BIOS hard drive size limitations

[Rod Speed]

If the BIOS will recognize the HD as its native capacity, you should
expect no inherent problems. Since this appears to be the case here
(9.3 GB binary ~ 10 GB decimal almost exactly), it should "remain ok."

A limit you should be aware of is that once a HD gets over about 2/3
full (that's a "soft" number), some functions such as defragmentation
will start running much more slowly. So if you get to that point,
you probably ought to look for a larger (e.g., 30 GB in your case) HD
to replace it.

Or dont bother to defrag it.

 

[Conor]

If BIOS limited how much of the drive could be seen (and if that
drive was partitioned and formatted on that system), then you need not
worry about strange overwriting. If BIOS did not understand a full 10
Gb, then your drive would be partitioned to that BIOS limitation.

Not that simple. If it can't recognise the drive geometry, most of the
time it'll not boot from it or you'll get data errors.

 

[Rod Speed]

If BIOS limited how much of the drive could be seen (and if that
drive was partitioned and formatted on that system), then you need
not worry about strange overwriting. If BIOS did not understand a
full 10 Gb, then your drive would be partitioned to that BIOS limitation.

Have fun explaining what happens with a lack of 48 bit LBA support.

Update a BIOS is to fix a trivial problem that almost nobody
sees. Some get anal about BIOS upgrades. BIOS upgrade
would not increase size of drives supported.

Wrong, as always.

The risk of other damage is so great that a BIOS upgrade
should only be done to fix a known and particular problem.

Utterly mangled as always.

Flashing a new BIOS will not increase drive size.

Wrong, as always.

However, another poster defined how to change
BIOS for larger drives (see three paragraphs down).

Access to drive space is limited first by the BIOS and then by an OS.

Utterly mangled all over again.

Some manufacturers also reserve disk space for their comprehensive
hardware diagnostics. Depending on how you setup that 10 Gb drive,
then another partition with Compaq hardware diagnostics may account
for some of the missing Gbytes.

There are no missing GBs.

I don't remember,

No surprises there.

but I believe Windows 98SE has a size limitation of only 8 Gb.

You're wrong, as always.

Of the two Windows families, Win9x only used FAT
filesystem with its so many problems and limitations.

Wrong, as always.

For example, loss of power, in some cases, may cause loss
of the file being worked on AND loss of the saved copy on disk.

Wrong, as always.

Windows NT based OSes, properly installed and even back
in the early 90s, use the far superior NTFS filesystem. Even
that file loss problem was eliminated by NTFS.

Pity it brought with it total loss of the entire partition contents.

That (what I have assumed) 8 Gb limitation also would not exist.

It doesnt happen with FAT32 either.

As another posted usefully, BIOS limitation is solved by upgrading
with a disk drive controller or a plug-in card that contains a new
BIOS for disk drives. That plug-in BIOS replaces part of BIOS
on motherboard; thereby increasing disk drive partition sizes.

And reflashing the bios on the motherboard fixes the drive size problem too.

But again, the limitation is defined by two factors - BIOS and OS.

Utterly mangled all over again. You dont necessarily need
any bios support for the drive at all with any decent OS.

If you fear that BIOS limitations could cause data loss, then get
disk drive manufacturer's comprehensive diagnostics (for free).
Execute diagnostics in all write modes (it will destroy data on
that disk). If BIOS limitations exists, the manufacturer's disk
diagnostic should discover and report that problem.

Wrong, as always. Doing that with a bios and OS that
does not have 40 bit LBA support wont produce any
problem, but writing past the 127G level using the OS
will comprehensively **** up the data on that drive.

But again, threat of data loss would not exist if drive was
partitioned and formatted by that same machine (and BIOS).

Wrong, as always.

 

[John Weiss]

Or dont bother to defrag it.

Not a good idea when using the FAT file system...

 

[Shep©]

So again I ask if
thing seem ok after the partitioning - formatting can I expect that
it will remain ok. Was this limit of size something I would know right
away even before I installed windows 98SE?

Yes as per my post.
If you fit a drive to a PC and before any O/S is installed you will
see if the drive's size is fully recognized or not.If not a possible
simple but carefully done BIOS update may cure it and or a cheap PCI
add-on card that can defeat the hardware BIOS drive size limitation.
All other software limitations with the O/S can be addressed
later.Also there is DDO(Dynamic Disk Overlay) programs freely
available from most hard drive maker's sites but I don't recommend any
of these as they can cause problems with some window's programs so not
worth the bother IMHO.

HTH

 

[John Doe]

No one is actually stupid enough to adopt what
you would prefer, not use any prefixes at all.

Someone who buys 8 GB of RAM would expect it to be the same quantity
as 8 GB on their hard drive.

In the information age, we've got the space for your pointless
insulting posts, so we've definitely got the space for writing out
the real values.

 

[Patty]

All here seams to be working well but then I was not sure as I fill up
the hard drive if then the trouble would develop. So again I ask if
thing seem ok after the partitioning - formatting can I expect that
it will remain ok. Was this limit of size something I would know right
away even before I installed windows 98SE?

If your BIOS had a size limitation to hard drives, you would see it
immediately in the BIOS. The BIOS would report a very different number
than the advertised hard drive size. At least that's been my experience.

For instance, I put an 80GB hard drive in a computer with, I believe, a
32GB hard drive limitation. The BIOS reported the hard drive to be 14490
MB. Now, that's a pretty big discrepancy. However, the drive works fine
with the overlay given by the manufacturer and, at this time, I'm not too
concerned since I'm planning on replacing this system with a newer one and
I'll use the 80GB hard drive there.

Patty

 

[Rod Speed]

Not a good idea when using the FAT file system...

Wrong with modern hard drives and modern OSs.

You wouldnt even be able to pick it in a proper double blind trial.

And it aint gotta damned thing to do with the file system anyway.

 

[Rod Speed]

DJW wrote

If your BIOS had a size limitation to hard drives, you would
see it immediately in the BIOS. The BIOS would report a
very different number than the advertised hard drive size.

It isnt that black and white, most obviously with the 127G limit.

At least that's been my experience.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

For instance, I put an 80GB hard drive in a computer
with, I believe, a 32GB hard drive limitation.

Nope, the 32G hard drive limitation sees the system freeze at boot time.

The BIOS reported the hard drive to be 14490 MB.

That wasnt due to the 32G hard drive limit.

 

[Rod Speed]

Someone who buys 8 GB of RAM would expect it
to be the same quantity as 8 GB on their hard drive.

Only the ones that are so stupid that they dont bother
to read the very clear statement on ALL the hard drive
datasheets that the GB they are using is a billion bytes.

And thats an entirely separate issue to his silly preference
for the drive to be stated as being 8,000,000,000 bytes
capacity every time its capacity is stated.

In the information age, we've got the space for your pointless insulting posts,

Corse you never ever post anything like that yourself, eh hypocrite ?

so we've definitely got the space for writing out the real values.

They happen elsewhere, ****wit child.

Only a fool would insist that the form without any prefixes
be used in the detail view within explorer for example.

 

[Charlie]

Yes, that was obvious.


The point is that decimal prefixes are the default thats what
is commonly used. Very occasionally it does make sense to
use binary prefixes instead, most obviously with ram and rom,
but that is not the case with hard drives which dont have any
intrinsic binary organisation of the number of sectors on the drive.

Well, if that was your point it was lost on me. Then again I'm just an
ordinary blue collar type guy, who doesn't always get the meaning of what
others say. For instance I didn't see the correlation between your point
that "...decimal prefixes are the default thats what
is commonly used" and your use of "hard drive sector count" as an example
when I've never seen decimal prefixes or any prefixes used for hard drive
sector count. For instance my WD1600JBRTL hard drive lists (on Western
Digital's website) the sector count as 312,581,808. How would they list
that using SI prefixes, 312 Megasectors? Sorry I've never seen that. Maybe
you could point me to some examples.

I didnt.


The problem wasnt with your stating things clearly, the problem

Thank you, but I can see by what you have been writing that you don't get
what I'm writing about. I have been saying all along that you were wrong to
say that "In fact only the memory is intrisically binary organised..." The
fact that you were using that statement to justify your argument is
irrelevant, it's still wrong. Even if you are right about prefixes your
statement about memory being the only intrisically binary organised thing is
wrong. If you don't understand what I'm saying, well, I hope others who
read this do.

is that decimal prefixes are the ones that are commonly used,
and while very occasionally it does make sense to use binary
prefixes instead, most obviously with ram and rom, but that
is not the case with hard drives which dont have any intrinsic
binary organisation of the number of sectors on the drive,
cpu speed, comms speeds, etc etc etc.

So decimal prefixes should be used there because that is the SI standard.



I never ever said you did.

Forgive me, I thought you were implying that when you kept bringing up cpu
speed, etc.

I didnt.


That was always obvious. BUT it is equally obvious that you are
missing the point completely. The decimal prefixes should be used
unless there is a good reason not to, and there is no good reason
not to with hard drive sizes, comms speeds, cpu speeds, etc etc etc.
There is a good reason to use binary prefixes with ram and rom.



Nothing to explain, I didnt.



Its always been obvious that you are missing the point completely.

Whose point? My point has been that you made an incorrect statement (...only
the memory is intrisically binary organised...). You have never addressed
that. I can only believe that I haven't been clear.

No one ever said you did.


Wrong again. We happen to be discussing binary and decimal PREFIXES.

I wasn't.

ONLY for SOME things, particularly ram and rom sizes.

NOT for cpu speed, comms speeds, etc etc etc.


We're discussing PREFIXES.

I wasn't.

You did nothing of the sort.

Well, actually I did. Please go back and read the post. It begins before
you said "More fool you".
Ah, heck, I'll just make it easier on you and cut/paste it.


<<<< end paste >>>>

There are many examples of other things besides memory in a computer that
are intrinsically binary and I went on to give you a couple. Only one would
be necessary to refute your statement.
The part about cpu speed, etc. was never in question with me, because even
if correct the statement in totality is wrong.

Pity that hard drive sector counts arent.





No one did think that.


You didnt confuse anyone who has commented.

If you say so.

As I said, there is no good reason to use binary PREFIXES
with hard drives, comms speeds, cpu speeds, etc etc etc.

None that I can see.

Nope, it doesnt. It is indeed a weird binary/decimal hybrid.



I dont.


No it doesnt.


Not even feasible to scrap it.

Why?


The hard drive manufacturers do just that, they ALWAYS
spell out in the fine print that they are using decimal prefixes.

It would be terminally stupid to be exclusively listing

Well, Rod I really doubt anyone would die from exclusively listing an exact
number, but actually I never said it had to be exclusive.

say the HDT725050VLxxxx as 500,107,862,016
bytes or even 500,000,000,000 bytes either.

Which number is it? They can't both be accurate.

In spades with detailled folder content lists
in the OS etc were space is at a premium.

I don't hear many people expressing confusion on how file sizes are
displayed. So exact numbers in folder content lists in the OS would not be
necessary.

No one is actually stupid enough to adopt what
you would prefer, not use any prefixes at all.

No one will adopt it. It does have its drawbacks (people would actually
have to read a long number and think of all the ink wasted).

Charlie

 

[Rod Speed]

Well, if that was your point it was lost on me.

Thats obvious.

Then again I'm just an ordinary blue collar type guy,

I dont bother with collars at all anymore. And never bothered with
either blue or white collars when I did bother with collars anyway.

who doesn't always get the meaning of what others say.

Thats obvious too.

For instance I didn't see the correlation between your point that "...decimal prefixes are the
default thats what is commonly used" and your use of "hard drive sector count"

Your problem.

as an example

It wasnt an example, its clearly what was being discussed,
which type of prefix is univerally used with hard drives.

when I've never seen decimal prefixes or any prefixes used for hard drive sector count.

You have however univerally seen decimal prefixes used with hard drive sizes.

For instance my WD1600JBRTL hard drive lists (on Western Digital's website) the sector count as
312,581,808. How would they list that using SI prefixes, 312 Megasectors? Sorry I've never seen
that. Maybe you could point me to some examples.

Have a look at the prefix they use when stating the drive size,
and what they say about what they mean when they say GB.

Thank you, but I can see by what you have been writing that you don't get what I'm writing about.

Wrong again.

I have been saying all along that you were wrong to say that "In fact only the memory is
intrisically binary organised..."

That was always obvious. You are just plain
wrong in your claim that I am wrong on that.

The fact that you were using that statement to
justify your argument is irrelevant, it's still wrong.
Nope.

Even if you are right about prefixes

No if about it.

your statement about memory being the only
intrisically binary organised thing is wrong.
Nope.

If you don't understand what I'm saying,

I do. And I understand that you are just plain wrong too.

Focus on the use of the word ORGANISED.

It was used for a reason.

well, I hope others who read this do.
Unlikely.

Forgive me,

No way.

I thought you were implying that when you kept bringing up cpu speed, etc.

Nope. They are other examples of where decimal prefixes have always been used.

Whose point?

The point that there is no good reason to use other
than the commonly used decimal prefixes with hard
drive sizes, cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc.

My point has been that you made an incorrect statement
(...only the memory is intrisically binary organised...).

You dont have a point.

You have never addressed that.

Yes I did. See above. Concentrate on the word ORGANISED.

I can only believe that I haven't been clear.

You can believe whatever you like.

I wasn't.

Pity we were when you jumped into the thread.

As usual, you missed that completely.

I wasn't.

Pity we were when you jumped into the thread.

As usual, you missed that completely.

Well, actually I did.
Nope.

Please go back and read the post.

No point, I know what was said.

It begins before you said "More fool you".
Ah, heck, I'll just make it easier on you and cut/paste it.

Completely useless, as always.

<<<< begin paste >>>>
speed, comms speeds, etc etc etc are decimal.

<<<< end paste >>>>

You've missed the use of the word ORGANISED completely.

There are many examples of other things besides memory in a computer that are intrinsically binary

There you go again. The word ORGANISED was used for a reason.

and I went on to give you a couple.

No you didnt. You ignored the use of the word ORGANISED.

Only one would be necessary to refute your statement.

Not when you completely ignored the use of the word ORGANISED.

The part about cpu speed, etc. was never in question with me, because even if correct the
statement in totality is wrong.
Nope.

If you say so.

Its obvious you didnt.

None that I can see.

Pity that happens to be what was being discussed when you jumped into this thread.

Why?

Because going without any prefixes is too clumsy and cumbersome.

Prefixes are there for a reason.

Well, Rod I really doubt anyone would die from exclusively listing an exact number,

Pointless to do that tho.

but actually I never said it had to be exclusive.

I never ever said you did. You do however now have a problem spelling
out just when prefixes should be used and when they should not.

And whatever you 'think', the hard drive manufacturers
have universally chosen to use the SI standard and to
spell out exactly what they mean when they use GB too.

You get to like that or lump it.

Which number is it? They can't both be accurate.

No one with a clue is going to try and remember a number
like 500,107,862,016. Numbers are rounded for a reason.

I don't hear many people expressing confusion on how file sizes are displayed.

You need to get your ears tested then.

So exact numbers in folder content lists in the OS would not be necessary.

Pity about the result you would get when people add
them up and find they dont match the stated total.

No one will adopt it. It does have its drawbacks (people would
actually have to read a long number and think of all the ink wasted).

And its impossible to remember a number like 500,107,862,016

Numbers are rounded for a reason.

 

[VanShania]

Rod you misspelled course
"> In the information age, we've got the space for your pointless insulting
posts,

Corse you never ever post anything like that yourself, eh hypocrite ?"

does this mean your illiterate? Maybe I should have spelled it "coarse" to
see if you would have used that spelling all the time.


--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse.
No such thing as Bad Kids. Only Bad Parents.
The most horrible feeling in the world is knowing that No One is There to
Protect You.

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939,AIW 9800 Pro 128mb
MSI 550 Pro, X-Fi, Pioneer 110D, 111D
Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire,2 Gb OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5
2XSATA 320gb Raid Edition, PATA 120Gb
XP MCE2005, 19in Viewsonic,BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- NFS: Most Wanted, Civ 4

 

[spodosaurus]

Rod you misspelled course
"> In the information age, we've got the space for your pointless insulting
posts,

Corse you never ever post anything like that yourself, eh hypocrite ?"

does this mean your illiterate? Maybe I should have spelled it "coarse" to
see if you would have used that spelling all the time.

If YOU ARE going to be a git and attack someone on spelling, literacy,
etc, then please remember how to spell the contraction "you're".

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod you misspelled course
Nope.

does this mean your illiterate?

Nope, that you have just got egg all over your silly little face, as always.

Maybe I should have spelled it "coarse" to see if you would have used that spelling all the time.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

If YOU ARE going to be a git and attack someone on spelling, literacy,
etc, then please remember how to spell the contraction "you're".

And work out how to quote as well.

 

[John Doe]

VanShania <rvans mts.net> wrote


Nope.

Is the word "course" spelled "corse" in some Australian dialect?
It's not in standard English.

 

[VanShania]

aaah hey man I was just bugging good ole Rod. No need to get snippy.

--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse.
No such thing as Bad Kids. Only Bad Parents.
The most horrible feeling in the world is knowing that No One is There to
Protect You.

A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939,AIW 9800 Pro 128mb
MSI 550 Pro, X-Fi, Pioneer 110D, 111D
Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire,2 Gb OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5
2XSATA 320gb Raid Edition, PATA 120Gb
XP MCE2005, 19in Viewsonic,BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- NFS: Most Wanted, Civ 4

 

[Charlie]

Your problem.


It wasnt an example, its clearly what was being discussed,
which type of prefix is univerally used with hard drives.

Well actually Rod you were the first in this thread to bring up the nonsense
about "hard drive sector count". I responded to that.

You have however univerally seen decimal prefixes used with hard drive
sizes.

The universe is a really big place, Rod. So, no, can't say as I have seen
them used universally, but going back to the Western Digital site I find my
hard drive size listed as 5.787 Inches long, 1.028 Inches high and 4.00
Inches wide. In the spirit of fairness I must tell you they also list the
size in metric equivalents, but that hardly makes decimal prefixes
universal.

Have a look at the prefix they use when stating the drive size,
and what they say about what they mean when they say GB.

Yeah, I couldn't find any examples of megasectors being used as SI prefixes
for hard drive sector count either. That does make me wonder about the
validity of your assertion that SI is the default.

Wrong again.


That was always obvious. You are just plain
wrong in your claim that I am wrong on that.


No if about it.


I do. And I understand that you are just plain wrong too.

Focus on the use of the word ORGANISED.

Okay, okay, you misspelled it. <grin>

I suppose that was nasty of me, sorry.

The point that there is no good reason to use other
than the commonly used decimal prefixes with hard
drive sizes, cpu speeds, comms speeds, etc etc etc.


You dont have a point.


Yes I did. See above. Concentrate on the word ORGANISED.

Address and data busses are intrinsically binary ORGANIZED and so are many
CPU registers. In fact much of the computer architecture is intrinsically
binary ORGANIZED. Memory is certainly not the only thing organized that
way.

You can believe whatever you like.



Pity we were when you jumped into the thread.

As usual, you missed that completely.

That's the funny thing about threads Rod, they branch into new threads. You
should have noticed the change before you answered me.

Because going without any prefixes is too clumsy and cumbersome.

It is clumsy and cumbersome but not "too" clumsy and cumbersome.

Prefixes are there for a reason.

Yes they are in most cases but in this case they lead to more confusion than
they are worth.

Pointless to do that tho.


I never ever said you did. You do however now have a problem spelling
out just when prefixes should be used and when they should not.

Guilty as charged. Prefixes should be used when they are the de facto
standard. For instance I would have no problem with the use of decimal
prefixes exclusively by those who manufacture hard drives if the OS and
utility writers also used them. Since in fact they don't always do that, to
avoid the inevitable confusion, I feel that plain old numbers, no matter how
cumbersome, are a better way to go, since plain numbers are the de facto
standard for most people using computers.

And whatever you 'think', the hard drive manufacturers
have universally chosen to use the SI standard and to
spell out exactly what they mean when they use GB too.

You get to like that or lump it.



No one with a clue is going to try and remember a number
like 500,107,862,016. Numbers are rounded for a reason.

You need to get your ears tested then.

Thanks for your concern, Rod. I have had my ears checked and indeed I do
have a hearing loss, probably due to the high noise level at my "blue collar
job".
But you don't bother with collars, blue or white, so I won't expand on that.

Pity about the result you would get when people add
them up and find they dont match the stated total.



And its impossible to remember a number like 500,107,862,016

Computers have little problem remembering them.

Numbers are rounded for a reason.

Please take my posts in the spirit of constructive criticism. That was my
intent. I have read many of your posts in answer to others' questions and
despite your unusual ways, you seem to have a good general knowledge of
computer hardware.

Charlie

 

[Rod Speed]

Is the word "course" spelled "corse" in some Australian dialect?
Nope.

It's not in standard English.

Pity I wasnt using the word course, ****wit child.