«

David Preece wrote:
>> He stated the Problem, its the utter Crap VIA thing..

> Ah, I knew I'd get one.
> My previous PC was (still is) a KT133A based Athlon. Steady as a rock,
> never even blinked. This was the basis behind buying another via chipset.

isnt your other post asking abouve nforce chipsets?
or was that post nothing to do with your current mobo.

> I know this too. The question is: does nForce have the same problem? If
> if so, why's it so hard to make a SATA interface that looks like an ATA
> one to the operating system?

dunno, I dont write drivers.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:07:50 +1300, Gordon <> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:30:20 +1300, Gavin Tunney wrote:
>
>> Sometimes it can be a lot easier just to pay someone to fix it for you
>> when it goes wrong David. Because you're not familiar with XP you
>> wasted a huge amount of time looking in the wrong places. If fixing
>> problems like you encountered were all easy then there wouldn't be a
>> PC repair industry.
>
>Agh! You are right, bugger! See what the PC has come to? Some people
>should not drive cars either.

The PC has always been like that Gordon, it never changes. It's a
matter of practicalities, knowing how to fix a PC takes considerable
learning & some people don't wish to spend that time learning how to
do it. Like all repair work really, I can fix my own car but prefer to
get a mechanic to do it because he does it in the minimum amount of
time whereas I'd be cursing over skinned knuckles and nuts & bolts
left over.

To be good at fixing anything you have to know how it works, learning
how things work takes considerable time.

I expect David has better things to do with his time than spend many
fruitless hours to finally discover what a competent technician
already knows.

Gavin

In article <G3Hld.4444035$>, MarkH <> wrote:
>Patrick Dunford <> wrote in
>news: .nz:
*SNIP*
>Didn't you realize that I was asking "Why can't Windows XP load the Sata
>drivers from the CD that contains those drivers?" In my case that would be
>the CD that came with the M/Board. My PC has a drive that can read CDs,
>but not a drive that can read FDs.
>
*SNIP*

Have you ever looked at a driver floppy? It's not just a case of
slapping the drivers onto a disk, they must be named in a certain manner
and must all be in the disk's root.
There's also the small matter of the driver disk needing to be present
during the installation of Windows. So unless you have some miraculous
trickery up your sleeve to allow two CDs to occupy the one drive, it's
an impossibility.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet

Enkidu wrote:
> One Microsoft course I went on they tried to demonstrate RIS. Got as
> far as the F12 prompt and it stopped. Using standard NICs according to
> the tutor. That's not the only case where I've heard of it not
> working. I've never heard of it working properly.

we use it at work here.
for ~40 PCs a month, so it works fine.
The only annoyence is that when it hits RIS99 it stops working, I havent
been annoyed enough to check into a fix for it, other than deleting the
PCs from AD,but that does it for the moment.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:57:45 +1300, Allistar <> wrote:

>Gavin Tunney wrote:
>
<snip>
>>>
>>>The real one: Didn't think of it. Blind rage took over
>>>
>>
>> Heh, can't blame you there. A good rule to work by is to never spend
>> more than an hour on a fix-it job. Walk away from it, think about it &
>> go back with a clear head... you'd be surprised how often you can go
>> straight to the solution.
>
>I find I have the opposite problem. That is that when presented with a
>problem I don't give up until it is fixed. I never get to the "blind rage"
>stage, the worst would the "a little bit ****ed off" stage after 6 or so
>hours. The problem with this is that it becomes quite counterproductive -
>you can't charge for fixing your own computer issues. The upshot is that I
>get the satisfaction of actually fixing the problem. I think a successful
>software developer/troubleshooter needs to be able to look at a problem
>without giving up too soon.
>

I didn't say you give up on the job Allister, I said it's a good idea
to walk away after an hour & think about it. If you spend too long on
a problem it's a sign your lateral thinking has stopped working. All
computer faults are simple, if you haven't fixed it in an hour then
you're looking in the wrong place... so stop what you're doing, walk
away & think about something else for a while while the mind works
away in the background.

An hour is my limit that I've found by experience, others may find
their limits different. I've often walked away from a job that just
wasn't going right, walked back to it later & found the fault straight
away. There's no computer fault that can't be fixed, it's how long you
take to fix it that matters.

Cheers

Gavin

MarkH wrote:
> Works fine for 128GiB, no problem except that your new 200GB HDD only give
> you 128GiB.
> Of course MS offer SP1 and SP2 free of charge and either will fix the
> problem (not that the problem should have been there in the first place).

after install, you can toggle the setting in the registry.

Patrick Dunford wrote:
> At the time that XP was released there was no support for 48 bit LBA.
> Exactly when was 48 bit LBA defined?

well thats odd then, as you can enable it with a registry hack.

steve wrote:
>>I've installed XP many many times and never had to use a floppy disk
>>during the process.

> On an Athlon 64?
> That's the key bit in his post, methinks....

SATA was the key point.

Brendan wrote:
> 2. Or does it limit the partitioning to the 137gb barrier in the first
> place and avoid the issue ?
>
> I suspect 1, given the trouble it's caused so far. E.g. the partitioning
> routines can count high enough, but the formatting ones cannot.

nope, it does 2.

wrote:
>>My experience so far with Linux makes me think that it still needs many
>>improvements to be suitable to the average computer user, but the odds are
>>those improvements WILL happen, probably within a 2-5 year timeframe.

> Are you suggesting that gnu/linux is not yet idiot-proof enough? Or are
> there features that you are wanting that have not yet been implemented?

> Or both?

I say both.
Automated dependency checking... and yes I know it is there in some
distros, but being able to grabe a .deb/.rpm/.whatever and double
clicking on it, it saying "you also need these other .deb/etc,
distro_name is downloading them for you now"