JohnB Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 5614, yes it is one of the old ones and yes, it will work on modern systems, just a bit slow. I use them regularly for a vintage machine I have. (P1 120 mhz It's for playing the old DOS games, and yes it's loaded with Dos 6.22. ) Personally, I find it handy to have a spare lying around so I can grab any HDD and plug it into a system without having to unplug anything else. If you don't constantly have computers in bits though, it's probably not much use to you.
5614 Posted January 5, 2005 Author Posted January 5, 2005 yeah, um the reason i have this cable is because theres a computer in so many bits behind me on the floor that its come down to individual cables! ive taken the caps outta the power pack, magnets outta the HDD and the motheboard is the most ornamental piece in my room! i will keep it as it probably will be useful at some time however i will also keep in mind that it is slower... does anyone know transfer rates for both types of IDE cable so we can compare em?
JohnB Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 Top speed on a 40 line cable is 33 MB/sec. 80 conductor cables start at 66 MB/sec and go up from there. Earlier speeds are dependent on the bus architecture of the system involved. Check out this page at Seagate for the full story. http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/ata_to_ultraata66.html Cheers.
5614 Posted January 20, 2005 Author Posted January 20, 2005 just added another 512MB RAM to my comp making a total of 1GB or should i say 1024MB or 1.024GB.... anyway i looked at the IDE cable and it is a lot finer with about 80 wires... that image i posted in post#24 really is realistic and accurate.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 just added another 512MB RAM to my comp making a total of 1GB or should i say 1024MB or 1.024GB.... anyway i looked at the IDE cable and it is a lot finer with about 80 wires... that image i posted in post#24 really is realistic and accurate. Actually it's 1 gb, since a gig isn't exactly 1,000. What would happen if I replaced my IDE with a slower one? How would the performance be affected? Would files load up more slowly?
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 just added another 512MB RAM to my comp making a total of 1GB or should i say 1024MB or 1.024GB.... anyway i looked at the IDE cable and it is a lot finer with about 80 wires... that image i posted in post#24 really is realistic and accurate. 1Gb = 1024Mb. Actually it's 1 gb' date=' since a gig isn't exactly 1,000. What would happen if I replaced my IDE with a slower one? How would the performance be affected? Would files load up more slowly?[/quote'] You're transferring the information more slowly. What do you think will happen?
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 1Gb = 1024Mb. i know, that's why i said "or should i say..." because i didnt think i'd get away with saying 1GB of RAM when such a value of RAM doesnt exist! You're transferring the information more slowly. What do you think will happen? yes, data would travel slower along the IDE cable, upload and downloading info via the IDE cable would be slower, so writing/reading would be slower. this all means that old IDE cables are not very useful.
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 i know, that's why i said "or should i say..." because i didnt think i'd get away with saying 1GB of RAM when such a value of RAM doesnt exist! I had exactly 1 gig of ram in my computer a while ago.
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 I had exactly 1 gig of ram in my computer a while ago. how so? are you sure? because for example it says i have 1GB, but if i go to another source which gives a more detailed analysis to prove my knowledge i know its really 1.024GB
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 are you sure? because for example it says i have 1GB, but if i go to another source which gives a more detailed analysis to prove my knowledge i know its really 1.024GB The latter source is incorrect. It's using the definition '1 gig = 1000 megs' which is utter tosh, because it's using 1 meg = 1024 k and 1 k = 1024 bytes. If it was consistent with that definition, it would say 1.074 gigs. The main problem here is that it's not standardised whether 1000 or 1024 is used; mainly in the hard drive industry, where drive sizes are defined by 1000 because it makes the disk look bigger.
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 quite why 1000 would be considered bigger looking than 1024 i dont know, but you are right all the same.
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 quite why 1000 would be considered bigger looking than 1024 i dont know 200,000,000,000 bytes would be 200 gig under the former system, but 186 under the latter.
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 that only applies if you keep to the true values, if you said: 1000byte = 1KB 1000KB = 1MB 1024MB = 1GB therefore 120GB HDD = 122,880MB obviously its all down to definition and standaristaion... its sad when companies deny the truth in the aim to sell more... + it just gets confusing! like to think that 200,000,000,000 bytes = 186GB just sounds weird, although i just mathematically prooved it to myself! it just sounds unusual due to the way HDD companies have got rid of the 24's and replaced it with powers of 10. 1 gigabyte = 1 073 741 824 bytes ^ that is the truth. standardistaion is over 73million bytes out!
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 It's not 'standardisation'. It's forcing a base 10 system on one which is obviously designed to work in base 2.
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 no, ok, what i meant was they havent changed HDDs to meet thier advert's claims.... instead they've "force base 10"... when it isnt really. its not designed to work in base 2, it DOES work in base 2.
JaKiri Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 They haven't changed hard drives to meet their advert's claim because it's, you know, more expensive. And the system was designed to work in base 2, I meant, not the computer.
5614 Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 yeah yeah, we are agreeing with each other. what i meant by "standardistation" was that they are advertising something which is wrong (they say base 10 when its base 2) and therefore the general public think it works in base 10 the general public being the majority, therefore the majority think HDDs work in base 10, therefore it has become a standard thing that if you ask someone they will give you an answer in base 10. whilst people here and some of my friends might give me a true base 2 answer, the average off the street john smith would not... its "standard" as in the majority think. oh i dont know! you know what i mean, its base 2, advertising has made the majority of people falsely believe its base 10.
5614 Posted January 22, 2005 Author Posted January 22, 2005 just to say, what we were saying applies to HDDs previously we were talking about RAM, with RAM either: a) i do have 1024MB exactly, base 2 where 2^10 = 1024 or b) 'a' still applies but the 1024MB is technically not that due to the 1MB = 1000 (but really) = 1024KB advertising scam. but which one?
5614 Posted January 22, 2005 Author Posted January 22, 2005 in which case i DO have 1024MB of RAM exactly and therefore this statement: The latter source is incorrect. It's using the definition '1 gig = 1000 megs' which is utter tosh, because it's using 1 meg = 1024 k and 1 k = 1024 bytes. If it was consistent with that definition, it would say 1.074 gigs. is incorrect!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now