA hard drives.
>
>So my main two questions:
>Let's say I buy a new system with an ATA drive...is there an easy way
>to move all my files from my SCSI hard drive?

Yes, network the two systems.
Or, put the new drive in the old system, temporarily.
Or, put a SCSI card in the new system.


>and,
>Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
>system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
>to the new system?

I have no idea what you mean. I could guess, one of several
different ways and go off on a tangent, but instead it would
be better if you describe exactly what you want to do in
detail.


>Also, is SCSI not a common interface anymore?

It never was for a PC. It is uncommon that your P3 box had
it unless it wasn't meant as a PC.

> Is it not unexpected
>that a new motherboard would not be compatible? I notice this site
>only sells serial ATA / UDMA drives.

No PC boards have SCSI. They never did except rare
exceptions that were sorta cross-breeds, low-cost boards
derived from PC boards but targeted at el-cheapo
workstation or server builders.


COnsidering the age of the SCSI drive, it's best left out of
the new system. IMO, best option is to network them and
copy over what you need then if you feel you need more
storage than the new drive provides, buy another IDE drive,
OR if you really want SCSI, buy a SCSI card and new SCSI
drive. If you have the space you could leave the old box as
a NAS, backup device and put the SCSI drives in it instead,
or whatever you want to do...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, kony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:15:00 GMT, Matt
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>and,
>>Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
>>system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
>>to the new system?
>
>I have no idea what you mean. I could guess, one of several
>different ways and go off on a tangent, but instead it would
>be better if you describe exactly what you want to do in
>detail.

Once I copy everything to the new drive, I am wondering if Windows
will fail to start because it was installed in a different system.
This copy of Windows XP was last started in the Dell P3 machine, and
now all of a sudden it finds itself connected to a new motherboard,
processor, hard drive, etc...

SCSI is only used in high end mission-critical servers in corporations now.
It is not used in consumer machines, and hasn't been for years.

--
DaveW



"Matt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I have a Dell Pentium 3 PC that I'm thinking about upgrading. I found
> a website that builds barebones machines, and I'd like to use my
> existing SCSI hard drive. The problem is, all of the motherboards
> they offer seem to only be compatible with ATA hard drives.
>
> So my main two questions:
> Let's say I buy a new system with an ATA drive...is there an easy way
> to move all my files from my SCSI hard drive?
> and,
> Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
> system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
> to the new system?
>
> Also, is SCSI not a common interface anymore? Is it not unexpected
> that a new motherboard would not be compatible? I notice this site
> only sells serial ATA / UDMA drives.
>
> Sorry if this is a stupid question. All info & suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks!
> Matt

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:47:43 GMT, Matt <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, kony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:15:00 GMT, Matt
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>and,
>>>Once I copy everything over, will Windows XP boot up on the new
>>>system, or do I need to do something additional to link the old drive
>>>to the new system?
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean. I could guess, one of several
>>different ways and go off on a tangent, but instead it would
>>be better if you describe exactly what you want to do in
>>detail.
>
>Once I copy everything to the new drive, I am wondering if Windows
>will fail to start because it was installed in a different system.
>This copy of Windows XP was last started in the Dell P3 machine, and
>now all of a sudden it finds itself connected to a new motherboard,
>processor, hard drive, etc...

Unfortunately it will be more advisable to not clone the scsi drive to
the new ata drive in the new/different server but to instead reinstall
everything fresh and copy over all the data files from the old
machine. This is because you would likely have to do a
repair/reinstall/reconfiguration to have the OS use all the new
hardware correctly and the result will be a bit of a mess & ultimately
not worth the time investment.

An automated software deployment strategy can ease this pain if it is
already in force. If your "server" is running XP I doubt you have
this ability & setting it up from scratch is time inefficient for a
single machine.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:15:57 GMT, kony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>Also, is SCSI not a common interface anymore?
>
>It never was for a PC.

Well Apple desktops, for example, are a type of "personal computer"
where it used to be common to have scsi standard but for desktops in
general historically & presently - that's right.

> It is uncommon that your P3 box had
>it unless it wasn't meant as a PC.
>
>> Is it not unexpected
>>that a new motherboard would not be compatible? I notice this site
>>only sells serial ATA / UDMA drives.

it is compatible it's just that scsi isn't bundled onboard. It would
be misguided, however, to fixate on the scsi bus if everything else is
based on basically a "desktop" hardware & software platform.

>No PC boards have SCSI.

I guess you mean "PC" in a specific sense of x86 commodity desktop.
"PC" is sometimes used to convey the x86 platform in general, in which
case that's not at all true.

>They never did except rare
>exceptions that were sorta cross-breeds, low-cost boards
>derived from PC boards but targeted at el-cheapo
>workstation or server builders.

That's an overstatement

Those mongrels have & do exist but is an x86 server based on a server
chipset, 32 gigs of ram, pci-X, etc. or blade server clusters from
tier-1 OEM's "cross-breeds, low-cost boards derived from PC boards but
targeted at el-cheapo workstation or server builders" ? (just 2
examples)

Unless you see the entire x86 platform as el-cheapo & half-assed at
server or workstation roles.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:41:29 GMT, Curious George
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>They never did except rare
>>exceptions that were sorta cross-breeds, low-cost boards
>>derived from PC boards but targeted at el-cheapo
>>workstation or server builders.
>
>That's an overstatement
>
>Those mongrels have & do exist but is an x86 server based on a server
>chipset, 32 gigs of ram, pci-X, etc. or blade server clusters from
>tier-1 OEM's "cross-breeds, low-cost boards derived from PC boards but
>targeted at el-cheapo workstation or server builders" ? (just 2
>examples)
>
>Unless you see the entire x86 platform as el-cheapo & half-assed at
>server or workstation roles.

x86 <>PC <> Workstation <> Server
The term "PC" does not apply to those (or x86
comprehensively), it is specifically to differentiate!
If you've heard someone misuse the term that doesn't change
it's true meaning.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:29:40 GMT, kony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>x86 <>PC <> Workstation <> Server
>The term "PC" does not apply to those (or x86
>comprehensively), it is specifically to differentiate!
>If you've heard someone misuse the term that doesn't change
>it's true meaning.

Well that's a fair & common differentiation. Furthermore "PC" or "PC
Server" or "PC Workstation" are terms which do generally denote the
low end hardware-wise. It's not wrong but you're overstating the use
of "PC" to be strictly used for "consumer desktop". Even tier-1 oem's
& IT mags for example use the term "PC" or "PC Server" very liberally.
The liberal & general use of the term is part of the colloquial and
comes from the idea of all x86 machines being PC-based or PC
descendants i.e. a historical reference to IBM PC or IBM PC clone
days. I'm sure you are familiar with this.

Quick google references to "PC Servers" which do not follow your
strict differentiation:
http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/Redb...1?OpenDocument
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflas...0010117.1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/EMC_Clariion_AX100_(Dell/EMC_Clariion_AX100)/product_48388.html?view=8&curNodeId=138&prId=FLW00202022005-1
http://www.samag.com/documents/s=940...411b/0411b.htm
http://www.smsc.com/main/catalog/server.html
http://www.hds.com/products_services...rt/visionbase/

So a "PC server" or "PC based server" for example is not strictly the
mongrel you described. IMO It's not really clear low quality
server/workstation boards would deserve the PC moniker, as you
described them, if following the same strict distinction- or at least
these examples demonstrate things are not that clear cut.


To really overdue this minor point- it's like how PATA/ATA-ATAPI 6
drives are often referred to and marketed as IDE or EIDE or ATA-100.
Despite convincing arguments as to the correctness of these terms
corrupt use is out there and more than just an occasional goof by a
newb. In fact sometimes you _have_ to be familiar with these
incorrect usages to use a shopping bot or understand a current ad.
American English gives preference to accepting terms as they are used
& is not static like some other languages so it's hard to argue the
wrongness of prevalent use (at least where I live).

but I digress. I just wanted to point out some aspects of some
general & sweeping comments made earlier rather than a total
correction. I think the OPs topic has been covered regardless of our
trivial semantic dissection.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:00:55 GMT, Curious George
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:29:40 GMT, kony <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>x86 <>PC <> Workstation <> Server
>>The term "PC" does not apply to those (or x86
>>comprehensively), it is specifically to differentiate!
>>If you've heard someone misuse the term that doesn't change
>>it's true meaning.
>
>Well that's a fair & common differentiation. Furthermore "PC" or "PC
>Server" or "PC Workstation" are terms which do generally denote the
>low end hardware-wise. It's not wrong but you're overstating the use
>of "PC" to be strictly used for "consumer desktop". Even tier-1 oem's
>& IT mags for example use the term "PC" or "PC Server" very liberally.

and? I don't recall marketing droids ever setting industry
standards.


>The liberal & general use of the term is part of the colloquial and
>comes from the idea of all x86 machines being PC-based or PC
>descendants i.e. a historical reference to IBM PC or IBM PC clone
>days. I'm sure you are familiar with this.
>
>Quick google references to "PC Servers" which do not follow your
>strict differentiation:
>http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/Redb...1?OpenDocument
>http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflas...0010117.1.html
>http://www.infoworld.com/EMC_Clariion_AX100_(Dell/EMC_Clariion_AX100)/product_48388.html?view=8&curNodeId=138&prId=FLW00202022005-1
>http://www.samag.com/documents/s=940...411b/0411b.htm
>http://www.smsc.com/main/catalog/server.html
>http://www.hds.com/products_services...rt/visionbase/
>
>So a "PC server" or "PC based server" for example is not strictly the
>mongrel you described. IMO It's not really clear low quality
>server/workstation boards would deserve the PC moniker, as you
>described them, if following the same strict distinction- or at least
>these examples demonstrate things are not that clear cut.

Being such a common term, it's certainly quite likely one
can find lots of examples of misuse... just like one can
google search a misspelled word and also find examples.

Where you get this idea of "low quality" I have no idea.
Perhaps your own coloration of what you think what I mean,
is.


>
>
>To really overdue this minor point- it's like how PATA/ATA-ATAPI 6
>drives are often referred to and marketed as IDE or EIDE or ATA-100.
>Despite convincing arguments as to the correctness of these terms
>corrupt use is out there and more than just an occasional goof by a
>newb. In fact sometimes you _have_ to be familiar with these
>incorrect usages to use a shopping bot or understand a current ad.

Yes I agree, but one must also be weary of too many faux
pas, if you want some generalized feeling you're buying from
a source that understands equipment more than designing a
nice presentation/website/sales-pitch, etc. That might be a
simple miscommunication though, web authors are often not
the ones dealing with the minute details of hardware, they
could be typing anything at all and have only a passing
exposure though the business, or none at all when contracted
out.


>American English gives preference to accepting terms as they are used
>& is not static like some other languages so it's hard to argue the
>wrongness of prevalent use (at least where I live).
>
>but I digress. I just wanted to point out some aspects of some
>general & sweeping comments made earlier rather than a total
>correction. I think the OPs topic has been covered regardless of our
>trivial semantic dissection.

Ok. I would still disagree with those links, that a "PC
server" is an impossibility unless merely considering a PC
someone has used as a cheap server or added parts to for
that function. Not that they necessarily need be all that
different but a machine is generally spec'd, designed
towards one role or the other. While some PC targeted
boards did have SCSI, generally it was not to be expected
(within x86).