Support NeoGAF

[Artificial Meat]

I've been using a 160GB hard drive (Samsung, cheapest one i could find then) that I bought about 5 months ago. I knew about the 137gig limit and assumed that on my OS (win xp, no service pack) it would show up as 137GB instead of 160GB (or 150 after formatting; every hard drive seems to shrink down a few gigabytes). But instead, it showed up as full 155 gig or so (don't remember the exact amount, but it was way more than 137). btw, I connected it to my built-in RAID slots on the motherboard. Anyway, I assumed that the RAID took care of that 137gig limit so I decided used it to full capacity. And a few weeks later, i decided to move the hard drive from RAID to the normal IDE channels (set it as second primary master).

I had to do some video capture from a DV camcorder last week, so I put the captured files on this hard drive (used about 70 gigs for 5 tapes total) and I did some editting and stuff (i'm guessing about 40-50 gigs for this). After I was done with all the editting, I rendered it to another file. Well, I guess the final rendered file made it go over the 137 gig because I couldn't gain access to the hard drive anymore (thank God I backed up most of the important files on that hard drive, besides all the project files for video editting). I learned that I couldn't use that 160gig hard drive to its full capacity the hard way...

So, the question is, if i partition the 160 gig to two 80 gigs, will I be able to use the entire hard drive? Sorry, the story was a bit too long for such a short question. I just wanted to give you a complete story.

 

[Hitokage]

A HD marketed as 160GB is really 149gb. 1000 vs. 1024 sized units and all.

 

[WasabiKing]

it has to do with his mobo's BIOS. Have you considered looking to see if your motherboard's manufacturer has a BIOS update?

 

[BuddyC]

The answer to your short question is a no. Even though it sounds like a good idea, the motherboard would still be reading the drive as one platter, and there's no way around the problem if it can't handle the addressing scheme used for that extra 23 GB.

Earlier this year, I purchased a 160 GB Seagate drive. Depending on when your motherboard was made, it might not be able to support drives beyond 137 GB, and thus, any drive greater than 137 GB will be limited to, you guesed it, 137 GB. Generally, the best thing to do is to check and see if there's an upgrade for your MB that supports the larger drives.

So when I plugged in my HD, I wasn't that shocked to see that it was read at 137 GB in Windows. My BIOS, however, read it at the full 160 GB. I ended up having to install the software that came with the drive for Windows to take advantage of the extra space.

In conclusion, check the documentation that came with the drive, install any software that came with it, update Windows (this can also be a problem, some versions of Windows don't support 160 GB), check your BIOS/Motherboard, etc.

 

[Artificial Meat]

Yes. My motherboard's BIOS is up to date as of now. It can see the hard drive and recognize it by its full capacity (both during boot up and in Windows). Anyways, I just partitioned it in half, one with 74.4 gigs and the other with 74.5 gigs. I just hope that it doesn't crap out on me again. I probably should have partitioned it in two from the beginning; careless, obvious, and stupid mistake by me

 

[BuddyC]

Well, it sounds like every worked out (before I even contributed, to boot). Good to hear.

 

[Artificial Meat]

Well, it sounds like every worked out (before I even contributed, to boot). Good to hear.

well, thanks anyway. I still have to see if it'll work correctly (it might stop working again if the combined usage of both partitions exceed 137 gigs, which is what happened last time but one partition instead of two)

 

[Anthropic]

Windows XP can't see above the 137GB limit unless you have at least Service Pack 1.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

^^

Bullshit. You speaketh out of your ass.

I have an old as dirt XP disc that I used just this weekend. My 200GB Seagate comes up as 187GB or something like that.

I don't install service packs.

 

[ChrisReid]

^^

Bullshit. You speaketh out of your ass.

I have an old as dirt XP disc that I used just this weekend. My 200GB Seagate comes up as 187GB or something like that.

I don't install service packs.

It's partially true.. you either need SP1 OR one of the promise PCI IDE addon cards (or similar). If your 137+ gig hard drive is plugged into such a card, it'll be seen fully by windows without the service pack.

 

[Anthropic]

Here's MS's article on the subject:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013

 

[automagnus]

Yes I have that Hard Drive too. You need to use SP1 and then it will show up as 155 GB or 157BG (which is what should be).

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Hmmm...

Come to think of it, I had the 200GB drive in a USB external enclosure. Would that be why it recognized the drive properly?

I now have it in the rig and don't think I checked the partition size since...

Sh!t. I'll look when I get home.

For the original release version of Windows XP Home Edition or of Windows XP Professional, you can enable 48-bit LBA for testing purposes. To do this, set the EnableBigLba registry value to 1 in the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters\
Warning Data corruption may occur if either of the following conditions is true:• You use this registry value to enable 48-bit LBA support in the original release version of Windows XP Home Edition or of Windows XP Professional.
• You install an earlier version of Windows on a disk partition that was previously created by a 48-bit aware operating system, such as Windows XP SP1. And that disk partition is equal to or larger than the current addressable limit of 137 GB.
Note The previous registry setting is ignored in Windows XP SP1 and later. If you try to enable the 48-bit LBA ATAPI support in the original release version of Windows XP Home Edition or of Windows XP Professional by editing the previous registry setting, and you did not meet the minimum requirements, the following issues may occur: • The registry value EnableBigLba is disabled. If you have a 48-bit compatible BIOS that can support a hard disk that has a capacity that is greater than 137 GB, only the first 137 GB of the hard disk are addressable. The rest of the hard disk is not used.
• The registry value EnableBigLba is enabled, but you do not have a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS and the capacity of the hard disk is not greater than 137 GB.

If you enable the 48-bit LBA ATAPI support by editing the registry setting, but you lack both a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS and a hard disk that has a capacity that is see comment than 137 GB, you have not changed the system. The hard disk continues to function as a standard hard disk.
• The registry value EnableBigLba is enabled without a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS, but you have a hard disk with a capacity that is larger than 137 GB.

If you enable 48-bit ATAPI support in the registry and you have a hard disk that has a capacity that is see comment than 137 GB, but you do not have a 48-bit LBA compatible BIOS, only the first 137 GB of the hard disk are addressable. The remainder of the hard disk is not used.

Can't I just do that? I guess I just run the risk of corrupting my data... Quite the risk me thinks.

 

[D'ultimate]

I bought a Seagate 200GB that only showed up as 127GB.

No Service Packs. Any suggestions?

 

[DaCocoBrova]

I have that same Seagate, and my SP-less XP install that I just did on Saturday, registers as 187GB. Well over this supposed limit.

What'supwiththat? Not that I'm complaining...

Edit: I just checked the registry key mentioned above and there's no reference to LBA anything in there...

Odd.

 

[Shogmaster]

^^

Bullshit. You speaketh out of your ass.

I have an old as dirt XP disc that I used just this weekend. My 200GB Seagate comes up as 187GB or something like that.

I don't install service packs.

No service packs?!? Well, good luck to you. But then again, no service packs usually means cracked copies of Windows, so.......

 

[Che]

Update your Bios.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

No service packs?!? Well, good luck to you. But then again, no service packs usually means cracked copies of Windows, so.......

FYI - You can manually update your sh!t without service packs.

 

[D'ultimate]

What is this "manual install" you speak of, Sir?

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Hotfixes and critical updates. That coupled w/ a hardware and software firewalls and up-to-date virus software kept my network safe...thus far.

 

[Shogmaster]

FYI - You can manually update your sh!t without service packs.

Oh shit, I misunderstood. I thought you don't do any updates at all. Nevermind.