[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread
Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hard drives
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:53:45 -0000, you wrote:
>Hi Keith.
>
[SNIP]
>> I seem to remember something about Windows not recognising
>> large drives as
>> well until something or other was done. What ?
>
>I think you are referring to 48-bit LBA addressing prior to which a
maximum of 137GB could be accessed in a single partition. Larger drives
could be used, but would have to partitioned into sub 137GB partitions in
order to all all the available capacity.
No - this won't work. It is the size of the *total* drive that is
the problem. Partitioning won't work because a non-48bit driver just
can't address sectors above the 137/128GB mark.
>
>This limitation went away with XP SP1 I believe....
True.
>
>
>>
>> Tha machine I want to build will have a motherboard that is a
>> few years old
>> so I am not sure what maximum size it can support.
>>
>> In the past I have hit limits twice :-(
>>
>> I bought a 13.5Gb drive and the mobo would only see it as 8.4Gb
>> A while later I got a new motherboard and could then use all
>> 13.5Gb Then I
>> bought a 40Gb drive and it refused to boot unless I fitted
>> the 32Gb limit
>> jumper on the drive.
>>
>> I would hate to buy a big drive and find that I couldnt use it
all.
>>
>
>Unlikely, - even if the m/board was unable to access more than 137GB,
that limitation should be per partition, so splitting the drive into
smaller partitions almost always gets roundthe problem.
Er - no it won't I'm afraid. Usualy fitting such a drive causes
the BIOS to hang in the equivalent of electronic shock!
Regards,
Harry.
UKHA_D Main Index |
UKHA_D Thread Index |
UKHA_D Home |
Archives Home
|