HDD bigger than 132GB

[spodosaurus]

As I mentioned in another post, if she installed SP1 or SP2 before the
system tried to use the above 137 gig area then it might work but it
isn't just a matter of getting over the making the partition. XP isn't
going to properly handle anything (be it partitioning, formatting,
reading/writing data, or anything else that uses the hard drive) over
the 137 gig limit, whether it's 1 or multiple partitions, without SP1 or
SP2 installed.

I asked in another part of the thread, but what about slipstreaming SP2
and creating a new install cdrom? Yeah, if this user doesn't have access
to another computer it might mean installing XP, slipstreaming and
burning the new install disk, then reinstalling the cd, but wouldn't
that work and they wouldn't have to keep reinstalling SP2 if they have
to reformat or want to do a clean install on their next hard drive
upgrade? Keep in mind I haven't really been following this thread...

Ari



--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Ken]

As I mentioned in another post, if she installed SP1 or SP2 before the
system tried to use the above 137 gig area then it might work but it
isn't just a matter of getting over the making the partition. XP isn't
going to properly handle anything (be it partitioning, formatting,
reading/writing data, or anything else that uses the hard drive) over
the 137 gig limit, whether it's 1 or multiple partitions, without SP1 or
SP2 installed.

David,

This was what I was looking for. I was curious if the SP1 or SP2
changes effected the partitioning or ALL aspects of accessing a disk
larger than 137GB. Thanks!

Not officially. Whether it just happens to accidentally 'work' or not I
don't know.



The MS Knowledge Base for that patch specifically say it is not for
adding 48 Bit LBA and that over 137 gig is 'not supported'.



I don't know what the date of the patch is but how do you image a file
dated March 2000 got in a system who's product name is "98."

The date I have for the patch is September 26, 2003. I would have
expected that implementing the patch would have altered the file FDISK
to a date at least as late as the date of the patch? As for there being
any continuity in dates for a system whose name is "Win 98," I don't
think that applies. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Admittedly
there are posters who sit on the sidelines and snipe at the comments of
those trying to help posters. That is unfortunate, as the news groups
have been a great source of information to me and others as well. I
would like to think that I have helped some who needed help, as well as
having learned a lot myself. The topic of computers and their software
is a complex and ever changing one. My purpose in questioning what
could be done with regard to the OP computer is to understand just what
options might be available to me in a similar situation.

Ken

 

[David Maynard]

David,

This was what I was looking for. I was curious if the SP1 or SP2
changes effected the partitioning or ALL aspects of accessing a disk
larger than 137GB. Thanks!

48 bit addressing is how it finds the sectors on the disk and if it can't
address them then it can't talk to them. For example (to keep the numbers
small), an 8 bit byte can store from 0 to 255 but, if you were using an 8
bit byte and wanted to talk to address 300, how could you? And even if you
make a device with 300 addresses using some other system you still can't
talk to it, properly because you're still stuck using the 8 bit byte.
Although, things will appear to be working as long as you don't try
anything over 255.

Above 255 and what will likely happen is that the byte will 'wrap around'
and you end up with an address of 44 (300-256) (in real terms, since the
byte can't store the 9'th bit it gets dropped and you're left with the
bottom 8) and that means it'll be writing to the wrong location. And if
that location had data in it, whamo, corrupt disk.

A variation of the "it worked fine till I used the broken part."

The date I have for the patch is September 26, 2003. I would have
expected that implementing the patch would have altered the file FDISK
to a date at least as late as the date of the patch?

There's nothing to prevent them from using earlier dated files to make up
the combined patch. It's kind of like how a brand spanking new modern car
might include things invented in 1950 (even back to circa 3500 BC if you
count 'the wheel'). It's the 'combination' that's 'new'.

As for there being
any continuity in dates for a system whose name is "Win 98," I don't
think that applies. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

My observation had nothing to do with 'continuity'. I was questioning how
Microsoft, making a win98 CD in 1998, could leap 2 years into the future
and grab a year 2000 file to put on it. Well, I guess that could be
considered a space-time 'continuity' issue

I checked my only-has-a-6-gig-so-not-updated-for-big-drives Win98SE box and
the fdisk in C:\windows\command is dated a no-time-travel-required April
23, 1999 (SE was a '99 release).

You sure that fdisk of yours isn't dated May 18 (or 19) 2000 instead of
March? I just downloaded the patch (yes, dated 2003), decompressed it, and
the two not-yet-renamed-because-I-haven't-installed-it fdisk files had that
date. Some of the others had 1998 and 1997 dates.

 

[David Maynard]

I asked in another part of the thread, but what about slipstreaming SP2
and creating a new install cdrom? Yeah, if this user doesn't have access
to another computer it might mean installing XP, slipstreaming and
burning the new install disk, then reinstalling the cd, but wouldn't
that work and they wouldn't have to keep reinstalling SP2 if they have
to reformat or want to do a clean install on their next hard drive
upgrade? Keep in mind I haven't really been following this thread...

Ari

Sure. Making an XP SP2 installation CD would work.

I was just dealing with the data dangerous notion that if you somehow
create a >137GB partition on another system then the original issue XP will
magically work. The really bad thing about it is it will *appear* to work
until something tries to use that >137 gig area, at which point it'll trash
the hard drive contents.

 

[Ken]

48 bit addressing is how it finds the sectors on the disk and if it
can't address them then it can't talk to them. For example (to keep the
numbers small), an 8 bit byte can store from 0 to 255 but, if you were
using an 8 bit byte and wanted to talk to address 300, how could you?
And even if you make a device with 300 addresses using some other system
you still can't talk to it, properly because you're still stuck using
the 8 bit byte. Although, things will appear to be working as long as
you don't try anything over 255.

Above 255 and what will likely happen is that the byte will 'wrap
around' and you end up with an address of 44 (300-256) (in real terms,
since the byte can't store the 9'th bit it gets dropped and you're left
with the bottom 8) and that means it'll be writing to the wrong
location. And if that location had data in it, whamo, corrupt disk.

A variation of the "it worked fine till I used the broken part."



There's nothing to prevent them from using earlier dated files to make
up the combined patch. It's kind of like how a brand spanking new modern
car might include things invented in 1950 (even back to circa 3500 BC if
you count 'the wheel'). It's the 'combination' that's 'new'.



My observation had nothing to do with 'continuity'. I was questioning
how Microsoft, making a win98 CD in 1998, could leap 2 years into the
future and grab a year 2000 file to put on it. Well, I guess that could
be considered a space-time 'continuity' issue

I checked my only-has-a-6-gig-so-not-updated-for-big-drives Win98SE box
and the fdisk in C:\windows\command is dated a no-time-travel-required
April 23, 1999 (SE was a '99 release).

You sure that fdisk of yours isn't dated May 18 (or 19) 2000 instead of
March? I just downloaded the patch (yes, dated 2003), decompressed it,
and the two not-yet-renamed-because-I-haven't-installed-it fdisk files
had that date. Some of the others had 1998 and 1997 dates.

You are right, the date is MAY 18, and not MARCH. If I wrote March
somewhere, it was in error.

What puzzles me is that after a change (263044USA8.EXE)issued in 2003,
that the files changed do not reflect that date somewhere. Like you
said, I guess you can take pieces from wherever and make something work,
but it sure would be easier to identify what was installed if there was
some continuity to the file dates.

The only reason I know that FDISK works for the larger disks now is
that I have an 80 GB HD installed as one partition. The patch is
supposed to be what allowed the partitions greater than 64GB. I guess
all that the writers of the OS need to do is provide software, and not
explanations.

Ken

 

[bondiablo]

www.48bitlba.com

 

[David Maynard]

You are right, the date is MAY 18, and not MARCH. If I wrote March
somewhere, it was in error.

What puzzles me is that after a change (263044USA8.EXE)issued in
2003, that the files changed do not reflect that date somewhere. Like
you said, I guess you can take pieces from wherever and make something
work, but it sure would be easier to identify what was installed if
there was some continuity to the file dates.

Well, there *is* 'continuity' in the files dates. The continuity that
they're dated when they were released.

The 'problem' you state is a good example of competing goals and different
points of perspective with one, or more, of the goals being a mystery. By
that I mean you see what would be a good idea from your perspective and
your goal of keeping track of the updates in a manner you perceive as
'simple' and are not aware there's a reason why the files are dated as they
are.

That isn't meant as a criticism but as an example of a common problem often
expressed as "why'd they do it that way?" with a pejorative usually
included (it's also a big part of 'conspiracy theories', btw)

From the software side, it's configuration management. They're keeping
track of which files are what through, among other things, rev level and
date of release. Putting multiple dates on the 'same file' would make
things untenable. (As a simple, but incomplete, example consider a
programmer changes a file and want's to get a list of "where used" so he
knows the impact and what all needs to be updated. That doesn't work if
there are 'different versions' of the file he changed.)

The point is there's a good reason why the date is the date and it's for
'behind the scenes' things the user never thinks about.

The only reason I know that FDISK works for the larger disks now is
that I have an 80 GB HD installed as one partition. The patch is
supposed to be what allowed the partitions greater than 64GB. I guess
all that the writers of the OS need to do is provide software, and not
explanations.

That you installed the patch is probably listed in Add/Remove Programs from
Control Panel.