New Motherboard with no IDE connector

Bunter_2

Hi Folks

It is a few years since I have assembled a computer but I am now planning to upgrade with a new mobod and cpu etc.

I notice that on the mobod I am interested in (Intel DH55TC) there does not appear to be any IDE connectors; which is something new to me.

Would I be right in saying that I need to purchase a SATA hard drive and fit it inside the case to run the operating system? Presumably the system is designed so that when the computer boots up it goes to a particular location (SATA port 1, perhaps) to find the O/S?

Second question is; If I want to continue to use my IDE hard drives' presumably I will have to put them in USB/IDE caddies and use them as external HD's.

Advice much appreciated.

JasX

yes since IDE is so old and slow (Designed 1986, obsolete 2003) mobo manufacturers are starting to not bother adding a socket, they are at least 3x slower than modern SATA and being the slowest/most frequently encountered bottleneck point on a modern machine is the speed restriction you'll notice most impairing performance no matter how powerful the rest of the PC is.

Now then, if you *must* stick with IDE / pATA over sATA you have the following options

1-Pick a motherboard with a a legacy IDE socket built in
2-Add in a pATA PCI or PCIe expansion card to connect pATA to that motherboard
3-use it as an external drive as you describe
4-put it on a shelf as a spare for when you need to fix a very old computer
5-pop it in the bin given the age of the thing

....personally I have a pile of IDE drives on a shelf and a blisteringly fast Samsung F3 SATA drive with my OS on

Richie-from-the-Boro

Bunter wrote: »

Hi Folks

It is a few years since I have assembled a computer but I am now planning to upgrade with a new mobod and cpu etc.

I notice that on the mobod I am interested in (Intel DH55TC) there does not appear to be any IDE connectors; which is something new to me.

Would I be right in saying that I need to purchase a SATA hard drive and fit it inside the case to run the operating system? Presumably the system is designed so that when the computer boots up it goes to a particular location (SATA port 1, perhaps) to find the O/S?

Second question is; If I want to continue to use my IDE hard drives' presumably I will have to put them in USB/IDE caddies and use them as external HD's.

Advice much appreciated.

HiYa Billy, yes is the answer to your first question. SATA's are like IDE's but without master / slave jumpers, SATA's are all masters, and yes at boot up your MOBO will default to drive 0 [ see you MOBO book ]

Second question: there are many ways to recycle IDE HDD / caddy / docking station etc

Hammyman

JasX wrote: »

yes since IDE is so old and slow

Perhaps you'd like to point out the raft of mainstream hard drives with speeds higher than ATA133 ones had? Even most of the new SSDs don't exceed the bandwidth of ATA133.

Whilst you're at it, PCIe cards that could actually exceed the bandwidth of 8x AGP?

IDE wasn't old and slow, merely the ability to generate revenue from it had dried up.

USB 3.0 is the latest money generator brought out when the number of devices capable of maxing out a USB 2 connection are extremely few and far between.

diable

Sata is a seriel Ide and IDE is basically a Pata, parallel IDE

KeithP

diable wrote: »

Sata is a seriel Ide and IDE is basically a Pata, parallel IDE

Thanks for that snippet, Diable.

How does that help the OP?

Richie-from-the-Boro

Bunter, when you get around to doing your thing, give the folks here a shout, lot's of knowledgebase, and it's the best kind .. .. .. free !

Bunter_2

Thanks a million for your very informative replies. I had not realized how the IDE technology had become virtually obsolete.

I will definitely go SATA for all new hard drive operating systems. With regard to using the old hard drives I think the idea to get a PATA expansion card in to one of the PCI slots is the way to go. The others can lie on the shelf.

I am actually making two computers, one for a friend, using the same specifications for each.

Sounds like it will be a little easier than previous installs. IDE cabling can be a bit messy and a pain having to check the jumpers are configured correctly for master/slave.

Will make a move for the hardware next week and then get back to you for further advice.

Very much appreciated.

Thank you all.

weegie.geek

Hammyman wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to point out the raft of mainstream hard drives with speeds higher than ATA133 ones had? Even most of the new SSDs don't exceed the bandwidth of ATA133.

Whilst you're at it, PCIe cards that could actually exceed the bandwidth of 8x AGP?

IDE wasn't old and slow, merely the ability to generate revenue from it had dried up.

USB 3.0 is the latest money generator brought out when the number of devices capable of maxing out a USB 2 connection are extremely few and far between.

You really think GPU manufacturers wouldn't keep supporting AGP with PCI-AGP bridges if it was technically possible? Cutting off a viable revenue source?

There's more to a bus than bandwidth. Try the voltages and amount of power the bus is able to provide, for a start. SLI AGP? Nope.

As for USB, if bandwidth is what you're focusing on, 480mbps USB2 is easily saturated with one hard drive. Even the slowest drives these days will be bottlenecked by a USB2 connection.

That 480mbps is the theoretical max as well, that's ignoring any overheads or other factors. You'll be lucky to actually see 60MB/sec over USB2.

I don't understand paranoid people who view technological advances as ways to screw people out of more money. If there wasn't an advantage it wouldn't catch on. There are plenty of failed technologies or technologies that remain niche to prove that consumers don't buy into smoke and mirrors.

DVardysShadow

weegie.geek wrote: »

That 480mbps is the theoretical max as well, that's ignoring any overheads or other factors. You'll be lucky to actually see 60MB/sec over USB2.

480 Mbit/s is exactly 60MByte/s without overheads ....

weegie.geek

Which is why I used those figures. Perhaps I should've said you'll never see 60MB/sec. You'll not see anything approaching it with most chipsets. So USB3, with its much fatter bandwidth, makes sense.