I thought you said a few days ago you were now getting somewhere around ~240gb? Sure, if you're only getting 127gb, then something IS wrong, and like I've been saying, that's going to be a limitation of either your mobo's BIOS, the mobo itself, or the OS you're using.
Your HD *is* "ULTRA", it's either UDMA133 or SATA, depending on the Maxtor model #. Is it IDE or SATA? If it's 250gb then I believe it would have to be a Diamondmax 10 and SATA. Unless you have some really old mobo, it is ALSO "Ultra", be it UDMA33 or up to UDMA133, or SATA. ATA66 is UDMA4, ATA100 is UDMA5, ATA133 is UDMA6, and like I said yesterday these #'s after "ATA" or "UDMA" designates the maximum burst rates in transfer speeds across the bus, and they are all "Ultra". Using the 100MB/sec speed as an example: Ultra ATA100, ATA100, Ultra DMA100, UDMA100, ATA5, and UDMA5 all mean the same thing; a HD that is capable of 100MB/sec maximum burst transfer speeds. You never posted your OS or mobo brand/model. I believe only Win2k and XP will support HD's larger than 137gb. If you have a really old mobo it may only support PIO mode instead of UltraDMA, which could make a difference and in that case you'd have to use an add-in PCI UDMA/ATA133 or SATA controller card that would support 48bit LBA and give you the total capacity of the HD, but your mobo would have to have the option of booting off the controller card if it's going to be your OS drive. If your mobo does support UDMA, your BIOS might be set to PIO mode instead of UDMA on the Maxtor's controller. Also like I mentioned, your mobo's BIOS may not be capable of supporting large drives, and you can possibly use the Maxtor software and their "EZ BIOS" version to get the drive's capacity. Or, like I also mentioned you can partition it. This may (or may not) shed some light on things. It's rather outdated though. http://thef-nym.sci.kun.nl/cgi-pieterh/atazip/atafq-2.html This has a bit more info. http://www.qdi.nl/support/comp05.htm (BTW, it's about 77 cents CAN to USD). ;-) -Clint God Bless Clint Hamilton, Owner http://OrpheusComputing.com ) ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In a message dated 8/21/2004 5:53:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, orpheuscomputing.com writes: > Dale, you're not reading my posts. I am to!! ;-) I answered that in the email below > to which you replied. > >You'll never get 250gb out of it, but you certainly should get > >quite a bit more than 127-137gb; assuming your OS, file system, > >and motherboard's BIOS support the 250gb drive size > > I'll try this again. Even if you have an mobo, BIOS, and OS that will > support a single partitioned HD that's 250gb in size, it will never show > that > amount under "My computer" or anywhere else you see the HD listed in Windows > due to the differences in drive labeling in DOS bytes as compared to bytes > in > Windows, and formatting. I think you mentioned it's now showing 240gb in > Windows, and I said that's probably about right. Aha!!!! NOW who's not reading who's posts? I said I SHOULD be getting something like 247, but all I can get is 127. 127 is just a hair over half of the capacity I SHOULD be getting. I said yesterday that I > THINK it's 1008 bytes DOS = 1000 bytes in > Windows, but like Steve said, he thinks it's 1024 bytes which it may be. I had "8" > stuck in my head from > converting Kbits/sec and KBytes/sec in transfer speeds for modems. (8 bits > = 1 byte). Okay, but it doesn't make a diddly damn bit of difference, I'm STILL only getting 127 gig out of a 250 drive. Those minor amounts in difference that you're talking about are like saying the drive is 250 gig in DOS which is equal to 252 gig in Windows. If all I was short was 1 or 3 gig I wouldn't really give a damn, but we're talking about nearly half of the disc capacity. A Canadian dollar is worth something like 98 cents. If someone pays me 1 Canadian dollar I'll still treat it like it was worth 100 pennies. I'm not the least bit worried about getting screwed out of those two pennies. But if the Canadian dollar was worth 52 cents, you can bet your parents that I'd be very concerned over the loss I'd take if I accepted that bill as 100 pennies. So if I'm only losing a few gig on the deal, no big fat hairy deal. But I'm losing 123 gig!! That's just rediculous!! If I wanted a 127 gig drive I'd've bought a 130 gig drive and saved myself about $120.00 in the bargain. I have no idea how much an Ultra ATA will cost, but I have a feeling I'm gonna get rooked again just so I can get the full 250 (give or take a few gig) out of this drive. > Ultra ATA isn't going to change anything. The instructions that came with the drive say it will help give me the 250 gig. My friend, Ed, a registered computer techie also says the Ultra ATA will give me the 250. There was "ultra" ATA since > UDMA33. They are all considered "ultra". > They were once called UDMA33, UDMA66, UDMA100 and UDMA133, but the "UDMA" was > replaced with "ATA". The "U" in "UDMA" stands for "Ultra", and the "DMA" is > Direct Memory Access. The suffix numbers indicate the maximum burst transfer > speeds in MB/sec. At this point in time, I don't really understand this. I > probably will in the future (I didn't get Rubic's cube when it first came, > but I learned how to solve it and can now solve half of it without even looking > at it), but, for now, you're talking some foreign language I've never even > heard of. > > Ok, I found this. http://www.smartftp.com/support/kb/index.php/53 You can > see the area about 8 bits equaling 1 byte, and the 1024 bytes equaling 1KB, > or 1000 bytes in Windows. > > "How many bytes are in a kilobyte (KB)? One may think it's 1000 bytes, but > its really 1024. Why is this so? It turns out that our early computer > engineers [who used DOS], who dealt with the tiniest amounts of storage, > noticed that 2^10 (1024) was very close to 10^3 (1000); so based on the > prefix kilo, for 1000, they created the KB. (You may have heard of > kilometers > (Km) which is 1000 meters). So in actuality, one KB is really 1024 bytes, > not > 1000. It's a small difference, but it adds up over a while." But not THAT much. > > I think this works out to about 244gb for your 250gb HD. So 240gb may be > about right after formatting. If all I can get is 240 or 244 I'll be happy with that, I understand that I'm losing some because of programming or whatever, but I'm STILL only getting 127. That's a LOOOONG way off from 240/44. Dale ============= PCWorks Mailing List ================= Don't see your post? Check our posting guidelines & make sure you've followed proper posting procedures, http://pcworkers.com/rules.htm Contact list owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribing and other changes: http://pcworkers.com =====================================================
