Help to connect external hard drive

I currently use an old hard drive as an external, I bought a conversion kit off ebay and all works fine. I have now taken the hard drive from an unused virgin top box and hoping to use that also as an external hard drive. Both are Seagate 3.5, Virgin one 500GB. I am assuming I would connect it to my PC and reformat. However I am not quite sure of the connections to make as they are slightly different to my current external one, as per image. Any help or advice would be good.
https://imgur.com/a/BZmyhop
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The virgin box drive is a sata. Just get a conversion kit for those.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ebay item 123188037792 99 pence inc free postage from China.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13/07/2018 22:56, Graham. wrote:

Nooooooooooooooo! That's for 2.5" drives. But, it's bloody cheap, isn't it. Might get one to keep in stock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's probably better to invest another quid in a USB 3.0 version: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-3-0-to-SATA-cable-22-Pin-15-7-Pin-2-5-Inch-Hard-Disk-SSD-Adapter-Data-Power/132670918384 since USB 2.0 is likely to be a bottleneck on most modern drives.
For 3.5" drives you can get adaptors like this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/USB-3-0-To-SATA-External-5Gbps-Converter-Adapter-For-2-5-3-5Inch-Hard-Disk-NE-SR/232780523602 but you're probably better off with a case that also handles power, unless you're willing to fish around the inside of your PC for a spare SATA power connector.
Theo
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/07/18 11:53, Theo wrote:

I dunno why he doesnt just mount te damned thing inside his PC and be done with it.
Franly investng time and effort to read an onbsolete drive more than once, to get the data off, is not in my list of cool hip ways to spend my life
External drivees are available at very low prices. If your network is too slow to move data round on it. A Gigabit network is comparable with some USB stuff
.
--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/07/2018 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Agree with you about faffing around with obsolete stuff, but the *one* argument for having a backup drive not permanently connected is that it saves you from nasty ransomeware that quietly scrambles all your FATs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/07/18 13:59, newshound wrote:

Well I dont have any FATS that can get scrambled ...BUT thats not true if that drive happens to be connected at the time
Not sure if ransomware works on NAS either...
--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 14 July 2018 14:50:38 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

n't

Inch-Hard-Disk-SSD-Adapter-Data-Power/132670918384

dapter-For-2-5-3-5Inch-Hard-Disk-NE-SR/232780523602

All the main file systems contain at least one FAT (file allocation table).
Leaving a hdd connected inside the pc is an obvious vulnerability to malwar e, hardware failures & user error.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/07/2018 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Franly investng time and effort to read an onbsolete drive more than once, to get the data off, is not in my list of cool hip ways to spend my life > > External drivees are available at very low prices. If your network is too slow to move data round on it. A Gigabit network is comparable with some USB stuff > > Agree with you about faffing around with obsolete stuff, but the *one* argument for having a backup drive not permanently connected is that it saves you from nasty ransomeware that quietly scrambles all your FATs.
I already have a 20GB external hard drive which I just update a few times a year, mostly pictures and a few excel stuff. Purely a back up should my PC fail, it is not permanently connected. This `new` one either goes to the skip or I try and use it as a back-up for the back-up. If I cant get it going then I can do without as most stuff is duplicated on the current external. I lost a lot of stuff a few years back when my PC failed, prevention better than a cure as they say.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14/07/2018 15:35, ss wrote:

20GB? My backup drive is 3TB! The home server has 8TB in raid 6 - large chunks are replaceable, but it'd take some time.
Nearly 14,000 photos taken over 18 years take 53.4GB.
I've not even looked at the size of the videos of our wedding, honeymoon and the kids over the years.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Different people have different backup requirements. 20GB does seem absurdly small these days (even I have a 500GB backup drive), but perhaps he doesn't take many photos.
People here and on the parallel thread "OT _ Back up Advice - PC" also talk about generational backups, incremental backups, protecting against a hardware failure while doing the backup, etc. Not everybody needs to be so sophisticated. An offline backup arrangement that will allow you to recover most files after a primary disk crash or ransomware attack is likely to be good enough for ninety per cent of non-business users. Most people don't even have that in place IME.
--
Jack

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/07/2018 09:38, Handsome Jack wrote:

I must admit the 20GB is getting near capacity. I am quite brutal with pictures and only ever keep the better ones. I did a couple of years back go through them and found loads of similar and badly composed ones, when on hols I probably take around 100 but only keep maybe 20 or so. I have a couple of spreadsheets that are important to me but useless for anyone else but I keep 3 copies stored elsewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:08:07 +0100, ss wrote:
====snip===

Are you still using film? I'm assuming your 'hols' last more than just three or four days and are in places of more scenic interest than your home territory.
I can take 100 or more shots just on the trip to shore from the cruise ship in ports of call where the ship has had to lay off at anchor and provide a tender service (with maybe another 100 on the return trip from shore).
Unless the excursion ashore is particularly lacking in scenic interest, I typically clock up a thousand or so stills and maybe an hour or so's movie footage to boot on each day's outing when on my 'hols'. Even day trips to local places of interest can produce a few hundred photos, including quite often some movie footage.
You didn't happen to be involved in the recycling of all those expensively made Dr Who episode VTs by any chance? :-)
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/07/2018 21:03, Johnny B Good wrote:

No I bought my 1st digital from Kodak when mistakenly advertised at £100 instead of £300 so couldnt resist the bargain, I think it was 2002.
Problem nowadays is we go for 2 x 2week hols each year and the most scenic thing my wife does is shopping plus she hates me taking her picture.
I used to own a place abroad and had thousands of pictures but when I started going through them there was duplicates from one year to the next so deleted probably 60% of them.
Current camera I got oct 2017 and have taken just over three thousand pictures but probably only retained a couple of hundred.
I do have a suitcase full of film snapshots that I ought to convert to digital and save on my external HD.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:35:18 +0100, ss wrote:

Sorry but that's at least twice you've made this misleading statement about ransomware scrambling FATs. It's not the FS metadata that gets scrambled, it's the data stored by targeted file types that gets encrypted with a 1024 bit (or larger) encryption key regardless of the FS type.
For example, all that's needed for a NAS disk volume's contents to be vulnerable to such ransomware, regardless of the FS used by the NAS box, is that it be mapped read/write to a drive letter on an infected MS windows client machine.

Whilst a 20GB drive is laughably small by today's standards (what with the sweet spot price point now around the 6TB mark), only connecting it up to perform backup/restore operations a few times a year is an effective way to minimise the risk of its contents getting encrypted by ransomware. Note the use of the phrase, "minimise the risk". However, assuming reasonable vigilance, it's an effective strategy (a vigilant user would be extremely unlucky to be hit by a ransomware attack just when they'd randomly attached their backup drive for another session but sometimes, "Shit (just) Happens"(tm F.Gump)).
--
Johnny B Good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/07/18 20:27, Johnny B Good wrote:

Interestingly I am safe from ransom ware purely by an accident of design - apart from running Desktop Linux anyway.
And this may be of interest to windows users.
All my important data is on a server. That runs Linux.. It happens to export that data via NFS, because I have no windows or MAC clients, but it could export it via Samba and so make it available to Windows and MAC users.
It backs that data up on a timed script to a second disk that is not visible either to NFS or SAMBA
Unless corruption happened and I didn't notice BEFORE the backup, I always have a 'last nights snapshot' available.
Even then if I thought a scrambled disk was a possibility I would create a file called do.not.touch.me and test to see if it had changed and not do a backup unless I found out why.
Having a Linux based twin disk server instead of NAS is handy
I use a really old PC. With a LOT of disks
--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12:59 16 Jul 2018, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Is that PC so old that it uses PATA with Molex power connector?
Would such a really old PC have difficulty powering many disks?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, the power supply is just another swappable power supply.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/07/2018 10:21, pamela wrote:

My PC still has Molex power connectors but the power supply is 450 watts which is fine for my needs. Circa 2006, though with a new M/B in 2011.
At least molex and 40 pin parallel connections engaged permanently and the latter used gold-flashed pins so they never cause problems unlike the nasty sata connections used currently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.