How big of a harddrive can I install


B

businessman

This computer is a Netvista IBM
Bios IBM 3-17-05
Intel Celeron 1000mhz Pentium 3
Intel chipset

Running Win98se with fat 32 partitions.

How do I determine the maximum hard drive size I can use?

I have a PDF version of the manual, but it dont say anything about the
hard drive size (gigabytes), just the physical mounting size.

I am asking because I installed an 80 gig and it shows errors. It
could be the drive itself, but I want to make sure my bios will
support it before tossing the drive.

Thanks

George
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Calab

This computer is a Netvista IBM
Bios IBM 3-17-05
Intel Celeron 1000mhz Pentium 3
Intel chipset

Running Win98se with fat 32 partitions.

Partitions? A single partition is fine these days... Two if you want to
separate data from programs.
How do I determine the maximum hard drive size I can use?

I have a PDF version of the manual, but it dont say anything about the
hard drive size (gigabytes), just the physical mounting size.

I am asking because I installed an 80 gig and it shows errors. It
could be the drive itself, but I want to make sure my bios will
support it before tossing the drive.

80gig should be OK... What was the old drive size?

Download the manufacturers test software and do the diagnostics and a Zero
fill and see what happens.
 
P

philo

This computer is a Netvista IBM
Bios IBM 3-17-05
Intel Celeron 1000mhz Pentium 3
Intel chipset

Running Win98se with fat 32 partitions.

How do I determine the maximum hard drive size I can use?

I have a PDF version of the manual, but it dont say anything about the
hard drive size (gigabytes), just the physical mounting size.

I am asking because I installed an 80 gig and it shows errors. It
could be the drive itself, but I want to make sure my bios will
support it before tossing the drive.

Thanks

George

I don't know the limit on that machine...
but an 80gig drive should work for sure.

If the bios correctly ID's the drive you could run the HD mfg's diagnostic
to see if the drive is defective
 
R

RobV

This computer is a Netvista IBM
Bios IBM 3-17-05
Intel Celeron 1000mhz Pentium 3
Intel chipset

Running Win98se with fat 32 partitions.

How do I determine the maximum hard drive size I can use?

I have a PDF version of the manual, but it dont say anything about the
hard drive size (gigabytes), just the physical mounting size.

I am asking because I installed an 80 gig and it shows errors. It
could be the drive itself, but I want to make sure my bios will
support it before tossing the drive.

Thanks

George

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006
 
K

kony

This computer is a Netvista IBM
Bios IBM 3-17-05
Intel Celeron 1000mhz Pentium 3
Intel chipset

Motherboard support limit depends on the bios, research
whether you can get a bios update from IBM if you need to
(ever hope to in the future) use HDDs larger than 128GB.
Running Win98se with fat 32 partitions.

Win98's disk tools can't support over 128GB. You can use
3rd party tools, I believe Norton/Symantec products for
Win98 did support over 128GB but I don't know if they had a
higher upper limit. realistically you should limit your
drive use to 128GB, or switch operating systems. If win98
support is still occasionally needed, you could dual boot to
it and have only <128GB partition used by it.
How do I determine the maximum hard drive size I can use?

One way is to try a very large drive, and if it doesn't work
then you need to run it from a PCI ATA133 controller card
(cost about $20 today) instead of from the motherboard
integral controller.


I have a PDF version of the manual, but it dont say anything about the
hard drive size (gigabytes), just the physical mounting size.

I am asking because I installed an 80 gig and it shows errors. It
could be the drive itself, but I want to make sure my bios will
support it before tossing the drive.

It should not show errors as you saw, only because of lack
of capacity support. Since you make no mention of it
failing to see the full capacity, the odds are your board
already supports at least up to 128GB, but might support 48
bit LBA too, meaning it supports any much larger drive too.

Check at IBM's website for a bios update. They may
discontinue support and remove links to these legacy systems
at some point if they hadn't already, it would be good to
get the last bios for it even if you don't plan to use it
right away.
 
G

georget

Motherboard support limit depends on the bios, research
whether you can get a bios update from IBM if you need to
(ever hope to in the future) use HDDs larger than 128GB.


Win98's disk tools can't support over 128GB. You can use
3rd party tools, I believe Norton/Symantec products for
Win98 did support over 128GB but I don't know if they had a
higher upper limit. realistically you should limit your
drive use to 128GB, or switch operating systems. If win98
support is still occasionally needed, you could dual boot to
it and have only <128GB partition used by it.


One way is to try a very large drive, and if it doesn't work
then you need to run it from a PCI ATA133 controller card
(cost about $20 today) instead of from the motherboard
integral controller.




It should not show errors as you saw, only because of lack
of capacity support. Since you make no mention of it
failing to see the full capacity, the odds are your board
already supports at least up to 128GB, but might support 48
bit LBA too, meaning it supports any much larger drive too.

Check at IBM's website for a bios update. They may
discontinue support and remove links to these legacy systems
at some point if they hadn't already, it would be good to
get the last bios for it even if you don't plan to use it
right away.

My bios was upgraded before I bought this computer. It's a 2005
upgrade. Can these be upgraded over and over, or is there a limit to
the number of times?

I can see getting the upgrade as you mentioned. I dont see myself
ever needing 120 gigs, at least not with Win98. If it was not for the
20gigs of storage (photos, music and downloads) that I keep on the
drives, I could run this whole computer on 10 gigs. Actually, right
now I am using about 8.5gigs on my boot drive. It's my second drive
that contains all the storage. I keep that stuff separate because
that way I can swap that drive to any computer and not have any
programs installed on it, except a few dos programs that will run on
any OS that supports dos.

Since I still got that screwed up 80gig drive, I think I am going to
try one of those low level format programs on it. It's junk anyhow,
so what the heck can I lose.

Thanks to everyone for the help

George

That drive did register the full capacity, so I guess that explains
that......
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jan Alter

My bios was upgraded before I bought this computer. It's a 2005
upgrade. Can these be upgraded over and over, or is there a limit to
the number of times?

I can see getting the upgrade as you mentioned. I dont see myself
ever needing 120 gigs, at least not with Win98. If it was not for the
20gigs of storage (photos, music and downloads) that I keep on the
drives, I could run this whole computer on 10 gigs. Actually, right
now I am using about 8.5gigs on my boot drive. It's my second drive
that contains all the storage. I keep that stuff separate because
that way I can swap that drive to any computer and not have any
programs installed on it, except a few dos programs that will run on
any OS that supports dos.

Since I still got that screwed up 80gig drive, I think I am going to
try one of those low level format programs on it. It's junk anyhow,
so what the heck can I lose.

Thanks to everyone for the help

George

That drive did register the full capacity, so I guess that explains
that......
You do back up your data, don't you?
 
K

kony

My bios was upgraded before I bought this computer. It's a 2005
upgrade. Can these be upgraded over and over, or is there a limit to
the number of times?


In that case, you probably have the latest bios, as it is
unlikely they were still updating bios for a Pentium 3 era
system after 2005. A confirmation would be to write down
the bios version displayed on the POST screen when the
system is turned on, or perhaps in the bios menu, then
compare to what is available from IBM's website.


I can see getting the upgrade as you mentioned. I dont see myself
ever needing 120 gigs, at least not with Win98. If it was not for the
20gigs of storage (photos, music and downloads) that I keep on the
drives, I could run this whole computer on 10 gigs. Actually, right
now I am using about 8.5gigs on my boot drive. It's my second drive
that contains all the storage. I keep that stuff separate because
that way I can swap that drive to any computer and not have any
programs installed on it, except a few dos programs that will run on
any OS that supports dos.


Perhaps, but data access on the outer tracks of a drive is
much faster, the best performance comes from having a drive
that is far less than half full. Further, more performance
comes from higher drive platter rotational speed, higher
drive platter data density, and often with the transistion
of an old drive having smaller cache memory to a modern one,
multiple times more of that cache memory.

Supposing someone had 5GB total in files on their drive.
Using a modern 500GB HDD it would probably be about 3 times
as fast as your 20GB drive was. However, when I had
initially made the suggestion I was unaware that you paid
such a low price for a new 80GB, and still I don't know the
age of the 40GB, as ultimately the age may be the most
important factor as it effects remaining, expected lifespan.

In other words if it has less than 1/3rd of it's lifespan
left but doesn't cost less than 1/3rd of the cost of a new
drive, and is slower, and you end up having to replace it
again sooner (involving the time and system downtime, and
possibly data loss as a result), then the cost savings might
be offset by these factors.
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

philo

kony said:
In that case, you probably have the latest bios, as it is
unlikely they were still updating bios for a Pentium 3 era
system after 2005. A confirmation would be to write down
the bios version displayed on the POST screen when the
system is turned on, or perhaps in the bios menu, then
compare to what is available from IBM's website.





Perhaps, but data access on the outer tracks of a drive is
much faster, the best performance comes from having a drive
that is far less than half full. Further, more performance
comes from higher drive platter rotational speed, higher
drive platter data density, and often with the transistion
of an old drive having smaller cache memory to a modern one,
multiple times more of that cache memory.

Supposing someone had 5GB total in files on their drive.
Using a modern 500GB HDD it would probably be about 3 times
as fast as your 20GB drive was. However, when I had
initially made the suggestion I was unaware that you paid
such a low price for a new 80GB, and still I don't know the
age of the 40GB, as ultimately the age may be the most
important factor as it effects remaining, expected lifespan.

In other words if it has less than 1/3rd of it's lifespan
left but doesn't cost less than 1/3rd of the cost of a new
drive, and is slower, and you end up having to replace it
again sooner (involving the time and system downtime, and
possibly data loss as a result), then the cost savings might
be offset by these factors.


BTW: Don't try to install one of these

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/30/ancient-harddrive-gu.html
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top