IDE HD, pls help

Hi
If you build now new computers where SATA HDs should be installed, can you
install old type IDE HD?
What additional parts do you need?
thanks

If your new MB has and IDE port, then simply plug it in. SATA and IDE work
just fine together. If the MB doesn't have an IDE port, then you can
purchase a card for about $25.


"jazu" wrote in message
news:JS4yj.20418$w94.15644@pd7urf2no...
Hi
If you build now new computers where SATA HDs should be installed, can you
install old type IDE HD?
What additional parts do you need?
thanks

Pat Glenn wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***
"jazu" wrote:

If you build now new computers where SATA HDs should be installed,
can you install old type IDE HD? What additional parts do you need?

If your new MB has and IDE port, then simply plug it in. SATA and
IDE work just fine together. If the MB doesn't have an IDE port,
then you can purchase a card for about $25.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See how much better it
reads. Also see the following links:

--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The reply by Pat Glenn looked much much better

CBFalconer wrote:
Pat Glenn wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***

yes, I can at least understand his reply


"Eric P." wrote in message
...
The reply by Pat Glenn looked much much better

CBFalconer wrote:
Pat Glenn wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***

I agree with Eric P and tpow - It looks MUCH better this way.

1) The reply is easier to understand and find relevant info, because:

2) I don't have to spend hours and hours scrolling to the bottom to find
where a reply begins. Finally;

3) If I need to reply to a specific portion, there is a copy and paste
function included with my compter.

Sorry, if I continue to 'offend you', but that's just too bad. I like the
way I reply.


"CBFalconer" wrote in message
...
Pat Glenn wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***
"jazu" wrote:

If you build now new computers where SATA HDs should be installed,
can you install old type IDE HD? What additional parts do you need?

If your new MB has and IDE port, then simply plug it in. SATA and
IDE work just fine together. If the MB doesn't have an IDE port,
then you can purchase a card for about $25.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See how much better it
reads. Also see the following links:

--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ (taming google)
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ (newusers)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:42:52 GMT, "Pat Glenn"
wrote:

I agree with Eric P and tpow - It looks MUCH better this way.

1) The reply is easier to understand and find relevant info,

Not at all easier, because there is now no direct
chronological order to the conversation. Irrelevant bits of
prior posts should be snipped out and each thought you have
pertaining to what was written should be directly appended
below it. Note it IS the convention of this group, AND if
you were using a web forum they also do this not just by
default, but there is no other sane option.




because:

2) I don't have to spend hours and hours scrolling to the bottom to find
where a reply begins. Finally;

Obviously you need intensive training using a keyboard and
mouse, since usenet can't be run by mental power alone like
windows or any other computer program!

I realize, it's a tough thing, hitting the "page down"
button two times, versus typing above what you felt was an
intelligent reply.

IOW, you're full of it.



3) If I need to reply to a specific portion, there is a copy and paste
function included with my compter.

So hitting page down key is a hard thing but selectively
copying and pasting isn't? You have quite a quite set of
skills, an imbalanced set.



Sorry, if I continue to 'offend you', but that's just too bad. I like the
way I reply.


Then find a group where it is the convention. It's not a
personal preference scenario, it's just senseless to not
keep a topic flowing by directly addressing what you are
replying to, else there wasn't any point in replying to that
particular post.

IOW, you're full of it.

And so are yiou


"kony" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:42:52 GMT, "Pat Glenn"
wrote:

I agree with Eric P and tpow - It looks MUCH better this way.

1) The reply is easier to understand and find relevant info,

Not at all easier, because there is now no direct
chronological order to the conversation. Irrelevant bits of
prior posts should be snipped out and each thought you have
pertaining to what was written should be directly appended
below it. Note it IS the convention of this group, AND if
you were using a web forum they also do this not just by
default, but there is no other sane option.




because:

2) I don't have to spend hours and hours scrolling to the bottom to find
where a reply begins. Finally;

Obviously you need intensive training using a keyboard and
mouse, since usenet can't be run by mental power alone like
windows or any other computer program!

I realize, it's a tough thing, hitting the "page down"
button two times, versus typing above what you felt was an
intelligent reply.

IOW, you're full of it.



3) If I need to reply to a specific portion, there is a copy and paste
function included with my compter.

So hitting page down key is a hard thing but selectively
copying and pasting isn't? You have quite a quite set of
skills, an imbalanced set.



Sorry, if I continue to 'offend you', but that's just too bad. I like the
way I reply.


Then find a group where it is the convention. It's not a
personal preference scenario, it's just senseless to not
keep a topic flowing by directly addressing what you are
replying to, else there wasn't any point in replying to that
particular post.

"Eric P." wrote in message
...
The reply by Pat Glenn looked much much better

What reply by Pat Glenn? You cut it all out when you replied at the top of
the message!

"Pat Glenn" wrote in message
news:MZkyj.55926$w57.28304@edtnps90...
I agree with Eric P and tpow - It looks MUCH better this way.

1) The reply is easier to understand and find relevant info, because:

The reply is not easier to understand because there is no text to indicate
what you are replying to!

2) I don't have to spend hours and hours scrolling to the bottom to find
where a reply begins. Finally;

Absolutely - if you cut out the irrelevent parts and reply to the text where
appropriate, there is no need to scroll through pages and pages of text.
Incidentally, if you look on your keyboard you will find an 'end' button.
Press it while holding the Ctrl key down and *magic* happens.

3) If I need to reply to a specific portion, there is a copy and paste
function included with my compter.

Why would you want to copy and paste anything - you are clearly lazy and
like to save time, so just don't cut it out the relevant text in the first
place, then you won't have to copy/paste it back in!!!

Sorry, if I continue to 'offend you', but that's just too bad. I like the
way I reply.

No 'offense' taken. I presume you like to drive the wrong way down 1-way
streets because it is easier for you too? The rules and guidlines are here
to help everyone work together. When you put your reply at the top of the
message, no one can see what you are talking about and the thread becomes
very quickly confused.