I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards. On
the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of its
Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).

I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but the
Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think that
that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer on
this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but in
the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).

What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer? Is a
simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?

Thanks in advance.

Gordon Biggar
Houston, Texas

If you use a larger hd than your bios supports, then their is a risk of file
loss/corruption
The details for the intel bios update file would normaly tell you what the
update is meant to fix

"Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
>On
> the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of its
> Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
> drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>
> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but the
> Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
> that
> that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
> large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
> on
> this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
> in
> the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>
> What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer? Is
> a
> simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Gordon Biggar
> Houston, Texas
>
>

In news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed),
Gordon Biggar <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops,
....
> If I go to My Computer on this older desktop, the properties
> of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but in the bios it only recognizes
> 137 GB (or thereabouts).

The OS is what manages the disk and filesystems; the BIOS disk parameters
only relate to the boot capabilities. If the OS recognizes the disk as 200GB
then that's what the OS's filesystem will use, based on the disk's firmware.

"Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
>On
> the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of its
> Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
> drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>
> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but the
> Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
> that
> that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
> large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
> on
> this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
> in
> the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>
> What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer? Is
> a
> simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Gordon Biggar
> Houston, Texas
>

AFAIR, DOS used to rely exclusively on what the BIOS told it about the hard
disk parameters. Windows 2000 makes up its own mind. As b.jeswine says, if
the BIOS's interpretation of the hard disk parameters is sufficient to get
the machine started and hand over control to Windows then you're safe.

Now those are the kind of answers I like to hear! It also tells me that I
went to a lot of trouble to update the bios for one of my computers (and had
I come here first, I could have saved myself some grief).

Many thanks for the inputs. All of a sudden, a potential problem is not a
problem. I like that type of conclusion.

GGB



"Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
On
> the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of its
> Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
> drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>
> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but the
> Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
that
> that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
> large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
on
> this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
in
> the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>
> What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer? Is
a
> simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Gordon Biggar
> Houston, Texas
>
>

I wish I could locate the Tech link that said otherwise

"Pegasus (MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
>>On
>> the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of
>> its
>> Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
>> drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>>
>> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but
>> the
>> Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
>> that
>> that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
>> large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
>> on
>> this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
>> in
>> the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>>
>> What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer?
>> Is a
>> simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Gordon Biggar
>> Houston, Texas
>>
>
> AFAIR, DOS used to rely exclusively on what the BIOS told it about the
> hard disk parameters. Windows 2000 makes up its own mind. As b.jeswine
> says, if the BIOS's interpretation of the hard disk parameters is
> sufficient to get the machine started and hand over control to Windows
> then you're safe.
>

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
DL <address@invalid> typed:

> I wish I could locate the Tech link that said otherwise

It can't be located because it simply doesn't exist.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:27:34 -0500, "Gordon Biggar"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Now those are the kind of answers I like to hear! It also tells me that I
>went to a lot of trouble to update the bios for one of my computers (and had
>I come here first, I could have saved myself some grief).

Not necessarily. When the disk size is larger than 250 GB, it becomes
more likely that the BIOS has to access past the 137 GB point on the
disk in order to successfully boot Windows.

>
>Many thanks for the inputs. All of a sudden, a potential problem is not a
>problem. I like that type of conclusion.
>
>GGB
>
>
>
>"Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
>On
>> the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of its
>> Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
>> drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>>
>> I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but the
>> Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
>that
>> that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
>> large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
>on
>> this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
>in
>> the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>>
>> What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer? Is
>a
>> simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Gordon Biggar
>> Houston, Texas
>>
>>
>

Perhaps you are remembering this

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098

NOTE: If you enable 48-bit LBA ATAPI support by editing the preceding
registry key, but your system does not meet the minimum requirements,
you may observe the following behaviors:
Operating systems that do not have 48-bit LBA support enabled by default
(such as Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
(Me), or Windows 2000) that are installed on a partition that spans
beyond the 28-bit LBA boundary (137GB) will experience data corruption
or data loss.


DL wrote:

> I wish I could locate the Tech link that said otherwise
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>"Gordon Biggar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:OxQN5$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>I have two older desktops (circa 2001-2002) that are using Intel boards.
>>>On
>>>the "later" of the two boards, I was able to download Intel's v. 19 of
>>>its
>>>Bios updates in order that the computer would recognize large-size disc
>>>drives (320 GB in the case of the later computer).
>>>
>>>I am running a 200 GB hard drive on the older of the two desktops, but
>>>the
>>>Intel download for that board is only v. 10, I believe. I don't think
>>>that
>>>that version supports the (48-bit?) software incorporated to enable
>>>large-drive recognition (I'm over my head here!). If I go to My Computer
>>>on
>>>this older desktop, the properties of my C drive are shown as 200 GB, but
>>>in
>>>the bios it only recognizes 137 GB (or thereabouts).
>>>
>>>What will happen as I approach this upper limit on the older computer?
>>>Is a
>>>simple workaround one of partitioning one's hard drive?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>Gordon Biggar
>>>Houston, Texas
>>>
>>
>>AFAIR, DOS used to rely exclusively on what the BIOS told it about the
>>hard disk parameters. Windows 2000 makes up its own mind. As b.jeswine
>>says, if the BIOS's interpretation of the hard disk parameters is
>>sufficient to get the machine started and hand over control to Windows
>>then you're safe.
>>
>
>
>

not true

"b.jeswine" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:gh7fe1$p43$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
> DL <address@invalid> typed:
>
>> I wish I could locate the Tech link that said otherwise
>
> It can't be located because it simply doesn't exist.
>
>
>
>