I use a 40 gig Maxtor ata100 on a ata66 onboard controller and don't have
KDE performance problems. I was also wondering if I were correct in making
this observation: I have read somewhere that version numbers in program
names typically list the major revision number first, the secondary revision
number, then which build. Or something worded along those lines but more
clear and intelligible. But keeping this in mind, am I wrong in considering
KDE 2.1 to be a beta version of a future KDE 2.2? If this were the case,
then wouldn't it be correct in assuming the existence of at least one or two
major bugs in the application when utilizing new software integration,
perhaps optimizations for the newer 2.4 kernel, and whatever else the KDE
teams has decided to work on?
Sincerely and respectfully,
Hans N.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tazmun
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 2:31 PM
To: Newbie
Subject: Re: [newbie] Performance issues with Mandrake 8
These results are not for sure, because right now I'm not sure if I have a
defective promise ultra 66 card or a motherboard that is having a conflict
with the promise card.(abit BF6 motherboard, 20 gig 7200 rpm 100ATA Maxtor
Drive, 30 gig 7200 rpm 100ATA Maxtor Drive, & promise ultra 66 pci
controller card non raid version).....and I obtained a 100 ata maxtor
harddrive same time as different motherboard. The card did work fine
previously with a 66 dma harddrive until the drive died and was sent in for
warranty. Approximately the same time the secondary EIDE port on the
previous motherboard died(controlling cd roms only though) However the
maxtor utility program is indicating that my system bios does not support
large drives....take out the promise card and all is well with no
errors....the drives formated with the promise card did have problems with
partition tables and were showing like 100 Mg of the drive was being unused
and not formatted at all. Fdisked and reformatted and all is normal again
without the promise card. My theory at this point is that there may be a
possibility that some controller cards rated at 66 ata with the new 100 ata
drives are not compatible, however I have no sure way to test this.....but
if I were in the market...I'd definately go for the 100 ATA version.
Surprisingly the drives now running directly on the EIDE ports have lost
little performance, in fact it seems like the access time is even better,
especially for small amounts of data. The only place I notice any loss is
when opening large programs that require a lot of data from the harddrive to
open. Boot speed has not changed at all it seems. My computer is rock
stable now in windows and MD8.0 and seems to be much better then any system
I've ever had for stability.......so with these controller cards are we
trading off reliability and stability for the speed!!! Any other opinions
on this subject?
Tazmun
> How important is ATA 100 anyway for RAID 0??? Should
> I even be concerned about that. I'm think that
> because I have 2 ATA 100 HDs (IBMs), that it would be
> a waste to get the 66 controller. Am I just being
> foolish? Is the 66 fine?
