I'm reposting one part of a longer multi-part question I posted previously, but the relevant portion was buried in the post and may not have been seen.
I'm thinking of adding a second hard disk for data (no OS, no apps), and I want to make sure I fully understand the implications of drize size limitations imposed by BIOS and various versions of Windows XP. I've done a bunch of Googling and reading (including some threads here), but I want to make sure I'm 100% clear before I proceed.
My motherboard is a Tyan Tiger 100, with two onboard EIDE ports. I have gotten the impression from various sources I've read that the BIOS (even the most recent version, which I have) supports drives up to 32 GB in size. I am also familiar with the well-documented 137-GB limit in Windows XP prior to SP1.
My main drive is 300 GB, but it's on a SATA card with its own drivers, so no issue there.
I'm thinking of putting a 500-GB drive (strictly for data) on one of the onboard EIDE ports, instead of connecting a second drive to my regular-old-PCI SATA card, for performance reasons. I am aware that there would be problems with fully recognizing it in some contexts, but the only OS I'm running is XP, and I don't care if XP doesn't recognize the drive during initial setup since it's only for data. (I know about slipstreaming but I don't care to bother with that; nor do I intend to use disk management software.)
But I want to ask a few questions to make sure I'm understanding this correctly:
1. Is it true that the BIOS limitations apply only in an OS like DOS, and that XP ignores such limits and uses its own drivers? In other words, as long as I'm using XP SP1 or newer, I have 48-bit LBA regardless of BIOS limits, correct?
2. So does this mean I have nothing to lose by putting a large drive on one of the EIDE ports, as long as I don't need to access it until I have at least SP1 installed? And then XP will suddenly recognize it, and all will be well in the world, except for some unexpected rearrangement of drive letters which I'm sure I can fix easily ... and I can just leave the drive unconfigured in the BIOS. Is this assessment correct?
Thanks to anybody who can confirm these points!
I'm thinking of adding a second hard disk for data (no OS, no apps), and I want to make sure I fully understand the implications of drize size limitations imposed by BIOS and various versions of Windows XP. I've done a bunch of Googling and reading (including some threads here), but I want to make sure I'm 100% clear before I proceed.
My motherboard is a Tyan Tiger 100, with two onboard EIDE ports. I have gotten the impression from various sources I've read that the BIOS (even the most recent version, which I have) supports drives up to 32 GB in size. I am also familiar with the well-documented 137-GB limit in Windows XP prior to SP1.
My main drive is 300 GB, but it's on a SATA card with its own drivers, so no issue there.
I'm thinking of putting a 500-GB drive (strictly for data) on one of the onboard EIDE ports, instead of connecting a second drive to my regular-old-PCI SATA card, for performance reasons. I am aware that there would be problems with fully recognizing it in some contexts, but the only OS I'm running is XP, and I don't care if XP doesn't recognize the drive during initial setup since it's only for data. (I know about slipstreaming but I don't care to bother with that; nor do I intend to use disk management software.)
But I want to ask a few questions to make sure I'm understanding this correctly:
1. Is it true that the BIOS limitations apply only in an OS like DOS, and that XP ignores such limits and uses its own drivers? In other words, as long as I'm using XP SP1 or newer, I have 48-bit LBA regardless of BIOS limits, correct?
2. So does this mean I have nothing to lose by putting a large drive on one of the EIDE ports, as long as I don't need to access it until I have at least SP1 installed? And then XP will suddenly recognize it, and all will be well in the world, except for some unexpected rearrangement of drive letters which I'm sure I can fix easily ... and I can just leave the drive unconfigured in the BIOS. Is this assessment correct?
Thanks to anybody who can confirm these points!