S
Shep©
Wrong
Wrong
S
Shep©
Wrong
S
Shep©
Wrong
D
David Maynard
T said:
Bingo.
IDE can't overlap requests to two devices on the same channel but you can
if they're on separate channels. I.E.
Two on same channel---
readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB readA writeB
Two on separate channels---
readA readA readA readA
writeB writeB writeB writeB
R
Rod Speed
Right.
R
Rod Speed
Right.
S
spodosaurus
David said:
And this goes even for the current 80-wire IDE ribbons? Sorry, too tired
to google for it right now
Ari
--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
D
David Maynard
spodosaurus said:And this goes even for the current 80-wire IDE ribbons? Sorry, too tired
to google for it right now
Ari
Yes. 80 wire doesn't change how IDE works, it's just noise rejection for
higher data rates.
S
spodosaurus
David said:
Well, I've got an extra generic PCI IDE card now, so hopefully I can get
it working on the WinXP system without too much fiddling and move each
drive to a separate channel. I'm concerned that the generic IDE card
will reduce drive performance though.
Ari
--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
D
David Maynard
spodosaurus said:
I don't see why it would. IDE is just an interface. The controller is on
the drive.
R
Rod Speed
David Maynard said:
Pity that you dont need to in the situation being discussed.
R
Rod Speed
David Maynard said:
Thanks for that completely superfluous
proof that you've never ever had a clue.
R
Rod Speed
Shep© said:
Right.
D
David Maynard
Rod said:
I haven't seen a computer yet that didn't both read and write to the hard
drive(s), if it had them.
S
Shep©
Don't bother with this Git Dave.He's been trolling mis-information for
years.Just kill file him.
D
David Maynard
Shep© said:
Ah. Thanks for the tip.
S
spodosaurus
David said:
Every so often he does have some valuable information. Unfortunately
it's mixed in with general nastiness which comprises the vast majority
of his posts, so the kill file is often called in.
--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
R
Rod Speed
Pity that its only SIMULTANEOUS ops where there is any
advantage with a separate channel per drive, and even that
is entirely theoretical when burning DVDs since the total time
to burn the DVD is determined by the speed the DVD can
write at, not the speed of access to the hard drive.
Even when editing, it aint the access to the hard
drives that determines the speed of transcoding etc.
S
Shep©
Didn't kill file you Roddy Troll (Care-in the community please give
him his meds nurse) just to see what shit you posted.Above statement
destruction as follows.So you have a PC with 4.5 gig of RAM installed
or dare I say,9 gig.
If you can explain why I am right and you are wrong please go
ahead.You have not and never will understand PCs and windows and the
virtual memory and now pagefile system.
..