Copying data from HD to HD

[BluesMan1]

Let say that i want to put a second HDD in my computer, will put it as Slave on the same IDE than the main (master) one.

Is this a good configuration to copy data from HDD to HDD if i really want to save what's on the second one ?

Other question: If the second one is from a Compaq and i put it in my computer which i build, is this going to work ?

Last question but not related to the other ones: It is better to have the HDD as Master with the CD-ROM attach to it as slave and the CD-RW alone by himself on another IDE cable ?

Thanks

[dunbar]

A Compaq at work had a Maxtor drive which went bad, if your Compaq drive is labeled 'Maxtor', you can download their software to copy disc to disc (called MaxBlast III, if I remember correctly, but Maxtor also has 'Powerdiags' or something similar). Western Digital also once offered similar software. Other people can post any third part stuff.

At home, my new Maxtor drive came with a CD that had software shich I used for this purpose, to transfer data from a Spinpoint drive to a newer Maxtor. The CD was labeled 'MaxBlast III'.

For the concern over using a Compaq drive in a different computer, no problems aside from the possibility that you may need to repartition the drive to act as a normal drive (provided you match the data interfaces properly - don't try to put a SCSI drive into an IDE system). The repartitioning is because some Compaqs partitioned a drive and hid one partition from the OS which was running the PC, so to get the full capacity, you would repartition that kind of drive.

CDRW on a lone cable is very good.

[meese]

1) Making the second drive a slave and adding it to the same ide cable will work fine.

2) There's nothing wrong with that configuration.

3) Doesn't matter who makes the drive, it should work.

4) There are debates about this. There was a thread recently that talks about the best configuration: http://www.techimo.com/forum/showthr...threadid=73799

[BluesMan1]

Thanks Dunbar and Meese,

My friend computer is a Compaq and i was not able to burn any of his data using either Nero or Hotburn. I formatted the C drive using a boot disk after saving all info on the D (System Save) drive.

Installed Win 98 and copied the save folder from the D to C again and formatted the D drive. I put everything back together on the D drive after that and now both partition are in FAT 32.

I know that Compag is also having FAT 12 and that's why i decided to format and reinstall. I need to save all his data before installing with the Quick Restore again.

Thanks for your help

[dunbar]

Originally posted by meese
There are debates about this. There was a thread recently that talks about the best configuration

Interesting, but my suggestion was based on experience, because it worked for me, and did not harm others aside from time spent, ummm, debating the issue.

Last fall, I installed a 48x CDRW into a system which had DVDROM on IDE channel #2 and 2 hard disks (one hard disk on each IDE channel, leaving my boot drive alone on the first IDE channel).
When I added my CDRW, the only connection available was on first channel, as a slave to the boot drive.

When I chose to burn files from boot hard disk (installed on same IDE channel as CDRW), the CDRW drive would not burn even at 2x. burning files from channel 2 was no problem, 48x.

My solution (this is fact, not a theory) was to:

• put the CDRW onto the second IDE channel as master,
  put the DVDROM onto the second IDE channel as slave,
  leave boot hard disk on first IDE channel as master, and
  second hard disk as slave on first IDE channel

then the CDRW stopped making coasters, no matter which hard disk I chose. I do not need to copy directly from any discs in the DVDROM drive, I dump the data to a hard disk if CD to CDRW transfer is necessary.

Possibly the people with specific channel solutions (myself included) are using PCs with troublesome chipsets? I do not know, nor do I much care, but for the folks who have tried my final configuration (and for myself), this configuration works for them, just like my configuration worked for me.

I posted it because the configuration appears to work for everyone, even though some folks can get away with same channel transfers.

[meese]

Yea, I've always used the HD Master and Slave on IDE 0. And Burner as Master and regular CD as slave on IDE 1.

[BluesMan1]

So making my CD-RW as Master and CD-ROM as slave even on the same IDE channel will give me better functionnality with both....need to try that and i'll let you know what's happening

[John Prophet]

Fat 12?? I think you will only see Fat12 on floppy disks.


As far as the IDE drives question....I would ALWAYS do it the way you have it described in your first thread.

hard drive as master and cd-rom as slave on IDE1 and then CDRW as master on IDE2. The only time I personally have varied from that was in cases where the hard drive is placed way up front in the case (emachine) and the cable isnt long enough...in that case I have had to resort to putting the cdrom and CDRW on the same cable.

When you run Nero and probably other burning software..they give you a little warning screen when both cd drives are on the same cable....do you think they do that for no reason?? lol. Since the IDE drives have to take turns using the cable you want the cd drives on different cables if you plan to do a lot of cd to cd copying, especially "on the fly" stuff.


With a DVD and a CDRW I guess it gets a little cloudier...then maybe it would depend on which you used the most, but I would still put the DVD as slave on the first IDE and the CDRW as master alone on the 2nd. I guess the reason being that usually when you are watching a DVD movie you arent really going to access the hard drive a lot.

JP

[meese]

I guess it depends on how you burn stuff. I don't burn a whole hell of a lot. When I do its usually from HD to CD. I've done CD-CD and had no problems. When I get time I'll switch things around and see how it goes.

So if you are copying CD-CD then JP's method looks like the way to go.