If a hard drive (for example, 160 GB) has a greater capacity than a
BIOS (137 GB) then what happens?

Does the BIOS refuse to see the whole drive and none of the drive is
usable?

Or is it ok to partition and use the drive up to the BIOS limit? And
would any problems occur if such a large capacity hard drive was then
taken and used on another system which could manage to see the whole
of that hard drive?

I am thinking of PATA and WinXP here.

In article <9401C04B711123A75@130.133.1.4>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> If a hard drive (for example, 160 GB) has a greater capacity than a
> BIOS (137 GB) then what happens?
>
> Does the BIOS refuse to see the whole drive and none of the drive is
> usable?
>
> Or is it ok to partition and use the drive up to the BIOS limit? And
> would any problems occur if such a large capacity hard drive was then
> taken and used on another system which could manage to see the whole
> of that hard drive?
>
> I am thinking of PATA and WinXP here.

Generally, you will only see up to the limit of the BIOS. Most drives
today go by total sectors, not cylinders/heads/sectors. There used to be
problems back in the 8G limit time where some computers would lock up
(some drives had special jumper settings to give a fake size of 8G or
less, but then required a drive overlay to access the full size). I don't
know if newer BIOS's have that issue with the 137G limit.

The iffy problem might be what would happen if Windows (or other OS)
fully supports 48-bit LBA, but the BIOS doesn't. It probably won't be much
of a problem with the latest sector-based partitioning modes, but could
cause problems if you used the older cylinder-based ones and the
translation changed.

In some cases, you could probably create a boot partition up to the size
of what the BIOS supports, then an extended/logical partition using up the
rest. I have/had some computers at work with the 8G limit working with 40G
drives under NT doing it like that.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

Just your latest (trivial) question to honour your new messiah, Mark?

"Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:9401C04B711123A75@130.133.1.4...
> If a hard drive (for example, 160 GB) has a greater capacity than a
> BIOS (137 GB) then what happens?
>
> Does the BIOS refuse to see the whole drive and none of the drive is
> usable?
>
> Or is it ok to partition and use the drive up to the BIOS limit? And
> would any problems occur if such a large capacity hard drive was then
> taken and used on another system which could manage to see the whole
> of that hard drive?
>
> I am thinking of PATA and WinXP here.

"Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <9401C04B711123A75@130.133.1.4>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > If a hard drive (for example, 160 GB) has a greater capacity than a
> > BIOS (137 GB) then what happens?
> >
> > Does the BIOS refuse to see the whole drive and none of the drive is
> > usable?
> >
> > Or is it ok to partition and use the drive up to the BIOS limit? And
> > would any problems occur if such a large capacity hard drive was then
> > taken and used on another system which could manage to see the whole
> > of that hard drive?
> >
> > I am thinking of PATA and WinXP here.
>
> Generally, you will only see up to the limit of the BIOS.

That is with a limited bios. A faulty bios may throw-up in different ways.

> Most drives today go by total sectors,

Where can you still buy smaller than 8GB drives?

> not cylinders/heads/sectors.

Because CHS is limited to 8GB.

> There used to be problems back in the 8GB
> limit time where some computers would lock up

They may still do that with any doubling of previous limits if they
make the same mistake over and over.

> (some drives had special jumper settings to give a fake size of 8G or less,

Or 32GB. (Or 2 GB).

> but then required a drive overlay to access the full size).

> I don't know if newer BIOS's have that issue with the 137G limit.

The issue is there but whether there is an overlay that adds 48-bit LBA .....

>
> The iffy problem might be what would happen if Windows (or
> other OS) fully supports 48-bit LBA, but the BIOS doesn't.

Depends on Windows Int13 and how it is implemented. Obviously
DOS will have a problem with addressing anything above the limit.
Some DOS programs may even crash if confronted with numbers
that are above the limit anyway or refuse them/give an error.

> It probably won't be much of a problem with the latest sector-based
> partitioning modes,

Meaning? MBRs have always had the LBA values next to the CHS
ones. And LBA and 48-bit are entirely unrelated/different things.
Presumably you mean Partition Types? The partition type likely
determines whether CHS or LBA values are used.

> but could cause problems if you used the older cylinder-based ones
> and the translation changed.

That apparently is always a problem when using Int13 (or is that Int19?)
Anyway, the Initial Boot stage. Could be the MBR code even.
You can clear the CHS values in the Master Bootrecords and
the partitions will still be recognized and functional. However, the
system won't boot anymore. Well, at least with Win9x/me, that is.

>
> In some cases, you could probably create a boot partition up to the size
> of what the BIOS supports, then an extended/logical partition using up the
> rest.

You can't use the rest as BIOS doesn't see the rest.

> I have/had some computers at work with the 8G limit working with 40G
> drives under NT doing it like that.

You probably used a partitioning tool that didn't take its numbers from
BIOS. Fdisk won't allow to partition more that it can see through bios.
Fdisk from within Windows probably can, assuming that Windows Int13
is capable of seeing the whole drive.

>
> --
> If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
> All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
> law!!
> http://home.att.net/~andyross

> Generally, you will only see up to the limit of the BIOS. Most drives
> today go by total sectors, not cylinders/heads/sectors. There used to be
> problems back in the 8G limit time where some computers would lock up
> (some drives had special jumper settings to give a fake size of 8G or
> less, but then required a drive overlay to access the full size). I don't
> know if newer BIOS's have that issue with the 137G limit.


Now does theMB bios limitation affect external (e.g 1394/Firewire) hard
drives as well.?

i.e can we get around the MB limitation by sticking in a pci firewire card
and adding an external disk?


garry

> "Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>
>> If a hard drive (for example, 160 GB) has a greater capacity
>> than a BIOS (137 GB) then what happens?
>>
>> Does the BIOS refuse to see the whole drive and none of the
>> drive is usable?
>>
>> Or is it ok to partition and use the drive up to the BIOS
>> limit? And would any problems occur if such a large capacity
>> hard drive was then taken and used on another system which
>> could manage to see the whole of that hard drive?
>>
>> I am thinking of PATA and WinXP here.



"Folkert Rienstra" <see_Reply-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Just your latest (trivial) question to honour your new messiah,
> Mark?


Hi Folkert. And there I was enoying the interesting points you made
in your post to Andrew in this thread! :-)

Got to ask you this Folkert ... I have always respected your
technical opinion and I always welcome your input. But what is it
that you need to jump on my back so readily?

It's not that I actually get upset, after all I enjoyed my time
exchanging emails with Dr Arm last year (remember that?). But I am
just puzzled. I tend to see you as one of the good guys. What is it
that makes you see me as one of the bad guys?

Is it perhaps to do with the fact that I also respect Rod Speed's
opinion and welcome his help here?

Is it to do with some misunderstanding we have had in the past?

Is it to do with some post I made to someone else which you
disapproved of?

There are a lot of people who know more than I do here and I think I
try and listen to anyone who can give me advice.

Take care.

Mark

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:38 +0100, "garry crothers" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>> Generally, you will only see up to the limit of the BIOS. Most drives
>> today go by total sectors, not cylinders/heads/sectors. There used to be
>> problems back in the 8G limit time where some computers would lock up
>> (some drives had special jumper settings to give a fake size of 8G or
>> less, but then required a drive overlay to access the full size). I don't
>> know if newer BIOS's have that issue with the 137G limit.
>
>
>Now does theMB bios limitation affect external (e.g 1394/Firewire) hard
>drives as well.?

It doesn't, because the BIOS is not used there.

>i.e can we get around the MB limitation by sticking in a pci firewire card
>and adding an external disk?

You can get around the BIOS limitation by using an internal PCI card.

>garry


-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640

> It's not that I actually get upset, after all I enjoyed my time
> exchanging emails with Dr Arm last year (remember that?). But I am
> just puzzled. I tend to see you as one of the good guys. What is it
> that makes you see me as one of the bad guys?
>
> Is it perhaps to do with the fact that I also respect Rod Speed's
> opinion and welcome his help here?
>



Mark needn't try to rationalize when comparing Rod and Folk, as they are one
in the same asshole. Your best bet is to killfile every alternate identity
Rod uses.




Rita

The entirely appropriately named
Rita A. Bigotowitz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>> It's not that I actually get upset, after all I enjoyed my time
>> exchanging emails with Dr Arm last year (remember that?).
>> But I am just puzzled. I tend to see you as one of the good
>> guys. What is it that makes you see me as one of the bad guys?

>> Is it perhaps to do with the fact that I also respect
>> Rod Speed's opinion and welcome his help here?

> Mark needn't try to rationalize when comparing
> Rod and Folk, as they are one in the same asshole.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never ever had a clue to your entirely appropriate name.

> Your best bet is to killfile every alternate identity Rod uses.

Typical mindless bigot, puts its fingers in its ears and closes its
eyes so it doesnt see anything in conflict with its mindless bigotry.
Just a like a silly little kid saying 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'

Pity its so trivial to **** on from a great height.

"zot" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f74db49$0$23603$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The entirely appropriately named
> Rita A. Bigotowitz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >> It's not that I actually get upset, after all I enjoyed my time
> >> exchanging emails with Dr Arm last year (remember that?).
> >> But I am just puzzled. I tend to see you as one of the good
> >> guys. What is it that makes you see me as one of the bad guys?
>
> >> Is it perhaps to do with the fact that I also respect
> >> Rod Speed's opinion and welcome his help here?
>
> > Mark needn't try to rationalize when comparing
> > Rod and Folk, as they are one in the same asshole.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
> never ever had a clue to your entirely appropriate name.
>
> > Your best bet is to killfile every alternate identity Rod uses.
>
> Typical mindless bigot, puts its fingers in its ears and closes its
> eyes so it doesnt see anything in conflict with its mindless bigotry.
> Just a like a silly little kid saying 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'
>
> Pity its so trivial to **** on from a great height.
>


It's good to see you're in rare form, Rod. Keep up the creativity when
selecting another username.

Rita