137 GB Limit - HW or SW?

[Al]

I'm running Win98 SE and wasn't aware of the 137 GB drive limit until
I got a 200 GB drive.

The Maxtor site doesn't make it clear if it's a hardware or software
problem. They say that the barrier can be broken with either a
software or hardware upgrade. I can't give the direct Maxtor link
because it's a javascript popup, but this has the page has it (6th
choice):

http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/maxtor.cfg/php/enduser/olh_adp.php?&p_faqid=1939

One thing that is confusing is that Intel based MB's can be patched
with software but my VIA based board apparently can't.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductdesc.asp?description=13-157-032&depa=0


Maxtor implies that a PCI adapter card will break the barrier. But my
VIA chipset is already ATA133 compatible, so what's the difference?

I also found this $10 software patch for Win98, but am not sure about
it:

http://members.aol.com/rloew1/

Cost matters - what's the least expensive way to break the barrier?

TIA!

 

[Dave C.]

I'm running Win98 SE and wasn't aware of the 137 GB drive limit until
I got a 200 GB drive.

The Maxtor site doesn't make it clear if it's a hardware or software
problem. They say that the barrier can be broken with either a
software or hardware upgrade. I can't give the direct Maxtor link
because it's a javascript popup, but this has the page has it (6th
choice):

http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/maxtor.cfg/php/enduser/olh_adp.php?&p_faqid=1939

One thing that is confusing is that Intel based MB's can be patched
with software but my VIA based board apparently can't.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductdesc.asp?description=13-157-032&depa=0


Maxtor implies that a PCI adapter card will break the barrier. But my
VIA chipset is already ATA133 compatible, so what's the difference?

I also found this $10 software patch for Win98, but am not sure about
it:

http://members.aol.com/rloew1/

Cost matters - what's the least expensive way to break the barrier?

TIA!

OK, maxtor doesn't make it clear where the problem is, because it could be
either firmware (mainboard BIOS) or OS or both. Your mainboard BIOS has to
support large hard drives (48 bit lba). But that's assuming that you are
also running an OS that will support large hard drives (48 bit lba).
Windows 98 SE doesn't qualify, by the way.

Your mainboard appears to be new enough that the large hard drive shouldn't
be a problem for THE MAINBOARD. One quick and dirty check . . . in the BIOS
splash screens, does the capacity of the detected hard disk show as greater
than 137GB?

In any case, you are going to have a problem until you upgrade to Windows XP
SP1 or greater. I believe you could also use Win2000 SP3. Upgrading the OS
would be the correct solution, but not an inexpensive one.

I don't know how some Intel mainboards get around this problem with a
software patch, unless the patch itself enables a 2nd BIOS on the board that
is used for the disk controller. OR maybe all Intel boards have a BIOS that
will recognize large hard drives, and they happen to offer software to patch
the OS, regardless of what OS you are running. Whatever, this won't help
you if you are using a VIA chipset mainboard.

A PCI adapter card breaks the barrier by using two tricks: First, it uses
it's own BIOS to enable communication between the hard disk and the
mainboard BIOS. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the mainboard BIOS can
recognize the large hard drive or not. Second, the PCI adapter will have
software that replaces the hard disk controller driver software in the
Operating System. Thus, the Operating System limitation is corrected also,
if necessary.

I know you said cost matters, but how much is the data on your entire hard
drive worth? Now think forward several months when you have several months
of work stored on it. The proper solution would be to upgrade the BIOS.
That is the most secure solution, least likely to result in eventual data
loss. The next best solution would be a PCI adapter card with software to
patch the OS. If you ONLY install the $10 patch you mentioned, then the
integrity of the data stored on your hard drive is now dependent on
third-party software. You can try the $10 patch if you want to. I
wouldn't. But it's not my computer. -Dave

 

[David Maynard]

I'm running Win98 SE and wasn't aware of the 137 GB drive limit until
I got a 200 GB drive.

The Maxtor site doesn't make it clear if it's a hardware or software
problem.

It's both. But since you didn't mention what motherboard you have ...

They say that the barrier can be broken with either a
software or hardware upgrade. I can't give the direct Maxtor link
because it's a javascript popup, but this has the page has it (6th
choice):

http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/maxtor.cfg/php/enduser/olh_adp.php?&p_faqid=1939

One thing that is confusing is that Intel based MB's can be patched
with software but my VIA based board apparently can't.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductdesc.asp?description=13-157-032&depa=0


Maxtor implies that a PCI adapter card will break the barrier.

It solves the hardware end.

But my
VIA chipset is already ATA133 compatible, so what's the difference?

The difference is whether it supports 48 bit LBA. AKA >137 GB drives.

I also found this $10 software patch for Win98, but am not sure about
it:

http://members.aol.com/rloew1/

Cost matters - what's the least expensive way to break the barrier?

TIA!

http://www.largeharddrivesupport.windowsreinstall.com/win98.htm

 

[David Maynard]

OK, maxtor doesn't make it clear where the problem is, because it could be
either firmware (mainboard BIOS) or OS or both. Your mainboard BIOS has to
support large hard drives (48 bit lba). But that's assuming that you are
also running an OS that will support large hard drives (48 bit lba).
Windows 98 SE doesn't qualify, by the way.

These people say Win98 & 98SE will work.

 

[Dave C.]

I know you said cost matters, but how much is the data on your entire hard

drive worth? Now think forward several months when you have several months
of work stored on it. The proper solution would be to upgrade the BIOS.

Ooops, typo. That should read, the proper solution would be to upgrade the
Operating System to Windows XP SP1 or later. -Dave

 

[wooducoodu]

www.48bitlba.com

 

[Spajky]

http://www.largeharddrivesupport.windowsreinstall.com/win98.htm

http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
http://www.48bitlba.com/tools.htm

 

[philo]

I'm running Win98 SE and wasn't aware of the 137 GB drive limit until
I got a 200 GB drive.

The Maxtor site doesn't make it clear if it's a hardware or software
problem. They say that the barrier can be broken with either a
software or hardware upgrade. I can't give the direct Maxtor link
because it's a javascript popup, but this has the page has it (6th
choice):

you will need a pci controller card for sure...
thye are not very expensive...
just note that even if you get the whole drive detected OK...
win98 uses fat32...which has very poor cluster on partitions over 32 gigs.
i suppose with a 200 gig drive you may not be too concerned with wasted
space...
but if you ever considered a move to XP with NTFS...
now would be the time to do so.
NTFS has much better cluster size and less wasted space on large partitions

 

[David Maynard]

you will need a pci controller card for sure...

How in the world can you say that without even a clue as to what
motherboard he's got?

 

[Al]

http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
http://www.48bitlba.com/tools.htm

Thanks for the info! Here is what I found out about my hardware:


ATA Device Results:
Device 0, BIOS reports 189(GB), Device reports 189(GB)

Intel 48-bit LBA BIOS Test Complete --> PASSED
It appears that your BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable,
and you have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed.

Chipset VIA KT880 rev. 0
Southbridge VIA VT8237 rev. 0


So it seems that the hangup is Win98... apparently an IDE card with
BIOS wouldn't help.

 

[Jan Alter]

you will need a pci controller card for sure...

How in the world can you say that without even a clue as to what
motherboard he's got?

Seems like a pretty good bet to me that a PCI controller card is going to
work in 99% of the mbs made in the last 10 years

 

[philo]

How in the world can you say that without even a clue as to what
motherboard he's got?

well i did have a p-1 where the pci contoller trick did not work
but on most any machine that's new enough to have win98 on it...
the pci controller card will do the job

 

[David Maynard]

well i did have a p-1 where the pci contoller trick did not work
but on most any machine that's new enough to have win98 on it...
the pci controller card will do the job

The point is that windows98 doesn't natively support 48 bit LBA so having a
problem with windows98 doesn't say diddly about whether the motherboard
supports 48 bit LBA.

 

[David Maynard]

Seems like a pretty good bet to me that a PCI controller card is going to
work in 99% of the mbs made in the last 10 years

The point isn't whether a PCI card would 'work in his motherboard, it's
what makes anyone think his unidentified motherboard doesn't already
support 48 bit LBA?

 

[philo]

The point is that windows98 doesn't natively support 48 bit LBA so having a
problem with windows98 doesn't say diddly about whether the motherboard
supports 48 bit LBA.

i'm sure the mobo does not support 48bit LBA
that's why i recommended the pci controller...
all one needs to to is google around a bit to see how to get win98 to use a
200gig drive

now that said...i still recommend against it due to the cluster size thing.
NTFS and an NT-based OS is my recommendation of course

 

[johns]

Simple fix. Partition the drive C and D with c = 80 gig
d = 120 gig. Use fdisk from the Win98 install floppy.

johns

 

[Thomas Wendell]

Did you read this (Al at 28.02.2005)

Thanks for the info! Here is what I found out about my hardware:


ATA Device Results:
Device 0, BIOS reports 189(GB), Device reports 189(GB)

Intel 48-bit LBA BIOS Test Complete --> PASSED
It appears that your BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable,
and you have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed.

Chipset VIA KT880 rev. 0
Southbridge VIA VT8237 rev. 0

--
Tumppi
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================

 

[David Maynard]

i'm sure the mobo does not support 48bit LBA
that's why i recommended the pci controller...

Sorta spotty to be "sure" when he gave no clue, isn't it?

Btw, after he ran tests he posted it's a VIA KT880 and VIA VT8237
Southbridge chipset that supports 48 bit LBA

all one needs to to is google around a bit to see how to get win98 to use a
200gig drive

now that said...i still recommend against it due to the cluster size thing.
NTFS and an NT-based OS is my recommendation of course

I'd prefer it too but he may prefer to not spend significant bucks for one.

 

[philo]

Sorta spotty to be "sure" when he gave no clue, isn't it?

Btw, after he ran tests he posted it's a VIA KT880 and VIA VT8237
Southbridge chipset that supports 48 bit LBA

when the OP stated that the drive was not seen at it's full capacity
i was sure the problem was due to the board not being 48bit LBA capable

but i guess i was sure wrong on that one!

at any rate...the pci controller should still solve his problem

 

[David Maynard]

when the OP stated that the drive was not seen at it's full capacity
i was sure the problem was due to the board not being 48bit LBA capable

but i guess i was sure wrong on that one!

No sweat.

His opening to the first sentence, "I'm running Win98 SE and ... " is what
I looked at because Win98 SE, by default, will be a problem.

at any rate...the pci controller should still solve his problem

True, but it costs money.