Installing Second Hard Drive

[Gino]

I am confused on the terms on Western Digital's website on jumper settings
for getting second hard drive to work.
I have a Sony Vaio, Windows XP Pro SP1 computer.
I bought Western Digital 250GB HD.
I already have a 100GB HD installed in the PC with 2 partitions. The jumper
settings on this, primary, hard drive is: 16 Head, Device 0 Master.
I want to install Western Digitial 250GB drive as a slave.
They both share one cable connected to the motherboard.

My question is on jumper settings.
WD 250GB drive came with 1 jumper on the pins and an extra jumper in a bag.
My old drive has 2 separeate jumpers.

I have set one jumper on WD 250GB on slave which has 10 pins.

Do I need to use the second jumper since my old drive has 2 jumpers on the
pins, or is it an extra "just in case" jumper?

PS. Here is the help site from Western Digital.
I had no idea where to post this. Western Digital is not a good helper, and
I've been getting usable responses from Microsoft newsgroups.

Thank you
Gino

 

[Gino]

Sorry. I forgot to paste the url for Western Digital's Helpsite.
Here it is: http://support.wdc.com/techinfo/general/jumpers.asp
Thank you.
Gino

 

[Guest]

Typically it's a "just in case" jumper . . .

One of the jumpers on the original drive may be hung on
only one pin, and thus unused; or mounted "sideways" and
thus unused.

 

[Gino]

Thank you.
I just connected it, but the next problem ...
250GB drive shows up as 238GB.
Any ideas on this?
PS. The old drive has 2 jumpers pinned vertical, (both same way).
Gino

 

[Lee S]

all you need to do is set the pins to both drives to cable select

 

[Guest]

On the IDE cable,put master C: drive at the end,put the jumper in the middle,
on the slave drive,set jumper 2nd to the last,going L. to R. The jumpers
must be in this configuration,the placement doesnt have to be but if the
slave is set as a page file in xp (highly recommended),it forces xp to use it.

 

[Guest]

The Cable Select option should work, but sometimes
doesn't. I've installe a ton of WD drives. You should not
need to go to the site. Actually, if you look right on
the drive, it should clearly be readable, usually right
on the printed circuitboard. The block of drive jumper
settings is between the power supply connector pins and
the 40 pin IDE connector. A couple of jumper pins should
read Master, another couple read Slave, and another read
CS for (Cable Select). Often there is also an image on
the drive label showing the different jumper settings.

 

[Gino]

Thank you for your responses.
Setup worked well. I can see the drive.
However instead of 250GB it shows 232GB.
Is this normal. I mean a little discrepancy in MB's is ok .. But GB's?
Gino

 

[Ron Sommer]

One GB is 1,024 bytes * 1,024 bytes * 1,024 bytes = 1,073,741,824 bytes.
Hard drive manufactures use 1,000,000,000 bytes.
250,000,000,000 / 1,073,741,824 = 233.04

 

[Alex Nichol]

Thank you.
I just connected it, but the next problem ...
250GB drive shows up as 238GB.
Any ideas on this?

That is correct. The 250 is decimal billion. File systems are measured
in a binary near equivalent; 1024*1024*1024 or about 1.0737 billion.
250/1.0737 = 232.8 so you are doing better than expected

 

[Ron Sommer]

That is correct. The 250 is decimal billion. File systems are measured
in a binary near equivalent; 1024*1024*1024 or about 1.0737 billion.
250/1.0737 = 232.8 so you are doing better than expected

This is a latter post:
Thank you for your responses.
Setup worked well. I can see the drive.
However instead of 250GB it shows 232GB.
Is this normal. I mean a little discrepancy in MB's is ok .. But GB's?
Gino


232 is close enough to 232.8.

 

[Gino]

Thank you all for your input.
Wish the manufacturers would be clear and advertise the correct size so
there wouldn't be any confusions.
Gino

 

[Plato]

Thank you all for your input.
Wish the manufacturers would be clear and advertise the correct size so
there wouldn't be any confusions.

It;s like a drug. Wont happen. Started with monitors, then hard drives.
Now AMD is doing the same with its processors.

 

[Alex Nichol]

Thank you all for your input.
Wish the manufacturers would be clear and advertise the correct size so
there wouldn't be any confusions.

I have to say that the trouble is in the system people taking over the
prefix Giga (and Mega and Kilo) and giving them these 'binary' meanings.
The disk makers admittedly want to have disks looking as big as
possible, but those prefixes have legal standing as international
standards, and are decimal