The reason for Bigfoot drives wan't capacity, it was cost. The larger platter size allowed a 5.25" 5400 RPM drive to offer similar performance (albeit only on the outer cylinders) to a 7200 RPM 3.5" drive for less cost. And it was a gimmick. There were no SCSI versions of these drives, as they were intended for the "value" market. The master/slave thing with IDE drives comes from the old ST-506 drives from the CP/M days, also used in the original IBM PC. ST-506 drives were connected to a ST-412 controller card. The control cables could support up to 4 drives, but each drive needed a separate data cable. When IDE (integrated drive electronics) came out as part of the AT Attachment (ATA) standard for the IBM PC AT, only one cable was used, but supported just two drives. Because the drive controller was moved from the card to the drive itself, one drive had to be chosen to use its controller. With mismatched drives, one wanted to use the drive with the fastest controller. Otherwise both drives would be limited to the DMA or PIO rate of the drive with the slower controller. This was especially important c. 1999, when most HDDs were DMA, but most ATAPI drives were PIO.
If you still have these you GOTTA show us how they all do in a stripe. Surely you can just keep a backup just incase. Live on the edge... of those Wiiiiide Driiiives man.
The Bigfoot TS was the last model they made before scrapping the drive alltogether i think? I think quantum made the bigfoot to get on the bandwagon of large capacity drives for OEMs ? Ive had a few of the TS drives back in the day
Great video man, the only thing i can think that was missing would be to benchmark the adaptors, for an exemple, there was good LGA 775 boards with IDE, i belive even up to Sand Bridge CPUs, IDE boards existed, u could try running one disk there with IDE then compare the results vs same drive with adapter over SATA.
The reason for Bigfoot drives wan't capacity, it was cost. The larger platter size allowed a 5.25" 5400 RPM drive to offer similar performance (albeit only on the outer cylinders) to a 7200 RPM 3.5" drive for less cost. And it was a gimmick. There were no SCSI versions of these drives, as they were intended for the "value" market.
The master/slave thing with IDE drives comes from the old ST-506 drives from the CP/M days, also used in the original IBM PC. ST-506 drives were connected to a ST-412 controller card. The control cables could support up to 4 drives, but each drive needed a separate data cable. When IDE (integrated drive electronics) came out as part of the AT Attachment (ATA) standard for the IBM PC AT, only one cable was used, but supported just two drives. Because the drive controller was moved from the card to the drive itself, one drive had to be chosen to use its controller.
With mismatched drives, one wanted to use the drive with the fastest controller. Otherwise both drives would be limited to the DMA or PIO rate of the drive with the slower controller. This was especially important c. 1999, when most HDDs were DMA, but most ATAPI drives were PIO.
40MB/s its real max speed for USB 2.0, not bad, u have the 1999 equivalent of a modern simple 16GB USB mem stick.
Unfortunately HDDs platters will degrade with time, even if buy a drive that was never used, time will degrade the HDD and it will get bad sectors. :(
If you still have these you GOTTA show us how they all do in a stripe. Surely you can just keep a backup just incase. Live on the edge... of those Wiiiiide Driiiives man.
The Bigfoot TS was the last model they made before scrapping the drive alltogether i think? I think quantum made the bigfoot to get on the bandwagon of large capacity drives for OEMs ? Ive had a few of the TS drives back in the day
I really enjoy these old introspectives of old hardware and how they hold up today.
Great video man, the only thing i can think that was missing would be to benchmark the adaptors, for an exemple, there was good LGA 775 boards with IDE, i belive even up to Sand Bridge CPUs, IDE boards existed, u could try running one disk there with IDE then compare the results vs same drive with adapter over SATA.
Good idea. Something I may look into.