Can I add a 160Gb harddrive?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
settings and displays, but nothing.

Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?

 

[hh]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to allow
installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted. You're
probably limited to the 120GB drives.
HH

"Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
> bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
> but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
> diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
> settings and displays, but nothing.
>
> Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
> with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

hi ,
you should be able to partition and format the disk for win me with
the utilities available from the manufacturer of your drive . the
controller card will offer better performance than the ddo software .
if you don't have an available pci slot the ddo software does work .
I am running western digitals version on my system . i was able to
partition and format my 120 gb drive with 98 using their utility .
hope this helps,
terry

==============
Posted through www.HowToFixComputers.com/bb - free access to hardware troubleshooting newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Thanks HH. It also seems like Compaq is not offering a BIOS upgrade to
this system that does support LBA .

1. So what if I upgrade to XP - does that have native 48 bit LBA
regardless of my BIOS or IDE controller?

2. It appears that Seagate offers this DDO (Dynamic Drive Overlay).
From what I can best tell, it gets around the lack of LBA support in
the BIOS, but I'm still confused about the Win ME OS in this case. Any
ideas?

3. Would buying a ATA PCI controller card fix the problem for LBA
support without any other changes?


HH wrote:

> I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to allow
> installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted. You're
> probably limited to the 120GB drives.
> HH
>
> "Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
>>bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
>>but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
>>diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
>>settings and displays, but nothing.
>>
>>Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
>>with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

"Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yr_Vc.6559$QJ3.4046@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Thanks HH. It also seems like Compaq is not offering a BIOS upgrade to
> this system that does support LBA .
>
> 1. So what if I upgrade to XP - does that have native 48 bit LBA
> regardless of my BIOS or IDE controller?

No

>
> 2. It appears that Seagate offers this DDO (Dynamic Drive Overlay). From
> what I can best tell, it gets around the lack of LBA support in the BIOS,
> but I'm still confused about the Win ME OS in this case. Any ideas?
>

Works, slowly


> 3. Would buying a ATA PCI controller card fix the problem for LBA support
> without any other changes?
>

Yes


>
> HH wrote:
>
>> I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to
>> allow
>> installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted.
>> You're
>> probably limited to the 120GB drives.
>> HH
>>
>> "Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
>>>bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
>>>but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
>>>diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
>>>settings and displays, but nothing.
>>>
>>>Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
>>>with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

For the long haul, you are 1000% better off with an ATA PCI controller card than
mucking around with DDO or similar software kludges. I've had a system here for
service with WD's EZ-Drive (like DDO) installed. What a pain in the butt to do
something so simple as reinstall Windows! Invest the $30 or so in the short
term to save many dollars and headaches in the long term... Ben Myers

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 10:20:14 GMT, Boenospam <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote:

>Thanks HH. It also seems like Compaq is not offering a BIOS upgrade to
>this system that does support LBA .
>
>1. So what if I upgrade to XP - does that have native 48 bit LBA
>regardless of my BIOS or IDE controller?
>
>2. It appears that Seagate offers this DDO (Dynamic Drive Overlay).
> From what I can best tell, it gets around the lack of LBA support in
>the BIOS, but I'm still confused about the Win ME OS in this case. Any
>ideas?
>
>3. Would buying a ATA PCI controller card fix the problem for LBA
>support without any other changes?
>
>
>HH wrote:
>
>> I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to allow
>> installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted. You're
>> probably limited to the 120GB drives.
>> HH
>>
>> "Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
>>>bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
>>>but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
>>>diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
>>>settings and displays, but nothing.
>>>
>>>Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
>>>with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Tom thanks for your replies - they help.

According to Seagate, the DDO does not affect performance. Here's their
statement on it. So my question back to you is why do you say it's slow?

"... Note: It is a common misonception that the DDO is some kind of memory
resident program or that it has the potential to slow disc access by being
in memory. Like all BIOS routines, the DDo is discarded from memory after
about 4 seconds into the launch of the operating system when the 32-bit
direct access device drivers take over. The DDO exists only to detect
and then present the full capacity of the disc drive to these operating
system device drivers...." Source: www.seagate.com
"Windows 137GB Capacity Barrier Ver 1.0"





Tom Scales wrote:
> "Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:yr_Vc.6559$QJ3.4046@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Thanks HH. It also seems like Compaq is not offering a BIOS upgrade to
>>this system that does support LBA .
>>
>>1. So what if I upgrade to XP - does that have native 48 bit LBA
>>regardless of my BIOS or IDE controller?
>
>
> No
>
>
>>2. It appears that Seagate offers this DDO (Dynamic Drive Overlay). From
>>what I can best tell, it gets around the lack of LBA support in the BIOS,
>>but I'm still confused about the Win ME OS in this case. Any ideas?
>>
>
>
> Works, slowly
>
>
>
>>3. Would buying a ATA PCI controller card fix the problem for LBA support
>>without any other changes?
>>
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>
>>HH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to
>>>allow
>>>installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted.
>>>You're
>>>probably limited to the 120GB drives.
>>>HH
>>>
>>>"Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb 37
>>>>bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing support,
>>>>but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
>>>>diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
>>>>settings and displays, but nothing.
>>>>
>>>>Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
>>>>with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Interesting. I can't imagine how they can magically do address translation
without a performance hit, but.....
"Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjeWc.10305$wP7.758@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Tom thanks for your replies - they help.
>
> According to Seagate, the DDO does not affect performance. Here's their
> statement on it. So my question back to you is why do you say it's slow?
>
> "... Note: It is a common misonception that the DDO is some kind of
> memory
> resident program or that it has the potential to slow disc access by being
> in memory. Like all BIOS routines, the DDo is discarded from memory
> after
> about 4 seconds into the launch of the operating system when the 32-bit
> direct access device drivers take over. The DDO exists only to detect
> and then present the full capacity of the disc drive to these operating
> system device drivers...." Source: www.seagate.com
> "Windows 137GB Capacity Barrier Ver 1.0"
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> "Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:yr_Vc.6559$QJ3.4046@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Thanks HH. It also seems like Compaq is not offering a BIOS upgrade to
>>>this system that does support LBA .
>>>
>>>1. So what if I upgrade to XP - does that have native 48 bit LBA
>>>regardless of my BIOS or IDE controller?
>>
>>
>> No
>>
>>
>>>2. It appears that Seagate offers this DDO (Dynamic Drive Overlay). From
>>>what I can best tell, it gets around the lack of LBA support in the BIOS,
>>>but I'm still confused about the Win ME OS in this case. Any ideas?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Works, slowly
>>
>>
>>
>>>3. Would buying a ATA PCI controller card fix the problem for LBA
>>>support without any other changes?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>>
>>>HH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I doubt a Jan 2001 release PC would have the necessary 48-bit LBA to
>>>>allow
>>>>installation of a drive larger than 127GB, not 137GB, as you noted.
>>>>You're
>>>>probably limited to the 120GB drives.
>>>>HH
>>>>
>>>>"Boenospam" <boebear@ynospamahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eZZVc.6555$QJ3.5032@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to a 7000US system and of course get the full 160Gb (beyond the 137Gb
>>>>>37
>>>>>bit limit)? I understand a system needs to have LBA Addressing
>>>>>support,
>>>>>but I cannot determine if mine has that or not. I've looked at all the
>>>>>diagnostic reporting tools I could find and went through all the BIOS
>>>>>settings and displays, but nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, if I can get the hardware to recognize it, will WinME handle it
>>>>>with FAT32? If not, what XP file system should I be looking at?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

>Interesting. I can't imagine how they can magically do address translation
>without a performance hit, but.....

Perhaps it is just my imagination, but it sure seems our 7240 slowed with
overlay...maybe I'll have a chance to roughly compare in the near future, when
I retask the 7240 and put the smaller HDD back in without overlay...

Dale