Hello Group,
Well, I got the new hard drive last night
AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.
Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.


BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.

I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?
Thanks,
Butch

"Butch" <drshanklin@vci.net> wrote in news:3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net:

> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.

Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have anything to
do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.

> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?

Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
slave.

> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.

The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master and
one slave per channel. Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you
are installing the burner as a slave. A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.

DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
>"Butch" <drshanklin@vci.net> wrote in news:3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net:
>
>> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.
>
>Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have anything to
>do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.

What do you mean "a different channel"?
My HD is failing... I posted the following here last week.

Greetings to the group!
I'm a new comer, needing help.
Here's a bit on my computer ;
Windows 98 (I'm probably going to install W-2000 on the new one)
450 MHz
256 mem
20 gig HD (the new one is an 80 G)

Lately, my computer has been running scan disc w/ surface scan every time I
start it.
On surface scan last time, it says I have around 200 bad sectors.
As of yesterday, every time I try to open Netscape,
I get a box that says "This program has performed an illegal operation and
will be shut down..."

It did this once before and a friend was able to fix it.
My question is; When he fixed it before, I remember him getting a
screen (not the same screen as in scan disc, I don't think, seems it was
blue??) that asked him if he wanted to fix the files.
He just kept hitting "fix" until it got to the end.
My computer was fine after that.
Can anyone tell me how to get there, or have any other suggestions,
other than I need to up grade (I can't afford to at the moment).
I know a lot of people say, you need to operate thru outlook/explorer, but
Netscape has a few features that I like, and am use to.
Any help would be much appreciated!
Limping along,
Butch


>> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
>
>Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
>slave.
>
>> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
>> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.
>
>The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master and
>one slave per channel. Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you
>are installing the burner as a slave. A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
>a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
>a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.

So I can just set both as slaves and connect them both on the same IDE
cable?
Thanks,
Butch

Butch wrote in message <3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net>...
>Hello Group,
>Well, I got the new hard drive last night
>AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
>I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
>I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything
else.

If you mean "it won't take installing anything else" _on the same (bad)
HD_ then my repsonse would be (a) something more than just a bad HD is
the problem, or (b) that HD must be really pooched!

If you mean it wouldn't allow you to install the CD software on the new
HD, then I disagree. The old HD has squat to do with allowing anything.
Unless it contains the boot partition, it has no control over whatever
else is on the system. If you copied the old HD to the new HD properly
and exactly and the new HD boots bout doesn't allow you to install, then
I suspect the copy is bad or the copy is good but the copied data is
bad, or a myriad of possibilities.

So, what do you mean? :-)

>Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
>I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
>it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.

Yes, perfectly fine. It's preferable to keep similar devices on the same
IDE cable, so two CD or DVD drives/burners is just right. Just don't mix
HD and CD/DVD/Burner on the same cable.

>BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.

Sweet. :-)

>I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
>Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?

Ah, I should read all the way to the bottom before answering. :-)

So what you meant was it (the old HD) wouldn't allow the install of the
burner software, yes?

What exactly was the error you received?

DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
>"Butch" <drshanklin@vci.net> wrote in
news:3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net:
>
>> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything
else.
>
>Nonsense, a hard drive on a different channel (should) not have
anything to
>do with this at all, no matter how bad it is.

You made the same mistake I did. He hasn't installed the new HD yet.
He's talking about the burner software AFAICT. Not very clear though.

>> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
>
>Yes. On my system here, a DVDROM is the master and the burner is the
>slave.
>
>> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
>> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.
>
>The important thing is that you have the jumpers correct. One master
and
>one slave per channel.

Good advice so far.

>Check your CD player is jumpered as a master if you are installing the
burner as a slave.

If it's already on the cable and it's the only device (and it's not
using CSEL) then it is jumpered as Master. More important that he jumper
the new (burner) as Slave. Checking the existing CD player is jumpered
as Master wouldn't hurt though.

>A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
>a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new
drive as
>a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.

Huh? Which PC manufacturers do this? Never heard of it or seen it -- but
I'm willing to learn.

You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to cd if you
have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can do it
that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be hampered.

--
Night_Seer

"Butch" <drshanklin@vci.net> wrote in message
news:3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net...
> Hello Group,
> Well, I got the new hard drive last night
> AND went ahead and got a CD burner.
> I've just tried to install the burner, with no luck.
> I guess my HD is bad enough that it won't take installing anything else.
> Is it okay to set the CD player as master & the burner as slave?
> I figured I'd just leave the CD player on the IDE cable like
> it is and hook the burner up to the (secondary?) one in the middle.
>
>
> BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.
>
> I guess I'll do the HD install in the morning.
> Any last minute tips or thoughts on that?
> Thanks,
> Butch
>
>
>
>

Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
>You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to cd
if you
>have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
>separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can do
it
>that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be hampered.

Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it doesn't
really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without a
problem, 8X when doing other things on it.

It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore the
player and the burner must go together.
HTH

Peter D wrote:
> DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
>
>>A lot of PC makers jumper the CD as
>>a secondary slave with no master, and then you go and jumper a new drive as
>>a slave and you have two slaves on the same channel.
>
>
> Huh? Which PC manufacturers do this? Never heard of it or seen it -- but
> I'm willing to learn.
>
>
Don't remember which manufacturers, but I used to see it before it
became common for PC's to boot from CD. Naturally they won't boot from a
CD jumpered as slave so once that became common the CD drives started
being jumpered as Master. Before that I did see them jumpered as slave.
Not sure why-if there's only one device on the cable & it's not a boot
device then I don't believe it matters how it's jumpered. (At least IIRC
it didn't used to matter-things change constantly & it's been several
years since I last saw this jumper setup.)

I usually put the HD with the player, and put the burner as master on the
second IDE, then put any extra hd on the slave of ide 2. But right now I
have a RAID config, so I have no worries about IDE 1 or 2...:)

--
Night_Seer
"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486@news2.calgary.shaw. ca...
> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
> >You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to cd
> if you
> >have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
> >separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can do
> it
> >that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be hampered.
>
> Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
> impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
> system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it doesn't
> really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
> burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without a
> problem, 8X when doing other things on it.
>
> It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
> connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
> Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
> which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore the
> player and the burner must go together.
> HTH
>
>

Greetings Peter D,
Please email me at drshanklin@vci.net
I'll give you the details on the HD and would like to ask a few ???s.
Thanks,
Butch

Peter D wrote in message ...
>Butch wrote in message <3O2dnZohE5EXGdCiRTvUpQ@vci.net>...
>
>>BTW... got an 80 G Western Digital for $87.99 @ Circuit City.
>
>What model HD was it? Seems like a good deal and I'd like to check it
>out.
>THanks.
>
>

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:

> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.

This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5 or 6
years.

Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
>I usually put the HD with the player, and put the burner as master on
the
>second IDE, then put any extra hd on the slave of ide 2.

Not really a good idea. Unless the HDs are really slow and the
CD/Burners are really fast, you're paying a significant performance
penalty to cover off the occasional CD duplication at slightly faster
speeds.

> But right now I
>have a RAID config, so I have no worries about IDE 1 or 2...:)

>"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
>news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486@news2.calgary.shaw .ca...
>> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
>> >You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to
cd
>> if you
>> >have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
>> >separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can
do
>> it
>> >that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be
hampered.
>>
>> Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
>> impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
>> system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it
doesn't
>> really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
>> burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without
a
>> problem, 8X when doing other things on it.
>>
>> It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
>> connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
>> Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
>> which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
>> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore
the
>> player and the burner must go together.
>> HTH
>>
>>
>
>

DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
>"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
>@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:
>
>> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
>> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.
>
>This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5
or 6
>years.

It is absolutely true of any system, newer chipset or not!

The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
players/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
port. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
channel.

This ain't Rocket Science, you know. :-)

I use that CD drive often enough to make it a master, where as the hard
drive is rarely used...mostly for documents, where performance isn't a
factor (actually its a DVD burner, where performance is very necessary.)

--
Night_Seer
"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:kOv3b.858712$ro6.17074929@news2.calgary.shaw. ca...
> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
> >I usually put the HD with the player, and put the burner as master on
> the
> >second IDE, then put any extra hd on the slave of ide 2.
>
> Not really a good idea. Unless the HDs are really slow and the
> CD/Burners are really fast, you're paying a significant performance
> penalty to cover off the occasional CD duplication at slightly faster
> speeds.
>
> > But right now I
> >have a RAID config, so I have no worries about IDE 1 or 2...:)
>
> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
> >news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486@news2.calgary.shaw .ca...
> >> Night_Seer > wrote in message ...
> >> >You get slower performance (or none at all) for burning from cd to
> cd
> >> if you
> >> >have them ont he same IDE. The best set-up would be to have them on
> >> >separate IDE channels, but sometimes this isn't possible. You can
> do
> >> it
> >> >that way, but keep in mind that your CD to CD burning will be
> hampered.
> >>
> >> Not on most faster systems. While it's true that CD to CD copying is
> >> impacted by using two drives on the same cable, on a decently tunes
> >> system properly configured to anticipate such an eventuality, it
> doesn't
> >> really matter. For example, I use a 128M Win98 Duron 800 with a 40X
> >> burner and a 16X DVD to copy from DVD to Burner at up to 24X without
> a
> >> problem, 8X when doing other things on it.
> >>
> >> It's all a trade-off. If you have two IDE cables each with two
> >> connectors and you have a CD or DVD player and a CD Burner and a Hard
> >> Drive, you have to put two devices on one cable. The only quesiton is
> >> which two. THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> >> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself. Therefore
> the
> >> player and the burner must go together.
> >> HTH
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
news:RSv3b.54311$la.1007352@news1.calgary.shaw.ca. ..
> DeMoN LaG wrote in message ...
> >"Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in news:Vrp3b.857232$ro6.17046486
> >@news2.calgary.shaw.ca:
> >
> >> THe HD's performance would be significantly impacted by
> >> pairing it with a player or burner, so it goes by itself.
> >
> >This is not true at all for any motherboard chipset made in the past 5
> or 6
> >years.
>
> It is absolutely true of any system, newer chipset or not!
>
> The performance hit is caused by the IDE channel (Primary or Secondary,
> doesn't matter) running at the speed fo the slowest device. CD/DVD
> players/burners are most often slower than HDs. Therefore an IDE channel
> with a fast HD will run same faster if no slower device is on the other
> port. If you mix a fast HD and a slow CD player, the HD's performance
> will be significantly impacted by the resulting slowdown in speed of the
> channel.
>
> This ain't Rocket Science, you know. :-)
>
>
I don't really think that's true, but I'm not really sure. The only time
either is affected is when you use both at once...then there is a
performance hit...but I could be wrong...show me some web pages or something
to explain.

--
Night_Seer