j,
Thank you for that link. It crisply explained much of what I stumbled
into. I will just save my 160GB pata drive as a spare for one of my other
running pata systems (using the same 160GB drive).
It seems, from my read, that an "old" 440BX chipset will never
recognize/deal with a drive this large, regardless of Bios (or other)
trickery. Fine. I have been slapped down yet again! I stopped slogging
at it 2 weeks ago. I have not completed the disassembly yet. Let's call it
good, warm, old memories. I may still try my Promise Ultra133-tx2 card;
Just4Grins!!!!!
I have a new toy ATM......(new focus!)....... :)
Rick,
Yes, I do try to keep my old stuff working; when it does not seem to have
visible internal problems. This time, it seems, I was fighting technology
change I had forgotten about over the years since 199x. You win, My
Bad! I get another black star! Jeez........(I sure hope my report card is
private! .... LOL!
Thank you,
Duncan
At 02:29 10/28/2008 -0700, you wrote:
List a Window OS post 9x/me that can't do lba48? Right, none, so a
non-problem with the right add-on controller card w/BIOS.
Random interesting link:
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm
Rick Glazier wrote:
I agreed...
I listed three things and said to stay under 120G to avoid them all...
Then listed the one (the OS) most likely to be a problem.
Rick Glazier
--------------------------------------------------
From: "maccrawj"
UltraATA controller w/ BIOS support for LBA48 trumps system BIOS limits
on size.
Rick Glazier wrote:
Philosophy aside, you can sometimes get a PCI MB to boot from a
UltraATA controller card
and use a HD larger than 137G (or so), but getting the right
combination of MB BIOS booting
options and chipset driver and OS compatibility can be a problem.
Like someone said, if you stay under 120G, you might not trip any
limitations.
(Even the OSs will have HD size limitations...)
Mixing new with old can get messy fast...
