Re: 200G.B hardisk
From: Art (noonehere_at_longone.net)
Date: 07/18/04
- Next message: Justin: "adsl modem problem"
- Previous message: Nathan McNulty: "Re: Gigabyte motherboard"
- In reply to: Nathan McNulty: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Next in thread: Eric P.: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Reply: Eric P.: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:16:24 -0400
Nathan:
Please see my comments following the end of this posting...
Art
"Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:usw5iSPbEHA.212@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I've got two things to add.
>
> First off, the OP never said he had SP1 installed:
>
> i have 200G.B Seagate ide hard disk when i start windows
> xp instalation its shows only 128G.B but in BIOS its shows
> 200G.B and i tried in the other way in administrative
> tools then also its shows 128 gb only so will u please
> give the right solution for this i will wait for u r reaply
> my email address is <email>
>
> It only shows 128 GB because his installation disk is not slipstreamed
> (integrated) with Service Pack 1.
>
> Now if you have a slipstreamed version of XP, I agree that you will
> always see the full capacity of a drive over 127GB as long as it meets
> the requirements, but I have seen two cases so far where upon installing
> XP Gold, it did not recognize it and after patching to SP1, it still
> did not recognize the full size. I have built and deployed over a
> hundred computers and this has only happened to me twice.
>
> Second, if you want to enable the full capacity in XP Gold, then you can
> use that link mentioned for enabling 48bit LBA, though this is not
> recommended or supported. You really should keep your computer current
> with the latest Service Packs and updates.
>
> ----
> Nathan McNulty
>
>
> Art wrote:
> > "Tom" <no-way@not-here.com> wrote in message
> > news:eWi6NyMbEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Art" <noonehere@longone.net> wrote in message
> > news:ugRuZmMbEHA.1292@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>"Tom" <no-way@not-here.com> wrote in message
> >>news:O4g3EtKbEHA.2340@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >>"Tom" <no-way@not-here.com> wrote in message news:...
> >>
> >>"Nathan McNulty" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:elS4yfKbEHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >>
> >>>This is because the version of Windows you are installing is Windows XP
> >>>Gold. You must have Windows XP Service Pack 1 installed to see drives
> >>>larger than 127 GB. There is a workaround to have the full capacity in
> >>>XP Gold, but I highly suggest updating to Service Pack 1.
> >>>
> >>>Click Start-Programs-Internet Explorer-Tools-Windows Update-Find and
> >>>Install Service Pack 1a.
> >>
> >>One does need SP1 to be able to use drives over 137gigs in XP, but will
> >>still need to make changes in the registry for the changes to take
effect.
> >>
> >>"How to enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing support for ATAPI disk
> >
> > drives
> >
> >>in Windows XP"
> >>
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013
> >>
> >>Sorry!
> >>
> >>Tom:
> >>Don't be sorry.
> >
> >
> > I wasn't sorry for posting the link, rather for not posting in the
previous
> > post I made with that reference.
> >
> >
> >>But this is simply not true for what I would guess would be
> >>99.9% of XP users.
> >
> >
> > Do a search on Google groups for them many seeking how to remedy this
kind
> > of situation, it doesn't refelct the % you give !
> >
> >
> >>There are two requirements for the XP system to
> >>recognize large-capacity disks, i.e., disks whose capacity is greater
than
> >>137 GB.
> >
> >
> > And this is what the OP ask, as he has (and stated) a 200gig hard drive?
> >
> >
> >>1. The motherboard's BIOS recognizes large-capacity disks (and every
> >>motherboard that I'm aware of manufactured during the past 2 1/2 years
> >
> > meets
> >
> >>this requirement).
> >>2. SP1 has been installed.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the OP stated SP1 was installed, and most MOBOs over the past 3
years
> > will handle drives this large.
> >
> >
> >>There are some very unusual circumstances under which the registry will
> >
> > also
> >
> >>have to be modified as detailed in that MS Knowledge Base article 303013
> >>that you refer to. A careful reading of that KB article will indicate
> >
> > those
> >
> >>circumstances. But for the overwhelming majority of XP users,
modification
> >>of the registry is unnecessary.
> >
> >
> > In his case it is, as Windows still reads disk size and usage in data
form,
> > and the BIOS has no control over Windows, and as Windows has no control
over
> > the BIOS. He clearly stated that the BIOS is set to recognize, and it
does,
> > his 200gig drive, now it is a Windows issue with SP1 installed that the
> > correct size is not seen, he needs to make changes to the registry.
Maybe
> > SP2 will automatically do this from now on, with the 48bit LBA issue on
> > drives larger than 137gigs. Again, if you do a search, you'll see this
is a
> > comon issue, and not the over 99% you think this doesn't apply.
> >
> >
> >>The most practical way of getting around the large-disk capacity barrier
> >>should the user's BIOS not support this is to install a controller card
> >>which supports large-capacity disks.
> >
> >
> > Read the OP, and you'll see that he stated that it is set in his BIOS
and
> > seen there.
> >
> >
> >>And every controller card on the market
> >>today (AFAIK) does support large-capacity disks.
> >
> >
> > Yes, they do, and almost all really good brands going back 2 years.
> >
> > Tom:
> > I think I have deciphered your response accurately as I respond to your
> > remarks, but in the event that I haven't, please forgive me.
> >
> > It every case that I've come across, both personally and based on
> > information gleaned from those I perceive to be accurate sources, when a
> > user reported that his or her XP system did not recognize their
> > large-capacity disks even though they had a motherboard whose BIOS
supported
> > such disks and had installed SP1, it turned out that this simply wasn't
the
> > case. In some instances the BIOS did NOT support large-capacity disks,
> > contrary to what the user thought. In other cases incorrect jumper
settings
> > on the hard disk negated its ability to be recognized at its full
capacity.
> > In still other cases the user had unknowingly changed a relevant BIOS
> > setting on the motherboard limiting its ability to recognize
large-capacity
> > disks. In still other cases SP1 had either not been installed (again,
> > contrary to what the user had reported) or had been a faulty
installation.
> >
> > In no case that I've ever come across or am aware of where the
motherboard's
> > BIOS truly supported large-capacity disks and SP1 was properly installed
was
> > there ever any need for registry modification as outlined in that KB
article
> > 303013 except in that tiny fragment of situations that the article
details.
> >
> > Art
Nathan:
With all due respect, it is getting nearly impossible to follow this thread
when you top-post. And I am at a nearly complete loss in understanding your
comments in response to mine. We just don't seem to be truly communicating
with each other. More's the pity, but let me reiterate what I've stated
before, and give it one last shot...
The full capacity of a hard disk greater than 137 GB will be recognized by
XP as long as three basic conditions are met:
1. The motherboard's BIOS recognizes large-capacity disks, and no changes to
the BIOS setting relevant to this recognition have been made by the user.
2. SP 1 has been successfully installed either concurrently with the XP OS
or following the original (non-SP1) version of XP.
3. The user has installed the subject hard drive correctly, i.e., he or she
has not unknowingly changed the jumper settings on the drive to limit its
full capacity.
That's it. Yes, it is true that even with the above conditions met, there
are a tiny handful of cases where a registry change indicated in KB 303013
will be necessary for the XP OS to recognize large-capacity disks, but the
occurrence of such is so rare that you can make a reasonable assumption that
it will not apply to any poster to this newsgroup. It is necessary to read
that KB article carefully to ascertain under what highly-specialized
circumstances a registry change is necessary.
The bottom line is that it is unnecessary (and potentially dangerous) for
virtually every user to modify one's registry in order to enable 48-bit LBA
support for large-capacity drives.
Art
- Next message: Justin: "adsl modem problem"
- Previous message: Nathan McNulty: "Re: Gigabyte motherboard"
- In reply to: Nathan McNulty: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Next in thread: Eric P.: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Reply: Eric P.: "Re: 200G.B hardisk"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
