>> "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:qbPri.7753$8u1.1868@trnddc07...
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have in my PC two hard drives, and two CD-ROM drives. The two hard
>>> drives are connected to the same IDE cable. The two CD-ROM drives are
>>> connected to the same IDE cable. Do I speed things up if I connect a
>>> hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive to the same cable? My computer is
>>> running XP.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> T.I.
> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
> news:uW55ks80HHA.5380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> As you shortly will discover, you're probably going to get a number of
>> conflicting responses recommending this or that configuration of your
>> IDE-connected devices. All I can tell you is that based upon my own
>> experience and tests the computer facility I was associated with
>> conducted a few years ago on this very issue -- in virtually every case,
>> when working with modern equipment, aside from connecting one's working
>> PATA HDD as Primary Master, it really didn't matter performance-wise how
>> the remaining drives (hard drives & optical drives) were connected on the
>> two IDE channels. Nearly all of our tests were conducted with connecting
>> two hard drives and two optical drives - a CD-ROM & a CD-DVD burner.
>>
>> Note I said in "virtually every case" there were no significant
>> performance
>> differences regardless of the IDE device configuration., There were,
>> however, some rather rare situations where it *did* matter with respect
>> to HDD connections/configurations. This usually involved the
>> encoding/decoding of extremely large video files (gigabytes in size) so
>> this was an issue that would involve only a extremely small percentage of
>> PC users.
>>
>> Also, again in some very rare instances, where the process involved
>> copying CDs (we didn't use DVDs at the time of these tests) from one
>> optical drive to another optical drive, there were some instances (rare
>> as they might be) where the configuration of the optical drives *did*
>> matter in terms of performance. Strangely enough, in that situation we
>> were unable to come up with a hard & fast rule as to the best
>> configuration of the optical drives. In some cases we found better, i.e.,
>> faster, data transfer rates when both optical drives were connected on
>> the same channel. In other cases we found it was best to connect each on
>> a separate IDE channel. And we could find no correlation involving the
>> make/model of these optical drives. It was quite puzzling. But let me
>> emphasize that these were relatively rare exceptions. As I previously
>> stated, we generally found *no* significant performance differences
>> regardless of how the optical drives were connected/configured.
>>
>> I would add one additional thing. If both HDDs are bootable devices and
>> the user has occasion to boot to one or the other drive, then it might be
>> necessary to connect/configure the second HDD as Secondary Master, rather
>> than as a Slave to the Primary Master or a Slave on the secondary IDE
>> channel. We came across a number of motherboards that balked at booting
>> to a potentially bootable HDD that was connected in the Slave position.
>> But, in general, it simply didn't matter.
>>
>> But do this. Experiment for yourself in determining the precise
>> configuration of your IDE devices. In this instance don't rely on my
>> advice or anyone else's advice. Try different configurations of your IDE
>> devices and run simple speed tests based on your normal & usual
>> day-to-day activities with the computer, e.g., accessing programs,
>> moving/copying files, burning CDs, etc. See if you can determine any
>> performance difference depending upon how this or that device is
>> connected, and thus determine the best setup for your particular needs
>> should there be any significant differences.
>> Anna
"Bill Ridgeway" <info@1001solutions.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23XFpFlB1HHA.4184@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I don't want to detract from your clear explanation. However, although
> you say there are rare occasions when the configuration does matter you
> haven't commented on the significance of the configuration was when it was
> found. The instances of configuration making any differences may be rare
> but if, when it does occur performance is also insignificant makes it even
> less worth worrying about.
>
> Regards.
>
> Bill Ridgeway
Bill:
It's really difficult, if not truly impossible, to precisely quantify (in
this particular instance or issue) what is "significant" or "insignificant"
in terms of a level of performance. As an example, for some users a
difference of say - 20 seconds in the total copying time of one CD to
another CD would be considered an enormous difference, i.e., a "significant"
difference - for others this was a trifling difference and not worth
worrying about.
As I tried to explain, in our view we considered whatever differences we
encountered re performance (speed) based on this or that IDE configuration
were, in the main - "insignificant". It was simply a value judgment we made
on how we considered the vast majority of users would look upon these
differences.
That is why I emphasized in my final paragraph that the user experiment for
him or herself in setting up their IDE devices in this or that configuration
and determine if he or she encounters what they would consider any
"significant" difference in performance due to one or another type of
configuration.
Anna
