Re: caution: disc upgrades wallstreet & earlier powerbooks
remember this ??
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2000-April/006127.html
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2000-April/006128.html
and others, see also
http://www.medicalmac.com/faq1E.html
it appears tho apple has deleted the til#24985 ...
--- Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
wrote:
>
> > the note on the wall street says it is a hardware
> > problem on the motherboard. something to do with
> udma,
> > these were early versions of that aka ata-33.
> maybe
> > newer drives can switch down to older/slower, i
> don't
> > know.
>
> This is weird... first those old motherboards don't
> support U/DMA at all
well, could be linux is lying to me. but it says
(u)dma
in the startup messages.
maybe it really is mdma2, i sure don't know what that
is. maybe that term got lumped in with udma, which was
on all the specs i could find.
i don't know is it ultra-33 or something, is that
between ata-3 and ata-4, maybe. so maybe not quite
really udma.
> (MDMA2 is the best you can get), and the media bay
> and internal IDE are
> separate... I wouldn't have been surprised of such
> weird bugs in OHare
> (the chipset used in the 3400) but Heathrow (used in
> the wallstreet)
> should be much more sane... Oh welll.
>
> > anyway i am trying to live with this after taking
> > my book apart 3 times, returning drive for
> exchange,
> > reformatting, etc leaving it in now, it appears
> ok.
> > runs great by the way !
> >
> > one other thing although appeared ata33 w/
> macos8.6,
> > if using bootx or any mac stuffs, mac drivers
> would
> > seem to fail with anything less than 9.1. (don't
> know
> > about 10.x..)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: