Coming back to a previous question I asked

[Albinoni]

I posted a question on this forum earlier, Which Master and Which Slave re the connection of CD-ROM's and CD-RW's.

Now if I set my CD-RW as the Master and the CD-ROM as the Slave, does this mean if I install an OS, and have to boot or install from CD-ROM, then I have to place or put that reqd CD-ROM into the CD-RW drive, as it being the Master drive.

[cfitz]

It still doesn't matter. The bios will go through the devices in order until it finds a bootable device. (Of course, you have to enable booting from CD-ROM in the bios in the first place.) And if you are still bothered and would rather have the CD-ROM as master, then just do it. As we said: it doesn't matter.

And please don't start a new thread for a followup to an existing thread.

cfitz

[TCAS]

If you have CD-ROM and CD-RW connected to the same IDE Controller, then according to CD-RW Manufacturer User's Guide, Hardware Installation Instruction, you should set your CD-ROM as Mater let say (Secondry IDE Controller) and your CE-RW as Slave. You can check any CD-RW manufacturer WEB site and find out for yourself.

[coolestnitish]

They got a reason behind this recommendation of setting CD-RW as slave?

[cfitz]

If you have CD-ROM and CD-RW connected to the same IDE Controller, then according to CD-RW Manufacturer User's Guide, Hardware Installation Instruction, you should set your CD-ROM as Mater let say (Secondry IDE Controller) and your CE-RW as Slave. You can check any CD-RW manufacturer WEB site and find out for yourself.

Nope. I've got an instruction sheet for installing a Memorex 48x CD-RW drive (rebadged LiteOn LTR-48246S) in front of me as I type this. And it says make the CD-RW master and the CD-ROM slave. But, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter and this is just arbitrary.

They got a reason behind this recommendation of setting CD-RW as slave?

The only reason they recommend one way (or the other, as you can see, both are recommended) is because they have to say something. They don't want to say "do it either way, you can decide for yourself" because that opens up questions, just like in this thread, that the manufacturers don't want to take the time answering and explaining why it doesn't matter. So they just say "do it this way" and cut off the support-line calls before they start.

I repeat, it just doesn't matter. You can even typically run an IDE channel with only one device and set that device as slave, although it isn't recommended because it theoretically violates the specifications. Here is some extra reading for those who don't believe me:

Note that despite the hierarchical-sounding names of "master" and "slave", the master drive does not have any special status compared to the slave one; they are really equals in most respects. The slave drive doesn't rely on the master drive for its operation or anything like that, despite the names (which are poorly-chosen--in the standards the master is usually just "drive 0" and the slave "drive 1"). The only practical difference between master and slave is that the PC considers the master "first" and the slave "second" in general terms. For example, DOS/Windows will assign drive letters to the master drive before the slave drive.

(from http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/c ... pering.htm )

And with modern OS's you can easily overrule the drive letter assignment and assign whatever letter you want to your optical drives (and your non-system hard drives) anyway.

So, make the master/slave settings whatever suits you or is easiest for you, and don't worry about it.

cfitz

[coolestnitish]

cfitz, I am going a bit off topic, but I have a question I can't resist to ask. I have been having problems with my Pioneer DVD-116 http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8278 As you mentioned having one drive as slave on a channel and nothing as master, I have done that before In all the excitement about getting my LiteOn, I had taken out my LG and left the dvd rom as slave. Then I installed windows using that But then that installation of windows with sp1 was giving me problems, I did a clean install again (this time I had the LiteOn in the computer and used that to do a clean install). My question is: Is it possible that the first install I did with the Pioneer as slave and nothing else on that channel have changed some settings in Bios which are now not letting me use DMA?

[cfitz]

Is it possible that the first install I did with the Pioneer as slave and nothing else on that channel have changed some settings in Bios which are now not letting me use DMA?

I doubt it. The OS doesn't modify anything in the BIOS non-volatile memory. So when you did a complete system wipe followed by a clean install, the system lost all memory of what had come before. Of course, if you manually got into the BIOS and changed things around while trying to fix the previous installation, well, then that is another matter.

cfitz

[coolestnitish]

Of course, if you manually got into the BIOS and changed things around while trying to fix the previous installation, well, then that is another matter.
cfitz

I didn't do anything except changing the boot sequence which I changed back to as it was earlier.

[cfitz]

I didn't do anything except changing the boot sequence which I changed back to as it was earlier.

Then you need to look for other causes - installing with just a slave device on the one IDE channel didn't hurt anything.

cfitz

[coolestnitish]

Well I am happy that I wasn't the one who screwed up things. Thanks for your help