Hello Mark, it is a lovely day today. 

 ML> that you won't really be able to achieve the full capabilities of the
 ML> C drive because it as to run at the same speed as the slowest device on
 ML> the cable/buss...

 JP>         The two HDs are on the same IDE cable, M & S and the
 JP> two CDs are
 JP>         on the other IDE cable, again M & S.

 ML> i think that you need to split them... put the hds as masters on
 ML> different cables and the cds as slaves behind the hard drives... this
 ML> will maximize the transfers between the hard drives and hd1 to cd2 as
 ML> well as hd2 to cd1 and even between the cds if you do cd to cd
 ML> copying... 

        Well, well ! I am sure that a while back there was a long
        discussion here  about this subject and that most all
        recommended that the 2 HDs be on the same IDE cable. I had my
        system split before and when I had an occasion to re-enter the
        box, I set them up as I do now and it seems to go against the
        grain now. Do you remember that discussion ? Otherwise, I would
        have left all as it was.

 ML> cable to cable stuff is the fastest... same cable is slower...

        As you know, I respect your opinion. Thus, I will get into the
        box again and go back to what I had before. I will forever
        wonder how I got this impression that twined HDs was the way to
        go. Semantics again ?

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5