Go Back   Rage3D » Rage3D Discussion Area » Gaming and Computing Forums » General Hardware
Rage3D Subscribe Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General Hardware Talk about PCs/Macs, motherboards, CPUs, sound cards, RAM, hard drives, networking and everything else about computer hardware!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 22, 2003, 07:42 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default 200GB hard drives not supported by windows????....

i saw a 200GB western digital hard drive at bestbuy for $180 after rebates, and i was thnking of getting it, but then my friend mentioned to me that he heard windows doesn't support more than 137GB or something like UNLESS you use some special ide controller card. is this true? seemed wierd to me, but then i noticed that the hard drive came with an ata100 controller card.
does this mean that i need to use that card, or is it meant for older motherboards? it might not be listed in my sig, but i have a Abit NF7-S nForce2 mobo. please clear this up for me, i dont understand it at all.
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 08:04 PM   #2
night
Radeon Arctic Islands
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: houston
Posts: 10,667
night can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultynight can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

not really a big deal unless ur pvr recording.
__________________
However, I am in the extreme minority, and I understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with me
night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 08:34 PM   #3
Gandalfthewhite
Hardware Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States Middle Earth also known as AZ
Posts: 9,236
Gandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled withGandalfthewhite is not someone to be trifled with


Subscriber
Default

fat 32 cannot use more than 137 but ntfs supports up to a few terabytes if memory serves me right and it usally does so if u run ntfs ure fine
__________________
Main rig: look at system spec tab
Storage Server: Dual AMD Opteron 6120 CPUs, 64Gigs ECC Ram 50TB usable space across 3 zfs2 pools


HOURGLASS = most appropriate named ICON/CURSOR in the Windows world :-)

In a dank corner of ATI central, the carpet covered with corn flakes, the faint sound of clicking can be heard........Click......click, click............as the fate of the graphics world and the future of the human race hangs in the balance.

I know....I know........Keep my day job :-)- catcather
Gandalfthewhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement (Guests Only)
Login or Register to remove this ad
Old Apr 22, 2003, 08:48 PM   #4
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Gandalfthegrey
fat 32 cannot use more than 137 but ntfs supports up to a few terabytes if memory serves me right and it usally does so if u run ntfs ure fine
cool, i only use ntfs anyways, i figured it can't be true that windows doesn't support more, but i'm obviosly not that bright, lol.
thanks for the help.
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 09:36 PM   #5
NameHere
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 140
NameHere is still being judged by the masses


Default

I have the 200gb WD 8mb cache drive. I can only use it with the supplied controller card. It isn't a big deal. But otherwise, Windows only sees 137gb.
NameHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 09:52 PM   #6
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NameHere
I have the 200gb WD 8mb cache drive. I can only use it with the supplied controller card. It isn't a big deal. But otherwise, Windows only sees 137gb.
are you using FAT32 or NTFS? if i use the supplied card, do i have to use the supplied cable? i have rounded cables and would prefer to use them.
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 09:59 PM   #7
NameHere
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 140
NameHere is still being judged by the masses


Default

Of course I use NTFS ! And you don't need to use the cables. I am using round cables, myself.
NameHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 10:01 PM   #8
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NameHere
Of course I use NTFS ! And you don't need to use the cables. I am using round cables, myself.
i just didn't want the extra clutter of another card in my case, but oh well, 200gb is my reward for the extra hassle, lol. i'm off to bestbuy tomorrow to pick up the drive.
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 10:02 PM   #9
kbleft
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ATi bandwagon
Posts: 1,873
kbleft is still being judged by the masses


Default

The 200 gb maxtor drives come with the controller card necessary to access the full size of the hard drive. No need to worry in any situation.
kbleft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 22, 2003, 10:37 PM   #10
citywok
Radeon Caribbean Islands
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,486
citywok is still being judged by the masses


Default

FWIW
i have 4x 80's (WD Spec) on a fast trak promise controller at 0+1 and get about 150gb usable w/out a problem using NTFS ofcourse, its used for exchange and SQL server in a 10user environment.

Andrew
citywok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2003, 01:52 AM   #11
FireRulez
Radeon R200
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 96
FireRulez is still being judged by the masses


Default

im actually having this problem right now... i have the drive just plugged into my mobo and when i went to put xp on it it only found 137GB. its kinda weird because when i goto device manager in xp and goto the HD properties and click the volume tab it says my HD capacity is 190780MB this boggles my mind but oh well i guess i gotta put the drive on the card... is there any sort of bottleneck using the card?
__________________
|XP 3000+|ASUS A7N8X Deluxe|AIW9700Pro|1gig of Samsung PC2700|WD 200GB SE with 8MB Cache|Audigy 2 Platinum|Toshiba 12x DVD|Custom 4" Color LCD on the front|Custom Water Cooling|AMS gTower Case|
FireRulez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2003, 02:55 AM   #12
kbleft
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ATi bandwagon
Posts: 1,873
kbleft is still being judged by the masses


Default

no bottleneck. It will have the same or better performance than your regular ide connection.
kbleft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2003, 10:23 AM   #13
Lupine
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United States Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 32,361
Lupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at bestLupine considers Jack Bauer an amateur at best


Default

This issue has to do with 48-bit Logical Block Addressing, and is discussed in this Microsoft KBA.

I went through the same confusion when I purchased my WD2000JB, and there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Basically, you need three things to configure XP to access >137GB hard disks:

1. 48-bit LBA compatible bios OR a separate add-in card.
2. hard disk with >137GB capacity (duh!)
3. XP SP1

If you have all of the above, perform the following steps to enable 48-bit support:

1. Start a registry editor (e.g., regedit.exe).
2. Navigate to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters registry subkey.
3. From the Edit menu, select New, DWORD Value.
4. Enter a name of EnableBigLba, then press Enter.
5. Double-click the new value, set it to 1, then click OK.
6. Reboot the machine for the changes to take effect.

A few notes:

I have heard that this issue only applies to the system partition, so if you have a <137GB system partition, you do not need to enable 48-bit addressing. This is possible, since the OS effectively sees multiple partitions as multiple drives. I can say that I am running my system with three partitions, including a 25GB system partition, and do NOT have 48-bit enabled and am having no issues. YMMV so make sure you have backed up, which you should do anyway if you plan to mess with the registry.

Also, since enabling 48-bit support REQUIRES XP SP-1, you may have difficulties performing fresh installs without a slipstreamed copy of XP & SP1. One workaround might be to partition the drive prior to installing.

As far as bios support, I had to use the bundled controller card with my "old" MSI K7T 266 Pro2 RU (Via KT266A chipset), but do not need it with my current nForce2 board.

Good luck!
Lupine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2003, 03:15 PM   #14
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

i got the hard drive, i installed it without using the supplied controller card, and it works. windows see's it as a 200gb and not a 137gb.
7up1n3, should i still do the necessary steps to enable 48bit block addressing?

got another question, i looked in device manager to check and see what DMA modes all my drives were at, and for some reason both hard drives, the dvd rom, and cd-rw were shown as being scsi, wtf? they are all ide drives, i'm sure it has to do with the mobo, but i am not sure,
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2003, 01:03 AM   #15
ip_freely
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: your moms bed
Posts: 837
ip_freely is still being judged by the masses


Default

the problem is NOT windows!!!

the ide specs are only designed for up to 133GB!!!

scsi is the best choice


dunno if SATA has this issue.
ip_freely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2003, 01:46 AM   #16
Bigfoot
Rag Doll
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United States Murika
Posts: 2,087
Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'Bigfoot once won a refrigerator on 'The Price is Right'


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by slick
i got the hard drive, i installed it without using the supplied controller card, and it works. windows see's it as a 200gb and not a 137gb.
7up1n3, should i still do the necessary steps to enable 48bit block addressing?

got another question, i looked in device manager to check and see what DMA modes all my drives were at, and for some reason both hard drives, the dvd rom, and cd-rw were shown as being scsi, wtf? they are all ide drives, i'm sure it has to do with the mobo, but i am not sure,
It's a problem with nvidia's propiety IDE drivers. I'm guessing when you installed the drivers for the board you selected the "special" set. Either way it doesn't matter: I have the same thing and all works fine

Your only concern should be whether or not your CD-Writing software still works of not. I have to update to Nero 5.5 from 5.0 for my drive to be recognized.

In other words, they still are IDE drives, but the drivers from nVidia are recognized as SCSI.
__________________
“Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”
― Alanis Obomsawin
Bigfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2003, 09:03 AM   #17
Nazgul
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Minas Morgul
Posts: 1,946
Nazgul is still being judged by the masses


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by slick
are you using FAT32 or NTFS? if i use the supplied card, do i have to use the supplied cable? i have rounded cables and would prefer to use them.
The 137GB limitaion is not a FAT vs. NTFS thing, it's an IDE thing. The original specs for IDE allocated a certain number of bits for LBA, resulting in a maximum drive size of 137GB. 48-bit LBA increases this maximum quite a bit, but if the OS doesn't already support 48-bit LBA it will only see a 137GB drive. The reason some controllers are able to get around this is because they only appear as IDE to the drives. To the system they look like SCSI controllers, and since SCSI doesn't have the same size limitation, Windows can talk to the >137GB drive just fine.
__________________
"The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. 'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade."
Nazgul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2003, 01:34 PM   #18
slick
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United States Oklahoma
Posts: 1,997
slick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultyslick can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default

cool, i understand this stuff now, thats why i love this board

all my drives are seen as scsi, but they all work fine, so i guess i'm good.
i partitioned the 200gb so that it might make it easier on windows, i guess that really isn't necessary, but its also easier for me to manage a couple smaller partitions rather than one large one.
thanks for the help guys, i appreciate it (and i appreciate your patience with me).
slick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
URGENT: 42cent 200GB Drives! UDHA Off Topic Lounge 69 Aug 15, 2006 07:16 PM
Windows and Hard Drives sumpwa Operating Systems 4 Aug 15, 2005 09:59 AM
Reinstalling Windows, I Have 2 Hard Drives. Help! mdisa76 General Hardware 20 Mar 7, 2005 11:21 PM
Anyone looking to buy a 200GB hard drive? MysticKiller General Hardware 7 Aug 5, 2004 11:15 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com
Links monetized by VigLink