Re: 200G.B hardisk

From: Eric P. (Eric.P_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 07/18/04 

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:31:08 +0200

There is no real reason not to top-post.
It is just a matter of personal preference and no USENET rule.
If many lines of old text are requoted again and again, like you did,
it's easy to see top-posting is superior.

Art wrote:
> 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

Loading