440 chipset and hard drive limitation

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old GA-6BXE
motherboard does not support hard drives larger than 75 GB because
of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.

Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

Mark


BTW the mobo uses the "Intel 82440 BX AGPset" and "iTE 8671 I/Oset"
33 answers Last reply
More about chipset hard drive limitation
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    >Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old GA-6BXE
    >motherboard does not support hard drives larger than 75 GB because
    >of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.
    >
    >Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

    No, it isn't true and Gigabyte knows this!

    I have a Gigabyte GA6BXD running, also with 440BX chipset and it runs
    with my Samsung SP1614N (160GB) very well.

    But You should ensure, that Your OS can handle such drives. For
    Windows XP I gues You have to install the ServicePack 1. Don't know
    with W2K.

    I'm pretty sure, that Your Mobo will support the drive, too, also
    there is only 136GB written in the bios like it is done in my bios,
    too.

    BUT: The BX-chipset isn't very fast for current drives. UDMA33 is much
    to less to let modern drives perform well.

    Moritz
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    Highpoint Rocket 133 dual-channel IDE controller: $30. Can be flashed for
    RAID. RAID 0 for thirty bucks, anyone?

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C1A2DB512A63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old GA-6BXE
    > motherboard does not support hard drives larger than 75 GB because
    > of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.
    >
    > Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
    >
    > BTW the mobo uses the "Intel 82440 BX AGPset" and "iTE 8671 I/Oset"
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:21:41 GMT, "Dave" <whyigetnospam@here.org>
    wrote:

    >Highpoint Rocket 133 dual-channel IDE controller: $30. Can be flashed for
    >RAID. RAID 0 for thirty bucks, anyone?

    How is it flashed? URL?
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C1A2DB512A63A75@130.133.1.4...
    > Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old GA-6BXE
    > motherboard does not support hard drives larger than 75 GB because
    > of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.
    >
    > Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >
    >
    I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs perfectly.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

    >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    >> uses.
    >>
    >> Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >>
    >>
    > I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    > perfectly.


    Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?

    I need to work in something like DOS to do partition copying so the
    OS is not likely to be a workaround in my case.

    Have you had to update the BIOS? If so then to what version?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C286B4F37483A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    > > perfectly.
    >
    >
    > Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?
    >
    There is no such thing as a 75GB barrier. Most 440BX will do 135GB, ancient
    ones will hang over 32GB.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    Try using a hard disk manager / diagnostic tool.
    Download from hard drive manufacturer site.
    Some offer drive tests as well.

    HTH,
    John7


    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote in message
    news:c4rqpe0eok@enews3.newsguy.com...
    >
    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:94C286B4F37483A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    > > > perfectly.
    > >
    > >
    > > Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?
    > >
    > There is no such thing as a 75GB barrier. Most 440BX will do 135GB,
    ancient
    > ones will hang over 32GB.
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C286B4F37483A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
    >
    > >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    > >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    > >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    > >> uses.
    > >>
    > >> Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    > >>
    > >>
    > > I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    > > perfectly.
    >
    >
    > 1) Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?
    >
    > 2) I need to work in something like DOS to do partition copying so the
    > OS is not likely to be a workaround in my case.
    >
    > 3) Have you had to update the BIOS? If so then to what version?
    >
    >
    1) No
    2) One of the drives was partitioned and formatted in FAT32 (using a Win98
    boot floppy) because Norton Ghost versions prior to 2003 could not write to
    NTFS partitions.
    3) Yes, its F1 now.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

    >> >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their
    >> >> old GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives
    >> >> larger than 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX
    >> >> chipset which it uses.
    >> >>
    >> >> Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB
    >> >> limit.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> > I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    >> > perfectly.
    >>
    >>
    >> 1) Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?
    >>
    >> 2) I need to work in something like DOS to do partition
    >> copying so the OS is not likely to be a workaround in my
    >> case.
    >>
    >> 3) Have you had to update the BIOS? If so then to what
    >> version?
    >>
    >>
    > 1) No
    > 2) One of the drives was partitioned and formatted in FAT32
    > (using a Win98 boot floppy) because Norton Ghost versions
    > prior to 2003 could not write to NTFS partitions.
    > 3) Yes, its F1 now.

    Seems that something is wrong with the Gigabyte site then. It
    talks of version F2 of the BIOS update permitting access to disks
    larger than 75 GB.

    By implication version F1 can not do this. In fact this page
    suggests that the whole purpose of version F2 is to provide 75GB
    support.

    http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94C1A2DB512A63A75@130.133.1.4
    > Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old GA-6BXE
    > motherboard does not support hard drives larger than 75 GB because
    > of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.
    >
    > Is this actually true?

    No, and you know that very well.

    > I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

    See?!

    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
    >
    > BTW the mobo uses the "Intel 82440 BX AGPset" and "iTE 8671 I/Oset"
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C344943FFD3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > 2) One of the drives was partitioned and formatted in FAT32
    > > (using a Win98 boot floppy) because Norton Ghost versions
    > > prior to 2003 could not write to NTFS partitions.
    > > 3) Yes, its F1 now.
    >
    > Seems that something is wrong with the Gigabyte site then. It
    > talks of version F2 of the BIOS update permitting access to disks
    > larger than 75 GB.
    >
    > By implication version F1 can not do this. In fact this page
    > suggests that the whole purpose of version F2 is to provide 75GB
    > support.
    >
    > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    >
    >
    That's for your mobo, my one's here:
    http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXDS.htm

    That 75GB limit is strange. Neither a whole binary or decimal representation
    of capacity. The limits were 8GB binary (24 bit LBA), 32GB (Award BIOS),
    64GB (68.72 decimal) (FDISK) and 128GB (137 decimal) (28 bit extended LBA).
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    >> uses.
    >>
    >> Is this actually true?
    >
    > No, and you know that very well.

    I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

    In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
    be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
    addressing limitation.

    Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
    in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:

    http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    Can you read the description for version F2?

    I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
    their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
    do not help. :-)


    >
    >> I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >
    > See?!

    EWr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
    these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
    China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C482717F4A3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    > >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    > >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    > >> uses.
    > >>
    > >> Is this actually true?
    > >
    > > No, and you know that very well.
    >
    > I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)
    >
    > In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
    > be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
    > addressing limitation.
    >
    > Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
    > in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    >
    > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    > Can you read the description for version F2?
    >
    > I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
    > their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
    > do not help. :-)

    Here is everything you need to know about the 440BX chipset:

    http://developer.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/index.htm

    There is a lot of information, so hopefully you will be able to quickly find
    what you're looking for. Good luck.

    Rita
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    > Here is everything you need to know about the 440BX chipset:
    >
    > http://developer.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/index.htm
    >
    > There is a lot of information, so hopefully you will be able to quickly
    find
    > what you're looking for. Good luck.
    >

    And if you don't want PDF documents try:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3CC345F7

    Rita
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94C482717F4A3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    > >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    > >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    > >> uses.
    > >>
    > >> Is this actually true?
    > >
    > > No, and you know that very well.
    >
    > I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)
    >
    > In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
    > be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
    > addressing limitation.
    >
    > Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
    > in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    >
    > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    > Can you read the description for version F2?
    Given that this is fixed in a BIOS release, it is implied that this is a
    BIOS problem, not a chipset limit....
    75GB, is an 'odd' place for such a limit, but is is probably a combination
    of internal limits on track numbers/head numbers.

    > I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
    > their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
    > do not help. :-)
    >
    > >
    > >> I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    > >
    > > See?!
    >
    > EWr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
    > these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
    > China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!

    Best Wishes
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:UeScc.72$lA5.31@newsfe1-win...
    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message> news:94C482717F4A3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > >
    > > >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    > > >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    > > >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    > > >> uses.
    > > >>
    > > >> Is this actually true?
    > > >
    > > > No, and you know that very well.
    > >
    > > I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)
    > >
    > > In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
    > > be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
    > > addressing limitation.
    > >
    > > Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
    > > in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    > >
    > > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    > > Can you read the description for version F2?
    >
    > Given that this is fixed in a BIOS release, it is implied that this is a
    > BIOS problem, not a chipset limit....

    Obviously.

    > 75GB, is an 'odd' place for such a limit, but is is probably a combination
    > of internal limits on track numbers/head numbers.

    Which is hard to imagine with the natural CHS addressing limit at 32 GB.
    And that's for both ATA interface (P-CHS) and BIOS side (L-CHS).

    Which leaves setting size limitations through emulated P-CHS.
    That is best left alone since some bioses do unexpected things
    e.g. by setting the SET MAX ADDRESS permanently.

    >
    > > I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
    > > their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
    > > do not help. :-)
    > >
    > > >
    > > >> I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    > > >
    > > > See?!
    > >
    > > EWr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
    > > these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
    > > China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!
    >
    > Best Wishes
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94C482717F4A3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    > >> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    > >> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.
    > >>
    > >> Is this actually true?
    > >
    > > No, and you know that very well.
    >
    > I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

    But you *do* know that these type of limitations (bugs) are all software.

    >
    > In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
    > be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
    > addressing limitation.
    >
    > Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me in emails.

    So you jumped up for joy thinking "I finally got a new stupid question to ask".

    > And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    >
    > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.htm
    > Can you read the description for version F2?
    >
    > I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about their
    > motherboards than I do. It is confusing.

    They are mainly marketing operations that buy their boards elsewhere.
    They know of problems through persons like yourself or from the operations
    that provide the boards and/or firmware. They are just the 'inbetween'.

    > Your ejaculations do not help. :-)

    Hmm, and here I thought that such an attention starved person like yourself
    would appreciate a warm shower. *eg*

    >
    >
    > >
    > >> I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    > >
    > > See?!
    >
    > Ewr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
    > these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
    > China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    >
    >> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their
    >> >> old GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives
    >> >> larger than 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX
    >> >> chipset which it uses.
    >> >>
    >> >> Is this actually true?
    >> >
    >> > No, and you know that very well.
    >>
    >> I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)
    >
    > But you *do* know that these type of limitations (bugs) are
    > all software.

    I don't think that is true unless you call embedded code in chips
    "software".

    >>
    >> In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it
    >> may be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately
    >> from the LBA addressing limitation.
    >>
    >> Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be
    >> telling me in emails.
    >
    > So you jumped up for joy thinking "I finally got a new stupid
    > question to ask".

    Folkie, please take this the right way ... I have no problem if you
    wish to beat your old drum and shout out about what you (rather
    incorrectly) think is the poor way I approach these things. Maybe
    I am insanely stupid and inept. But maybe not.

    Whatever I am, I do the best I can. And your repeated inaccurate
    observations on my approach will not somehow magically persuade me
    otherwise.

    Perhaps I should make it my quest to offer endless pedantry in
    comments to your postings? Heh!


    >> And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    >>
    >> http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.
    >> htm Can you read the description for version F2?
    >>
    >> I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more
    >> about their motherboards than I do. It is confusing.
    >
    > They are mainly marketing operations that buy their boards
    > elsewhere. They know of problems through persons like yourself
    > or from the operations that provide the boards and/or
    > firmware. They are just the 'inbetween'.

    That is a good guess if you misinterpreted what I wrote. I wrote
    that I got this info from Gigabyte Tech Support and I mean from
    Taiwan. Even if you missed that you coul dhave seen the web page I
    referred to and noticed that the Gigabyte company was of the
    opinion that version F2 of the BIOS ugrade overcame the 75 GB
    limit.

    I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

    >
    >> Your ejaculations do not help. :-)
    >
    > Hmm, and here I thought that such an attention starved person
    > like yourself would appreciate a warm shower. *eg*

    >> >
    >> >> I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >> >
    >> > See?!
    >>
    >> Ewr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited
    >> experience in these matters has not encountered this before.
    >> I have not seen China but that does not mean it does not
    >> exist. Heh!
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:14:31 +0100, Mark M
    <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote/replied to:

    >"Alien Zord" <rem.alienzord@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
    >>> GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
    >>> 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
    >>> uses.
    >>>
    >>> Is this actually true? I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> I have 2 servers based on GA-6BXDS running 120GB IDEs
    >> perfectly.
    >
    >
    >Is the operating system overcoming the barrier for you?
    >
    >I need to work in something like DOS to do partition copying so the
    >OS is not likely to be a workaround in my case.
    >
    >Have you had to update the BIOS? If so then to what version?

    I had to run a special program to enable drives that big on my BX
    board. I think it was from a HD maker, and I got it on the net.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94C510456F6893A75@130.133.1.4
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > >
    > > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

    'wrote in' what?

    > >
    > > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their
    > > > > > old GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives
    > > > > > larger than 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX
    > > > > > chipset which it uses.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Is this actually true?
    > > > >
    > > > > No, and you know that very well.
    > > >
    > > > I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)
    > >
    > > But you *do* know that these type of limitations (bugs) are
    > > all software.
    >

    > I don't think that is true unless you call embedded code in chips
    > "software".

    There is no embedded code in ATA (host)controllers.
    And it is probably the opposite for that sentence to make sense.

    >
    > > >
    > > > In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it
    > > > may be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately
    > > > from the LBA addressing limitation.
    > > >
    > > > Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be
    > > > telling me in emails.
    > >
    > > So you jumped up for joy thinking "I finally got a new stupid
    > > question to ask".
    >
    > Folkie, please take this the right way ... I have no problem if you
    > wish to beat your old drum and shout out about what you (rather
    > incorrectly) think is the poor way I approach these things.
    > Maybe I am insanely stupid and inept. But maybe not.
    >
    > Whatever I am, I do the best I can. And your repeated inaccurate
    > observations on my approach will not somehow magically persuade me
    > otherwise.
    >
    > Perhaps I should make it my quest to offer endless pedantry in
    > comments to your postings? Heh!

    Hey, if that keeps you off the street ....
    The risk is that you prove yourself to be "insanely stupid and inept".

    >
    >
    > > > And that is a possible interpretation of this:
    > > >
    > > > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Support/BIOS/BIOS_GA-6BXE.
    > > > htm Can you read the description for version F2?
    > > >
    > > > I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more
    > > > about their motherboards than I do. It is confusing.
    > >
    > > They are mainly marketing operations that buy their boards
    > > elsewhere. They know of problems through persons like yourself
    > > or from the operations that provide the boards and/or firmware.
    > > They are just the 'inbetween'.
    >
    > That is a good guess if you misinterpreted what I wrote. I wrote that
    > I got this info from Gigabyte Tech Support and I mean from Taiwan.

    So?

    > Even if you missed that you could have seen the web page I referred
    > to and noticed that the Gigabyte company was of the opinion that
    > version F2 of the BIOS ugrade overcame the 75 GB limit.

    So?

    >
    > I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

    Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined rectangle
    in a CAD program to make the design look different from
    someone elses and then ordering some sweatshop to make it and
    plonk a BIOS on it directly from AWARD with their name
    in it, doesn't make them more than just a marketing operation.

    >
    > >
    > > > Your ejaculations do not help. :-)
    > >
    > > Hmm, and here I thought that such an attention starved person
    > > like yourself would appreciate a warm shower. *eg*
    >
    > > > >
    > > > > > I have not come across a 75 GB limit.
    > > > >
    > > > > See?!
    > > >
    > > > Ewr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited
    > > > experience in these matters has not encountered this before.
    > > > I have not seen China but that does not mean it does not
    > > > exist. Heh!
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    > Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    > Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined rectangle
    > in a CAD program to make the design look different from
    > someone elses and then ordering some sweatshop to make it and
    > plonk a BIOS on it directly from AWARD with their name
    > in it, doesn't make them more than just a marketing operation.


    So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB limit
    on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CA9C681959B3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > > Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    > > Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined rectangle
    > > in a CAD program to make the design look different from
    > > someone elses and then ordering some sweatshop to make it and
    > > plonk a BIOS on it directly from AWARD with their name
    > > in it, doesn't make them more than just a marketing operation.
    >
    >
    > So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB limit
    > on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?

    Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
    resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    > message news:94CA9C681959B3A75@130.133.1.4...
    >> "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    >> > Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined
    >> > rectangle in a CAD program to make the design look
    >> > different from someone elses and then ordering some
    >> > sweatshop to make it and plonk a BIOS on it directly from
    >> > AWARD with their name in it, doesn't make them more than
    >> > just a marketing operation.
    >>
    >>
    >> So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB
    >> limit on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?
    >
    > Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
    > resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).


    Well Folkert you wont believe this but the last email I got from
    Gigabyte tech support said this:

    <QUOTE>
    I am correct i have one of these boards myself.

    Question :
    I think you are wrong when you say "im afraid the 440 chipset only
    allows up to 75GB".
    <UNQUOTE>

    Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte organization?
    Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.

    But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
    why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
    referring to (bearng in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?

    Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
    "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:94CC968FDACB93A75@130.133.1.4:

    > But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
    > why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
    > referring to (bearng in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?
    >
    > Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
    > "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?

    I've been following this thread and I don't know what's going on at
    Gigabyte but either a) they really screwed up when they wrote the bios or
    b) the tech response you received is wrong.

    I've got a Tyan Tiger 100 S1832DL motherboard, thats a 440BX Dual. It has
    the ATA drive size limit you would expect at 128 / 137 GB, depending on
    your method of measuring HD size. It does NOT have a limit at 75GB. I've
    verified this by installing 160GB drives on the board controller and
    comming up against the 128 / 137 limit.

    From the Maxtor site:
    http://tinyurl.com/3395l

    So I don't know about any BX boards with a 75GB limit, but I can say for
    certain my BX board doesn't.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CC968FDACB93A75@130.133.1.4
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > > "Mark M" MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CA9C681959B3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    > > > > Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined
    > > > > rectangle in a CAD program to make the design look
    > > > > different from someone elses and then ordering some
    > > > > sweatshop to make it and plonk a BIOS on it directly from
    > > > > AWARD with their name in it, doesn't make them more than
    > > > > just a marketing operation.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB
    > > > limit on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?
    > >
    > > Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
    > > resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).
    >
    >
    > Well Folkert you wont believe this but the last email I got from
    > Gigabyte tech support said this:
    >
    > <QUOTE>
    > I am correct i have one of these boards myself.

    Aha, so Gigabyte tech support is a one person operation.
    And now that person is covering for himself.

    >
    > Question :
    > I think you are wrong when you say "im afraid the 440 chipset only
    > allows up to 75GB".
    > <UNQUOTE>
    >
    > Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte organization?
    > Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.

    We already established that they weren't. It's not the chipset.

    >
    > But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
    > why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
    > referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?

    Read my response to Roger.

    >
    > Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
    > "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    -- snip --

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >>
    >> Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte
    >> organization? Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.
    >
    > We already established that they weren't. It's not the
    > chipset.
    >
    >>
    >> But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about
    >> and why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they
    >> could be referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is
    >> said to fix it)?
    >
    > Read my response to Roger.
    >

    I must confess I don't really understand the details of what you
    have written to him. To take a guess maybe "P-CHS" means "physical
    CHS" and you are referring to an emulation of the physcial CHS.

    Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just accept
    that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS flash for a
    while so I will have to wait to see if it really does do the trick.

    >>
    >> Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB"
    >> or "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
    >
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CCEE246E8A43A75@130.133.1.4
    > -- snip --
    >
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte
    > > > organization? Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.
    > >
    > > We already established that they weren't. It's not the
    > > chipset.
    > >
    > > >
    > > > But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about
    > > > and why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they
    > > > could be referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is
    > > > said to fix it)?
    > >
    > > Read my response to Roger.
    > >
    >
    > I must confess I don't really understand the details of what you
    > have written to him. To take a guess maybe "P-CHS" means "physical
    > CHS" and you are referring to an emulation of the physcial CHS.

    L-CHS is the CHS as used by the software interface (int13 etc.)
    P-CHS is a translated CHS as used by the harddrive interface.

    For some odd reason software makers and hardware makers went a dif-
    ferent route expanding the old 20-bit (528MB) CHS (1024 16 63) to 24-
    bit (8GB) CHS. L-CHS expanded the Heads register with 4 bits (1024 256
    63) and P-CHS expanded the Cylinder register with 6 bits (65536 16 63).
    Although 2 bits more P-CHS is still limited to C*H*S= 8GB.

    >
    > Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just accept
    > that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS flash for a
    > while so I will have to wait to see if it really does do the trick.
    >
    > > >
    > > > Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB"
    > > > or "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
    news:c5muuf$3k25l$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94CC968FDACB93A75@130.133.1.4
    > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Mark M" MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94CA9C681959B3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > > > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
    > > > > > Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined
    > > > > > rectangle in a CAD program to make the design look
    > > > > > different from someone elses and then ordering some
    > > > > > sweatshop to make it and plonk a BIOS on it directly from
    > > > > > AWARD with their name in it, doesn't make them more than
    > > > > > just a marketing operation.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB
    > > > > limit on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?
    > > >
    > > > Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
    > > > resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).
    > >
    > >
    > > Well Folkert you wont believe this but the last email I got from
    > > Gigabyte tech support said this:
    > >
    > > <QUOTE>
    > > I am correct i have one of these boards myself.
    >
    > Aha, so Gigabyte tech support is a one person operation.
    > And now that person is covering for himself.
    >
    > >
    > > Question :
    > > I think you are wrong when you say "im afraid the 440 chipset only
    > > allows up to 75GB".
    > > <UNQUOTE>
    > >
    > > Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte organization?
    > > Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.
    >
    > We already established that they weren't. It's not the chipset.
    >
    > >
    > > But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
    > > why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
    > > referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?
    >
    > Read my response to Roger.
    >
    > >
    > > Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
    > > "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
    Both Folkert, and I think that this problem, is probably down to a numeric
    'translation' limit inside the BIOS. There is definately no 'chipset' limit
    at this point (given that a BIOS change fixes it, and thousands of other
    boards with the same chipset do not have a problem). Basically, there are a
    number of different 'values' used inside the IDE code. There are the
    'numbers' used to refer to cylinders, heads etc., that are translated inside
    the drive to the 'real' geometry of the drive, and are also translated from
    'LBA' values inside the BIOS. Now (for instance, not a real example...),
    suppose you elected to take the values at one point in the BIOS, and do the
    arithmetic using BCD, and use a register at some point in the maths, that
    limited the maximum value in the 'maths' to 99999999. Since you are dealing
    with 'sector counts', this would give a drive size 'limit' of 50GB. This
    would be entirely a 'BIOS' problem (trying to blame it on the chipset, would
    just be down to wanting to find somebody else to blame for the programmers
    error). 75G, is a very 'odd' number in these terms, since generally all the
    arithmetic is binary (with some silly 'oddities' in the actual numbers
    allowed, which are the result of 'history' in the interface, and the upgrade
    methods chosen at times). It sounds as though perhaps one part of the
    conversion code, is thorougly 'screwed'...

    Best Wishes
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:c5ngp6$3me7f$1@ID-79662.news.uni-berlin.de
    > "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CCEE246E8A43A75@130.133.1.4
    > > -- snip --
    > >
    > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte
    > > > > organization? Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.
    > > >
    > > > We already established that they weren't. It's not the chipset.
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about
    > > > > and why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they
    > > > > could be referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is
    > > > > said to fix it)?
    > > >
    > > > Read my response to Roger.
    > > >
    > >
    > > I must confess I don't really understand the details of what you
    > > have written to him. To take a guess maybe "P-CHS" means "physical
    > > CHS" and you are referring to an emulation of the physcial CHS.
    >
    > L-CHS is the CHS as used by the software interface (int13 etc.)
    > P-CHS is a translated CHS as used by the harddrive interface.
    >
    > For some odd reason software makers and hardware makers went a dif-
    > ferent route expanding the old 20-bit (528MB) CHS (1024 16 63) to 24-
    > bit (8GB) CHS. L-CHS expanded the *Heads* register with 4 bits (1024 256
    > 63) and P-CHS expanded the *Cylinder* register with 6 bits (65536 16 63).
    > Although 2 bits more P-CHS is still limited to C*H*S= 8GB.
    >
    > >
    > > Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just accept
    > > that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS flash for a
    > > while so I will have to wait to see if it really does do the trick.

    Btw: doing what trick?
    You "have not come across a 75 GB limit" so what do you think you'll notice?

    > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB"
    > > > > or "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

    >> > Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just
    >> > accept that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS
    >> > flash for a while so I will have to wait to see if it
    >> > really does do the trick.
    >
    > Btw: doing what trick?
    > You "have not come across a 75 GB limit" so what do you think
    > you'll notice?


    I hope that flashing this mobo's BIOS will allow it to see the
    space about 75 GB on the drive.

    After I flashed it I still can't see all of a 160 GB drive.

    Maybe it has a 128/137 GB limit now.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:94CEB02E365E3A75@130.133.1.4...
    >
    > I hope that flashing this mobo's BIOS will allow it to see the
    > space about 75 GB on the drive.
    >
    > After I flashed it I still can't see all of a 160 GB drive.
    >
    > Maybe it has a 128/137 GB limit now.

    You have an ancient mainboard. Why do you expect more than 135GB?

    Maybe you should follow all the other threads about LBA-48 and BIOS support.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@graffiti.net> wrote:

    >> I hope that flashing this mobo's BIOS will allow it to see
    >> the space about 75 GB on the drive.
    >>
    >> After I flashed it I still can't see all of a 160 GB drive.
    >>
    >> Maybe it has a 128/137 GB limit now.
    >
    >
    > You have an ancient mainboard. Why do you expect more than
    > 135GB?
    >
    > Maybe you should follow all the other threads about LBA-48 and
    > BIOS support.


    You are right. The mobo is far too old. I think it may destined
    for the trash sometime soon.

    Although it has no cash value, I had originally wanted to use the
    mobo in a machine to get on the net when my main machine was down.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte (More info?)

    "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:94CEB02E365E3A75@130.133.1.4
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    >
    > > > > Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just
    > > > > accept that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS
    > > > > flash for a while so I will have to wait to see if it
    > > > > really does do the trick.
    > >
    > > Btw: doing what trick?
    > > You "have not come across a 75 GB limit" so what do you think
    > > you'll notice?
    >
    >
    >
    > I hope that flashing this mobo's BIOS will allow it to see the
    > space about 75 GB on the drive.

    Sigh! <plonk>

    >
    > After I flashed it I still can't see all of a 160 GB drive.
    >
    > Maybe it has a 128/137 GB limit now.
Ask a new question

Read More

Chipsets Hard Drives Gigabyte Storage