Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

I have an 8KHA+ & currently using a 160GB WD hard drive, but want to upgrade
to a WD 250GB hard drive and need to know if this board can support it as I
cannot find any information about any recent BIOS upgrades that may add
support for this.

Can anyone assist with this question?

Cheers.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

Since posting this question, I've had an e-mail from Epox to state that
there is a limit of 137GB which is not true as I'm currently using a 160GB
one!

Weird.

Comments?

John

"John" <aaa@aaa.com> wrote in message
newsdmdnQKsSKqRqRbdRVn-tw@giganews.com...
>I have an 8KHA+ & currently using a 160GB WD hard drive, but want to
>upgrade to a WD 250GB hard drive and need to know if this board can support
>it as I cannot find any information about any recent BIOS upgrades that may
>add support for this.
>
> Can anyone assist with this question?
>
> Cheers.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

"John" <aaa@aaa.com> wrote in news:A9idnUgUBPC-8hPdRVn-uw@giganews.com:

> Since posting this question, I've had an e-mail from Epox to state
> that there is a limit of 137GB which is not true as I'm currently
> using a 160GB one!
>
> Weird.
>
> Comments?

You can't use all of your disk, "only" the first 137 billion bytes (128GB)

--
Peter Strömberg
C2K2 C2K3 ISCCIV02 ISCCIV03

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:33:07 +0100, "John" <aaa@aaa.com> wrote:

>Since posting this question, I've had an e-mail from Epox to state that
>there is a limit of 137GB which is not true as I'm currently using a 160GB
>one!
>
>Weird.
>
>Comments?
>
The 8KHA+ has an ATA100 controller. The ATA100 controller can only
address or use 137GB on any single drive. You may be using a 160GB
drive, but are you actually seeing the full size which would,
actually, be about 149GB, when calculated "properly". You will be
able to install a 250GB drive, but I don't think you will be able to
see more than 137GB of it.

You could, however, add a PCI ATA133 controller card and would then be
able to use all of the space even on drives exceeding 137GB.

--
Reginald N Patton rnpatton@bellsouth.net
"There are 2 great secrets to success in life.
The first is to not tell everything you know."
--Anonymous

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

R Patton wrote:
> The 8KHA+ has an ATA100 controller. The ATA100 controller can only
> address or use 137GB on any single drive.

Heh, I posted a reply along these lines to the group some time ago,
and as I discovered was also crossposted to one of the harddisks
groups. While it is a common belief (backed up by many websites),
it is *guaranteed* to start a serious flame war.

As they will tell you (quite rudely...) the issue isn't the speed
of the controller, but whether or not it supports LBA-48.
ATA133 was the first to implement LBA-48, which is why people think
you need ATA133 to support >137GB drives. Since then, BIOS updates
have added LBA-48 support to some ATA100 controllers as well. (In
my opinion that was a mistake - you can't readily tell if a given
ATA100 controller will or won't work.)

The good news is the latest 8KHA+ BIOS supports >137GB drives;
this was introduced with the 25 Mar 02 update.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Paul Taylor Veni, vidi, tici -
birder@ozemail.com.au I came, I saw, I ticked.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

---- From WDC knowledge base.
Problem
The full capacity of EIDE drives larger than 137GB (128GB binary) is
not recognized in Windows 2000/XP.

Resolution
48-bit LBA support is necessary for drives larger than 137GB (128GB
binary). The following conditions are necessary for the correct
functioning of 48-bit LBA support in Windows 2000/XP:

Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) must be installed for Windows XP
versions prior to August 2002. For information about SP1, see
Microsoft Article 322389.


The system must have a 48-bit LBA-compatible Basic Input/Output System
(BIOS) installed. This includes EIDE controller card BIOSs.


You must enable the support in the Windows registry.

The Microsoft Knowledge Base articles listed below provide important
information about 48-bit LBA support for drives larger than 137GB in
Windows. For full details, carefully review the relevant article.

48-bit LBA Support for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows 2000.

How to Enable 48-bit Logical Block Addressing Support for ATAPI Disk
Drives in Windows XP.

Note: The above articles reference making necessary registry changes.
It is strongly advised that you contact Microsoft directly for
assistance.


------------- End of quote


On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:03:05 +1000, Paul Taylor
<birder@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>R Patton wrote:
>> The 8KHA+ has an ATA100 controller. The ATA100 controller can only
>> address or use 137GB on any single drive.
>
>Heh, I posted a reply along these lines to the group some time ago,
>and as I discovered was also crossposted to one of the harddisks
>groups. While it is a common belief (backed up by many websites),
>it is *guaranteed* to start a serious flame war.
>
>As they will tell you (quite rudely...) the issue isn't the speed
>of the controller, but whether or not it supports LBA-48.
>ATA133 was the first to implement LBA-48, which is why people think
>you need ATA133 to support >137GB drives. Since then, BIOS updates
>have added LBA-48 support to some ATA100 controllers as well. (In
>my opinion that was a mistake - you can't readily tell if a given
>ATA100 controller will or won't work.)
>
>The good news is the latest 8KHA+ BIOS supports >137GB drives;
>this was introduced with the 25 Mar 02 update.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.epox (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:03:05 +1000, Paul Taylor
<birder@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>R Patton wrote:
>> The 8KHA+ has an ATA100 controller. The ATA100 controller can only
>> address or use 137GB on any single drive.
>
>Heh, I posted a reply along these lines to the group some time ago,
>and as I discovered was also crossposted to one of the harddisks
>groups. While it is a common belief (backed up by many websites),
>it is *guaranteed* to start a serious flame war.
>
>As they will tell you (quite rudely...) the issue isn't the speed
>of the controller, but whether or not it supports LBA-48.
>ATA133 was the first to implement LBA-48, which is why people think
>you need ATA133 to support >137GB drives. Since then, BIOS updates
>have added LBA-48 support to some ATA100 controllers as well. (In
>my opinion that was a mistake - you can't readily tell if a given
>ATA100 controller will or won't work.)
>
>The good news is the latest 8KHA+ BIOS supports >137GB drives;
>this was introduced with the 25 Mar 02 update.

Thanks for the information. I stand corrected.

--
Reginald N Patton rnpatton@bellsouth.net
"Always do your best, what you plant now,
you will harvest later."
--Og Mandino