> > Why do you have to have a slower drive than ATA for booting? Are we talking > > new drives on older controllers or drives running on an ATA 66/100 > > controller? > > That is not the problem. Most BIOSs provide no ability to select > beyond HDD0 .. HDD4, if that, for booting. Usually only HDD0 and > HDD1, ie booting is limited to IDE0. > > > Which brings up my particular interest ... do you know if Redhat 5.1 (kernel > > 2.034 could load on an ATA100 drive that was running on Dell Pentium III > > EIDE controller? I guess you are saying it couldn't ... ? > > ATA100 drives will run from an ATA66 controller quite happily. > Marginally slower overall throughput, though.
That I know ... before I corrupted my partition table with diskdrake (still working on fixing that...), I had successfully replaced the 8 gig drive on a PIII (EIDE controllers) with an ATA100 drive, installed win98se, mandrake 8.1 and was trying to add Redhat 5.1 (for a deadended legacy app that requires it.). RH could not read the partition table (I think that was its problem..) but in any case would not install. The question I was really asking above related to whether or not you thought the ATA aspect of the drive caused the install problem. (Can an old distribution install on a ATA100 drive running on older more convential controller (installed on the primary master controller)....? )
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
