G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2 correct the
problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change the registry key to
prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?

Many thanks
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Philip Roberts" <roberts@16rw.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d1n0t6$thv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2 correct the
> problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change the registry key to
> prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?
>
> Many thanks
>

Service Pack 1 took care of that in 2002, and anything SP1 has, is included
in SP2, as SP2 is all the fixes in SP1 plus anything that was made after
SP1's release.
 

anna

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2004
339
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

>> "Philip Roberts" wrote:
>>> Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2
>>> correct the problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change
>>> the registry key to prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?


> "Tom" wrote:
>> Service Pack 1 took care of that in 2002, and anything SP1 has,
>> is included in SP2, as SP2 is all the fixes in SP1 plus anything that
>> was made after SP1's release.


"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:EbadnWpKUK2qt6LfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> He asked specifically if you have to add/change a Registry key.
> I have WinXP Pro installed with SP1/SP2, and the 48-bit LBA
> key still doesn't exist in the Registry.
>
> *TimDaniels*


I take it the OP's basic question (rephrased) is, "If my motherboard's BIOS
supports large-capacity hard drives, i.e., disks whose capacity are > 137
GB, and I have installed SP2, is that all that's needed to support
large-capacity disks?".

And, of course, the answer to that is "Yes". There's no need "to change the
registry key to prevent ...". As long as the motherboard's BIOS supports
large-capacity disks, i.e., disks whose capacity is greater than 137 GB and
SP1 and/or SP2 has been installed, the full capacity of the disk will be
recognized. All motherboards that have been manufactured during the last
four years or so have this capability based upon my experience with a fairly
large number of them. Many of the older boards that didn't originally have
this capability have BIOS upgrades to include this capability.

A slight addendum to the above...
If the user installed a large-capacity disk at the time his XP OS did *not*
contain SP1 and/or SP2, then the system would recognize *only* 137 GB
(roughly) of that disk (we'll assume the BIOS recognizes large-capacity
disks). When he or she subsequently installs SP1 and/or SP2, the full
capacity of that disk will be recognized, *but*, the remaining capacity
beyond 137 GB (roughly) will be "unallocated space" which, of course, the
user can partition/format. So that at a minimum the disk will have at least
two partitions. Probably not an important consideration for most users who
will be multi-partitioning those large disks anyway.
Anna
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:EbadnWpKUK2qt6LfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> "Tom" wrote:
>> "Philip Roberts" wrote:
>>> Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2
>>> correct the problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change
>>> the registry key to prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?
>>
>> Service Pack 1 took care of that in 2002, and anything SP1 has,
>> is included in SP2, as SP2 is all the fixes in SP1 plus anything that
>> was made after SP1's release.
>
>
> He asked specifically if you have to add/change a Registry key.
> I have WinXP Pro installed with SP1/SP2, and the 48-bit LBA
> key still doesn't exist in the Registry.
>
> *TimDaniels*

No, you don't need to make the change, unless one installed the a large disk
prior to installing the service pack 1 (unlikely since SP1 has been out for
almost 3 years now). But if the BIOS will already handle large drives, and
SP1-2 is already installed, then it is no issue. I have 2 160gig HDDs, and
never had to make the change with this PC, which came with SP1a.

No entries in my registry exist to show such a modification
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Let's put it this way, I've not added it, and I have 2 internal 250GB and 1
external 250GB, all 3 formatted a max capacity of 233GB (base 2 versus base
10 issue here), none have shown no signs of data corruption mentioned by the
OP.

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend!"
www.google.com

***********************************************

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:C5OdnaEsN9H4yaLfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> "Tom" wrote:
> >
> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >> "Tom" wrote:
> >>> "Philip Roberts" wrote:
> >>>> Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2
> >>>> correct the problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change
> >>>> the registry key to prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?
> >>>
> >>> Service Pack 1 took care of that in 2002, and anything SP1 has,
> >>> is included in SP2, as SP2 is all the fixes in SP1 plus anything that
> >>> was made after SP1's release.
> >>
> >>
> >> He asked specifically if you have to add/change a Registry key.
> >> I have WinXP Pro installed with SP1/SP2, and the 48-bit LBA
> >> key still doesn't exist in the Registry.
> >>
> >> *TimDaniels*
> >
> > No, you don't need to make the change, unless one installed the a large
disk
> > prior to installing the service pack 1 (unlikely since SP1 has been out
for
> > almost 3 years now). But if the BIOS will already handle large drives,
and
> > SP1-2 is already installed, then it is no issue. I have 2 160gig HDDs,
and
> > never had to make the change with this PC, which came with SP1a.
> >
> > No entries in my registry exist to show such a modification
>
>
> That has been my impression also - that with a capable BIOS and
> SP1 or SP2, no Registry changes or additions need be made. But
> within just the past few days, a poster claims that the addition of a
> Registry key must still be made to access locations on the disk
> beyond the 137GB range.
>
> *TimDaniels*
 

Andy

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
1,239
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:39:49 -0000, "Philip Roberts"
<roberts@16rw.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2 correct the
>problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change the registry key to
>prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?

Contrary to popular belief the BIOS is not critical, unless during the
boot process the disk has to be accessed past the 137GB boundary
(basically applies to primary partitions larger than 250GB)..
EnableBigLba is used only by Windows 2000. Run Disk Management and
look at the left side of the screen for each drive; if it shows the
full capacity of the drive, then the operating system will access the
drive correctly.

>
>Many thanks
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The reason for my original post was this particular piece of information in
the Knowledge Base on the Maxtor website:

"Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler is a one step executable that enables support
for drives larger than 137 Gigabytes in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 and XP
Service Pack 1. This utility takes the guess work out of editing the Windows
registry. The Big Drive Enabler fixes an operating system limitation. This
utility is needed anytime a Hard Disk Drive larger than 137 GB is connected
to the motherboard's ATA bus, regardless of any system BIOS that supports
48-bit LBA."

I am still struggling to get a definitive answer.

Philip
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(NOSPAM)@(SPAMNOT)hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:euI%232WoLFHA.2384@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Let's put it this way, I've not added it, and I have 2 internal 250GB and
> 1
> external 250GB, all 3 formatted a max capacity of 233GB (base 2 versus
> base
> 10 issue here), none have shown no signs of data corruption mentioned by
> the
> OP.
>
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
> "Google is your Friend!"
> www.google.com
>
> ***********************************************
>
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> news:C5OdnaEsN9H4yaLfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>> "Tom" wrote:
>> >
>> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> >> "Tom" wrote:
>> >>> "Philip Roberts" wrote:
>> >>>> Assuming your BIOS can handle large hard drives, does SP2
>> >>>> correct the problem with 48 bit LBA or do you still have to change
>> >>>> the registry key to prevent possible corrupion beyond 137 Gb?
>> >>>
>> >>> Service Pack 1 took care of that in 2002, and anything SP1 has,
>> >>> is included in SP2, as SP2 is all the fixes in SP1 plus anything that
>> >>> was made after SP1's release.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> He asked specifically if you have to add/change a Registry key.
>> >> I have WinXP Pro installed with SP1/SP2, and the 48-bit LBA
>> >> key still doesn't exist in the Registry.
>> >>
>> >> *TimDaniels*
>> >
>> > No, you don't need to make the change, unless one installed the a large
> disk
>> > prior to installing the service pack 1 (unlikely since SP1 has been out
> for
>> > almost 3 years now). But if the BIOS will already handle large drives,
> and
>> > SP1-2 is already installed, then it is no issue. I have 2 160gig HDDs,
> and
>> > never had to make the change with this PC, which came with SP1a.
>> >
>> > No entries in my registry exist to show such a modification
>>
>>
>> That has been my impression also - that with a capable BIOS and
>> SP1 or SP2, no Registry changes or additions need be made. But
>> within just the past few days, a poster claims that the addition of a
>> Registry key must still be made to access locations on the disk
>> beyond the 137GB range.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
 

anna

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2004
339
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Philip Roberts" <roberts@16rw.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d1pdle$hcf$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The reason for my original post was this particular piece of information
> in the Knowledge Base on the Maxtor website:
>
> "Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler is a one step executable that enables support
> for drives larger than 137 Gigabytes in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 and XP
> Service Pack 1. This utility takes the guess work out of editing the
> Windows registry. The Big Drive Enabler fixes an operating system
> limitation. This utility is needed anytime a Hard Disk Drive larger than
> 137 GB is connected to the motherboard's ATA bus, regardless of any system
> BIOS that supports 48-bit LBA."
>
> I am still struggling to get a definitive answer.
>
> Philip


Philip:
Struggle no more.

There are two basic requirements for the XP operating system to recognize
the full capacity of hard disks greater than 137 GB

1. The motherboard's BIOS must support large-capacity disks, i.e., disks
whose capacity is greater than 137 GB; and
2. SP1 and/or SP2 has been installed as an upgrade to the XP OS.

That's it. Nothing too terribly complicated about the basic requirements.
Some additional points...
a. Virtually all motherboards that have been manufactured during the last
four years or so have this capability based upon my experience with a fairly
large number of them. Many of the older boards that didn't originally have
this capability have BIOS upgrades to include this capability.
b. If the user installed a large-capacity disk at the time his XP OS did
*not*
contain SP1 and/or SP2, then the system would recognize *only* 137 GB
(approx.) of that disk (we'll assume in this situation the BIOS recognizes
large-capacity disks). When he or she subsequently installs SP1 and/or SP2,
the full
capacity of that disk will be recognized, *but*, the remaining capacity
beyond 137 GB (approx) will be "unallocated space" which, of course, the
user can partition/format. So that at a minimum the disk will have at least
two partitions. Probably not an important consideration for most users who
will be multi-partitioning those large disks, but something to keep in mind.
c. I *strongly* advise you *not* to install Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler or,
for that matter, any HD manufacturer's "drive overlay" program for the
purpose of "enabling" large-capacity disk support. As most computer repair
technicians will tell you, these drive overlay programs are curses. They
modify the hard drive in proprietary non-standard ways that by & by will one
day rise up and bite you. If your BIOS does not support large-capacity
drives and no BIOS upgrade for your motherboard exists to achieve this
capability, there's only one tried & true way to gain this capability --
purchase a controller card such as the Promise Ultra133 TX2 and install it
in your machine. They're simple to install and they do their job. Controller
cards such as these are reasonably priced -- the last time I looked online
vendors were selling them for about $35 or so.
Anna
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Anna,

Thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed response. I will
struggle no more.

Philip

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:%23pajnkvLFHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Philip Roberts" <roberts@16rw.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d1pdle$hcf$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> The reason for my original post was this particular piece of information
>> in the Knowledge Base on the Maxtor website:
>>
>> "Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler is a one step executable that enables support
>> for drives larger than 137 Gigabytes in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 and
>> XP Service Pack 1. This utility takes the guess work out of editing the
>> Windows registry. The Big Drive Enabler fixes an operating system
>> limitation. This utility is needed anytime a Hard Disk Drive larger than
>> 137 GB is connected to the motherboard's ATA bus, regardless of any
>> system BIOS that supports 48-bit LBA."
>>
>> I am still struggling to get a definitive answer.
>>
>> Philip
>
>
> Philip:
> Struggle no more.
>
> There are two basic requirements for the XP operating system to recognize
> the full capacity of hard disks greater than 137 GB
>
> 1. The motherboard's BIOS must support large-capacity disks, i.e., disks
> whose capacity is greater than 137 GB; and
> 2. SP1 and/or SP2 has been installed as an upgrade to the XP OS.
>
> That's it. Nothing too terribly complicated about the basic requirements.
> Some additional points...
> a. Virtually all motherboards that have been manufactured during the last
> four years or so have this capability based upon my experience with a
> fairly
> large number of them. Many of the older boards that didn't originally have
> this capability have BIOS upgrades to include this capability.
> b. If the user installed a large-capacity disk at the time his XP OS did
> *not*
> contain SP1 and/or SP2, then the system would recognize *only* 137 GB
> (approx.) of that disk (we'll assume in this situation the BIOS recognizes
> large-capacity disks). When he or she subsequently installs SP1 and/or
> SP2, the full
> capacity of that disk will be recognized, *but*, the remaining capacity
> beyond 137 GB (approx) will be "unallocated space" which, of course, the
> user can partition/format. So that at a minimum the disk will have at
> least
> two partitions. Probably not an important consideration for most users who
> will be multi-partitioning those large disks, but something to keep in
> mind.
> c. I *strongly* advise you *not* to install Maxtor's Big Drive Enabler or,
> for that matter, any HD manufacturer's "drive overlay" program for the
> purpose of "enabling" large-capacity disk support. As most computer repair
> technicians will tell you, these drive overlay programs are curses. They
> modify the hard drive in proprietary non-standard ways that by & by will
> one day rise up and bite you. If your BIOS does not support large-capacity
> drives and no BIOS upgrade for your motherboard exists to achieve this
> capability, there's only one tried & true way to gain this capability --
> purchase a controller card such as the Promise Ultra133 TX2 and install it
> in your machine. They're simple to install and they do their job.
> Controller cards such as these are reasonably priced -- the last time I
> looked online vendors were selling them for about $35 or so.
> Anna
>
 

Andy

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
1,239
0
19,280
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:40:50 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Andy" wrote
>;
>> Contrary to popular belief the BIOS is not critical, unless during the
>> boot process the disk has to be accessed past the 137GB boundary
>> (basically applies to primary partitions larger than 250GB).
>
>
> Can you think of such a scenario? The MBR is usually right at the
>start of the disk, and its boot code is loaded into memory for execution,
>and similarly for the boot sector of the partition containing the OS.
>If the boot sector and the OS are in a partition way up high on the disk,
>the code loaded into memory would be accessing it, so it would seem
>that a limitation in the boot sector code or the MBR code would be the
>cause, not the BIOS. Yet the Dell Common Knowledge is that the BIOS
>for my circa 1999 desktop has to be updated before it can do the 137GB
>cha cha.
>

Any code that is executed during the boot process does not directly
access the disk. Rather it uses BIOS interrupts to access the disk.
The MFT is placed in the middle of the NTFS formatted partition. The
file system of any partition whose MFT lies past the 137GB boundary
cannot be read during the boot process if the BIOS does not support
48-bit LBA. For a single primary partition, the size of that partition
is about 137GB x 2.

The setup program of Windows XP incorporating SP1 or 2 does not use
the BIOS to partition and format the disk, so it is able to partition
and format a 300GB disk as a single primary partition. However, once
it has copied the preliminary files to the disk and reboots, the
Windows XP installation will not boot up if the BIOS does not support
48-bit LBA.

>
>> EnableBigLba is used only by Windows 2000.
>
>
> Well, that explains why I can't find it in my WinXP's registry. :)
>
>
>*TimDaniels*
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:8d6dnXeQUr1jGd7fRVn-1A@comcast.com...
> "Andy" wrote:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>"Andy" wrote
>>>;
>>>> Contrary to popular belief the BIOS is not critical, unless during the
>>>> boot process the disk has to be accessed past the 137GB boundary
>>>> (basically applies to primary partitions larger than 250GB).
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you think of such a scenario? The MBR is usually right at the
>>>start of the disk, and its boot code is loaded into memory for execution,
>>>and similarly for the boot sector of the partition containing the OS.
>>>If the boot sector and the OS are in a partition way up high on the disk,
>>>the code loaded into memory would be accessing it, so it would seem
>>>that a limitation in the boot sector code or the MBR code would be the
>>>cause, not the BIOS. Yet the Dell Common Knowledge is that the BIOS
>>>for my circa 1999 desktop has to be updated before it can do the 137GB
>>>cha cha.
>>>
>>
>> Any code that is executed during the boot process does not directly
>> access the disk. Rather it uses BIOS interrupts to access the disk.
>> The MFT is placed in the middle of the NTFS formatted partition. The
>> file system of any partition whose MFT lies past the 137GB boundary
>> cannot be read during the boot process if the BIOS does not support
>> 48-bit LBA. For a single primary partition, the size of that partition
>> is about 137GB x 2.
>> The setup program of Windows XP incorporating SP1 or 2 does not use
>> the BIOS to partition and format the disk, so it is able to partition
>> and format a 300GB disk as a single primary partition. However, once
>> it has copied the preliminary files to the disk and reboots, the
>> Windows XP installation will not boot up if the BIOS does not support
>> 48-bit LBA.
>
>
> Are you sure that the MFT is placed in the physical middle of the
> partition and not the LOGICAL middle? In a binary tree structure,
> the root could very well be at the physical start of the medium's
> address space. I searched through the on-line Microsoft knowledge
> base, and I couldn't find any reference to the physical middle or
> address space middle of the NTFS-formatted partition as being
> the location of the MFT. There *were* one or two refs to the
> *logical* middle, though.
>
>
> *TimDaniels*

You have it correct partially as far a "logical center" but it resides in
the boot sector also, read here:
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs-mft.htm
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:K_ydnXVdZ4xU4tnfRVn-og@comcast.com...
> "Tom" wrote:
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> "Andy" wrote:
>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Andy" wrote
>>>>>;
>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief the BIOS is not critical, unless during
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> boot process the disk has to be accessed past the 137GB boundary
>>>>>> (basically applies to primary partitions larger than 250GB).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you think of such a scenario? The MBR is usually right at the
>>>>>start of the disk, and its boot code is loaded into memory for
>>>>>execution,
>>>>>and similarly for the boot sector of the partition containing the OS.
>>>>>If the boot sector and the OS are in a partition way up high on the
>>>>>disk,
>>>>>the code loaded into memory would be accessing it, so it would seem
>>>>>that a limitation in the boot sector code or the MBR code would be the
>>>>>cause, not the BIOS. Yet the Dell Common Knowledge is that the BIOS
>>>>>for my circa 1999 desktop has to be updated before it can do the 137GB
>>>>>cha cha.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any code that is executed during the boot process does not directly
>>>> access the disk. Rather it uses BIOS interrupts to access the disk.
>>>> The MFT is placed in the middle of the NTFS formatted partition. The
>>>> file system of any partition whose MFT lies past the 137GB boundary
>>>> cannot be read during the boot process if the BIOS does not support
>>>> 48-bit LBA. For a single primary partition, the size of that partition
>>>> is about 137GB x 2.
>>>> The setup program of Windows XP incorporating SP1 or 2 does not use
>>>> the BIOS to partition and format the disk, so it is able to partition
>>>> and format a 300GB disk as a single primary partition. However, once
>>>> it has copied the preliminary files to the disk and reboots, the
>>>> Windows XP installation will not boot up if the BIOS does not support
>>>> 48-bit LBA.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure that the MFT is placed in the physical middle of the
>>> partition and not the LOGICAL middle? In a binary tree structure,
>>> the root could very well be at the physical start of the medium's
>>> address space. I searched through the on-line Microsoft knowledge
>>> base, and I couldn't find any reference to the physical middle or
>>> address space middle of the NTFS-formatted partition as being
>>> the location of the MFT. There *were* one or two refs to the
>>> *logical* middle, though.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have it correct partially as far a "logical center" but it resides in
>> the boot sector also, read here:
>> http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs-mft.htm
>
>
> OK. Now back to the original statement about the location of the
> Master File Table. Does any part of it reside physically at the center
> of the partition, or does it reside totally in the boot sector?
>
> *TimDaniels*

Yes, it resides in the center, you can note this during a defrag (especially
good defragging programs). The link I gave you said specifically that it
resides there. "A duplicate of the boot sector is located at the logical
center of the disk."

Here is an example snapshot of a defrag analysis (hope you have high speed
internet), and note the color legend regarding the MFTs to the color scheme
in the main window.

http://home.insightbb.com/~guesswho192/MFT_example.JPG
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:ctydnS4aYaEDddnfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> "Tom" wrote:
>> Yes, it resides in the center, you can note this during a defrag
>> (especially good defragging programs). The link I gave you said
>> specifically that it resides there. "A duplicate of the boot sector is
>> located at the logical center of the disk."
>>
>> Here is an example snapshot of a defrag analysis (hope you have high
>> speed internet), and note the color legend regarding the MFTs to the
>> color scheme in the main window.
>>
>> http://home.insightbb.com/~guesswho192/MFT_example.JPG
>
>
> If the MFT must be in the middle of a partition or the middle of a disk,
> it seems you're pointing out a problem of access by the BIOS of MFTs
> in drives larger than, say 2x137GB. But all the BIOS does is load the
> code in the Master Boot Record, which is at the bottom of the HD's
> address space, and that executable code, using the partition table,
> finds and loads ntldr. It would seem that the BIOS really doesn't have
> to access anything higher than cylinder 0 on the disk.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>

I am not pointing out any problems, this is simply how this functions in
NTFS formatted partitions

The BIOS only loads to what is designated the first boot device, after that,
it is up to the device to begin loading through the MBR. MBR and the MFT
have little to do with each other, and how the BIOS recognizes listings.
 

Tom

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,720
0
19,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:Z-mdnegMf73znNjfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> "Tom" wrote:
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> "Tom" wrote:
>>>> Yes, it resides in the center, you can note this during a defrag
>>>> (especially good defragging programs). The link I gave you said
>>>> specifically that it resides there. "A duplicate of the boot sector is
>>>> located at the logical center of the disk."
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example snapshot of a defrag analysis (hope you have high
>>>> speed internet), and note the color legend regarding the MFTs to the
>>>> color scheme in the main window.
>>>>
>>>> http://home.insightbb.com/~guesswho192/MFT_example.JPG
>>>
>>>
>>> If the MFT must be in the middle of a partition or the middle of a disk,
>>> it seems you're pointing out a problem of access by the BIOS of MFTs
>>> in drives larger than, say 2x137GB. But all the BIOS does is load the
>>> code in the Master Boot Record, which is at the bottom of the HD's
>>> address space, and that executable code, using the partition table,
>>> finds and loads ntldr. It would seem that the BIOS really doesn't have
>>> to access anything higher than cylinder 0 on the disk.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>>
>>
>> I am not pointing out any problems, this is simply how this functions in
>> NTFS formatted partitions
>>
>> The BIOS only loads to what is designated the first boot device, after
>> that, it is up to the device to begin loading through the MBR. MBR and
>> the MFT have little to do with each other, and how the BIOS recognizes
>> listings.
>
>
> Then I have no idea what your point is.
>
>

Wow, then maybe you should refrain from this topic. Read what a BIOS is, and
its function, then read about the MBR, and an MFT, and you'll see they have
nothing to do with the BIOS. You're the one who said, "seems you're pointing
out a problem of access by the BIOS of MFTs in drives larger than, say
2x137GB. But all the BIOS does is load the code in the Master Boot Record"

I said nothing regarding the BIOS, you brought that up, hence my reply. I
answered you solely regarding your query regarding the MFT, and it location
on the physical drive. How you *seem* to have had me make some allusion to
the BIOS, is something totally conjured up in your mind. If you are
concerned about what Andy stated regarding his mention of the BIOS and MFTs,
then ask him what he meant. I simply started with this particular part of
the thread, answering a question you posited regarding the location of the
MFT.