BIOS hard drive size limitations

BIOS hard drive size limitations

I have a Compaq Presario desktop machine I bought in Jan 1999 so it
must have been produced in 1998. It came with an IDE 4 GB hard drive
and windows 98 on it. I recently install a new (old) 10 GB hard drive
(Western Digital) as the primary and a Quantum Fireball 10 BG as the
slave with the jumpers set to cable select as the manual said to do
with IDE internal drives. I did a clean install of a new version (for
this computer) of 98 Second edition this time. The Hard drives show as
having 9.3 of useable space.
I have read a lot about computers produced up to and including the
year1998. I have read that BOISs can not handle certain sizes of hard
drives. I have found numerous size limits for hard drives and am not
sure if I need to heed any of theses limits. And why the different
limits I assumed that after 1998 they opened a much larger limit to
anticipate future hard drives. Y2K was one limit but did not realize
that hard drive size was another. The sizes of limits I have seemed to
run across are as follows: 504MB, 2.1GB, 8.4GB, 8.6GB and 32GB. Of
course the latter does not concern me.
The simple question is if I already see the full size of the 10GB
drives as 9.3GB do I need worry of future problems? When trying to
write to the drives in excess of any of the above size limits like on
the 9.3GB of usable space when I pass 8.4 or 8.6GB will I have possible
problems such as write errors? So far the primary is holding 2.65 GB
and the slave has 762MB on it. I did find what Compaq is calling a ROM
Update (file name sp12234.exe). Am I wrong in thinking that this is a
BIOS update too? But this file I can find no explanation as to why I
would need it and what problems it addresses in relation to the older
ROM setting that came in the computer at the 1998 production. Compaq
(HP) suggests that I upgrade using the file but things seem to be
working alright I like to leave well enough alone especially when it
comes to Microsoft (windows) and its wonderful line of products (that
is sarcasm, I also use a Mac from time to time). Thinking out loud here
but when looking for help on the web it seems so much more is available
for windows than the Mac OSs. Could it be that the windows (IBM
compatible PCs) user base is so much larger or is it that windows is
what should I say .... more complicated even though both machines do
just about the same things in the end!
And what about Dynamic Drive Overlays software (setting) or the size
limiting jumper on the drives? Is that something I need to know about
and use in

DJW wrote:
BIOS hard drive size limitations

I have a Compaq Presario desktop machine I bought in Jan 1999 so it
must have been produced in 1998. It came with an IDE 4 GB hard drive
and windows 98 on it. I recently install a new (old) 10 GB hard drive
(Western Digital) as the primary and a Quantum Fireball 10 BG as the
slave with the jumpers set to cable select as the manual said to do
with IDE internal drives. I did a clean install of a new version (for
this computer) of 98 Second edition this time. The Hard drives show as
having 9.3 of useable space.
I have read a lot about computers produced up to and including the
year1998. I have read that BOISs can not handle certain sizes of hard
drives. I have found numerous size limits for hard drives and am not
sure if I need to heed any of theses limits. And why the different
limits I assumed that after 1998 they opened a much larger limit to
anticipate future hard drives. Y2K was one limit but did not realize
that hard drive size was another. The sizes of limits I have seemed to
run across are as follows: 504MB, 2.1GB, 8.4GB, 8.6GB and 32GB. Of
course the latter does not concern me.
The simple question is if I already see the full size of the 10GB
drives as 9.3GB do I need worry of future problems? When trying to
write to the drives in excess of any of the above size limits like on
the 9.3GB of usable space when I pass 8.4 or 8.6GB will I have possible
problems such as write errors? So far the primary is holding 2.65 GB
and the slave has 762MB on it. I did find what Compaq is calling a ROM
Update (file name sp12234.exe). Am I wrong in thinking that this is a
BIOS update too? But this file I can find no explanation as to why I
would need it and what problems it addresses in relation to the older
ROM setting that came in the computer at the 1998 production. Compaq
(HP) suggests that I upgrade using the file but things seem to be
working alright I like to leave well enough alone especially when it
comes to Microsoft (windows) and its wonderful line of products (that
is sarcasm, I also use a Mac from time to time). Thinking out loud here
but when looking for help on the web it seems so much more is available
for windows than the Mac OSs. Could it be that the windows (IBM
compatible PCs) user base is so much larger or is it that windows is
what should I say .... more complicated even though both machines do
just about the same things in the end!
And what about Dynamic Drive Overlays software (setting) or the size
limiting jumper on the drives? Is that something I need to know about
and use in


My standard test for disk drives, is to make multiple copies of large
files on the disk until the disk is full. If there is going to be
an incompatibility, you'll trip across it soon enough. When all copies
have been made to the disk, you can verify the copies with a checksum
program (I've used MD5SUM, but there are others), and see if all copies
have the same checksum. That will give the hardware a good workout.
(I use a 1GB sized file for the test, copied from one of my other computers,
via the network. Then make a bunch of local copies.)

To handle larger disks, you can buy a PCI IDE controller. Or a PCI
SATA controller. One advantage of the PCI IDE controller, is it
will support the faster transfer rates offered by modern disk
drives. This is an example of a controller you could plug in.
I use one of these on my 440BX chipset machine.

PROMISE ULTRA133TX2 PCI IDE Controller Card - Retail ($43)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816102027

For today's upper limits on storage, read a document like this.
Page 17 (item #8), is for using IDE drives on Win98, with a
PCI IDE card. Still not bulletproof, but promising.

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf

HTH,
Paul

"DJW" wrote:

BIOS hard drive size limitations

[snipped scary piece of text with no paragraphs!]

Hard drives always format to a smaller size than they are advertised to.
Thus the 9.xGB you are seeing is quite normal.

Also, since your machines BIOS sees these drives and boots with them is a
fairly good confirmation that it does not have the 8.4GB limit (the 8.6GB
limit does not exist afaik) and it should take drives at least as large as
32GB.

Hope this helps.
Cheers!

--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk

On 5 Jan 2007 14:04:14 -0800 Too Much Ying and you will Pay With Yang
then "DJW" sent this :

And what about Dynamic Drive Overlays software (setting) or the size
limiting jumper on the drives? Is that something I need to know about
and use in

You probably won't need one depending on the size of drive you
fit.With your system I would suspect the next limit you hit would be
the 127 gig BIOS barrier although there is an easily fixable FAT32
barrier in win98/SE at 64meg(download and re-partition with the Fdisk
from WinME)

or Super Fdisk(free),
http://www.sofotex.com/Super-Fdisk-download_L19989.html

As for drive sizes.Hard drive makers round up to a false size when
they advertize,
http://www.personal-computer-tutor.c.../v30/vic30.htm



HTH



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page...m?bandID=88558

On 5 Jan 2007 14:04:14 -0800, DJW wrote:

I have a Compaq Presario desktop machine I bought in Jan 1999 so it
must have been produced in 1998. It came with an IDE 4 GB hard drive
and windows 98 on it. I recently install a new (old) 10 GB hard drive
(Western Digital) as the primary and a Quantum Fireball 10 BG as the
slave with the jumpers set to cable select as the manual said to do
with IDE internal drives. I did a clean install of a new version (for
this computer) of 98 Second edition this time. The Hard drives show as
having 9.3 of useable space.

This is normal. It has to do with the way that manufacturers label their
hard drives. They use the decimal system and consider 1KB to be 1,000
bytes. However, this is not truly accurate. 1KB is really 1,024 bytes in
the binary system. When you do the math up to GB, you find the
discrepancy. So, a manufacturer labeled 10GB hard drive is in reality
9.3GB using the binary system rather than the decimal system. And, we all
know computers use binary rather than decimal.

Someone with better math skills than I may be able to explain this in more
detail.

Patty

Shep© wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 14:04:14 -0800 Too Much Ying and you will Pay With Yang
then "DJW" sent this :

And what about Dynamic Drive Overlays software (setting) or the size
limiting jumper on the drives? Is that something I need to know about
and use in

You probably won't need one depending on the size of drive you
fit.With your system I would suspect the next limit you hit would be
the 127 gig BIOS barrier although there is an easily fixable FAT32
barrier in win98/SE at 64meg(download and re-partition with the Fdisk
from WinME)

or Super Fdisk(free),
http://www.sofotex.com/Super-Fdisk-download_L19989.html

As for drive sizes.Hard drive makers round
up to a false size when they advertize,

No they dont, they use the SI standard decimal GBs.

If anything its the binary GBs often reported by OSs that are 'false'
because there isnt anything intrinsically binary about hard drives,
just memory. You dont see binary Ms used with cpus etc.

http://www.personal-computer-tutor.c.../v30/vic30.htm

Pig ignorant drivel.

Patty wrote
DJW wrote

I have a Compaq Presario desktop machine I bought in Jan 1999 so it
must have been produced in 1998. It came with an IDE 4 GB hard drive
and windows 98 on it. I recently install a new (old) 10 GB hard drive
(Western Digital) as the primary and a Quantum Fireball 10 BG as the
slave with the jumpers set to cable select as the manual said to do
with IDE internal drives. I did a clean install of a new version (for
this computer) of 98 Second edition this time. The Hard drives show
as having 9.3 of useable space.

This is normal. It has to do with the way that manufacturers label
their hard drives. They use the decimal system and consider 1KB to
be 1,000 bytes.

Correct.

However, this is not truly accurate.

Wrong.

1KB is really 1,024 bytes in the binary system.

Pity there is nothing intrinsically binary about a hard drive sector count.

When you do the math up to GB, you find the discrepancy.
So, a manufacturer labeled 10GB hard drive is in reality
9.3GB using the binary system rather than the decimal system.
And, we all know computers use binary rather than decimal.

No we dont. In fact only the memory is intrisically binary organised
and the cpu speed, comms speeds, etc etc etc are decimal.

The 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary decimal hybrid.

Someone with better math skills than I may be able to explain this in more detail.

The problem isnt with the math skills, its understanding the basics like the fact that
the SI standard GB is decimal and that only memory is binary organised in a PC.

Patty wrote:

This is normal. It has to do with the way that manufacturers label
their hard drives. They use the decimal system and consider 1KB to
be 1,000 bytes. However, this is not truly accurate. 1KB is really
1,024 bytes in the binary system. When you do the math up to GB, you
find the discrepancy. So, a manufacturer labeled 10GB hard drive is
in reality
9.3GB using the binary system rather than the decimal system. And,
we all know computers use binary rather than decimal.

Someone with better math skills than I may be able to explain this in
more detail.

Patty


Currently we can divide the advertised size in GB, base10 by 1.073742 to
yield the size in GB base2.

When hard drives reach TB size the factor will be 1.099512, or approximately
10%.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Patty wrote
DJW wrote

I have a Compaq Presario desktop machine I bought in Jan 1999 so it
must have been produced in 1998. It came with an IDE 4 GB hard drive
and windows 98 on it. I recently install a new (old) 10 GB hard drive
(Western Digital) as the primary and a Quantum Fireball 10 BG as the
slave with the jumpers set to cable select as the manual said to do
with IDE internal drives. I did a clean install of a new version (for
this computer) of 98 Second edition this time. The Hard drives show
as having 9.3 of useable space.

This is normal. It has to do with the way that manufacturers label
their hard drives. They use the decimal system and consider 1KB to
be 1,000 bytes.

Correct.

However, this is not truly accurate.

Wrong.

1KB is really 1,024 bytes in the binary system.

Pity there is nothing intrinsically binary about a hard drive sector
count.


If by "intrinsically binary" you mean a "power of two" then you should also
note there in nothing "intrinsically decimal" about a hard drive sector
count since it isn't necessarilly a "power of ten", which makes your
statement irrelevant.

If you mean something else please explain.

When you do the math up to GB, you find the discrepancy.
So, a manufacturer labeled 10GB hard drive is in reality
9.3GB using the binary system rather than the decimal system.
And, we all know computers use binary rather than decimal.

No we dont. In fact only the memory is intrisically binary organised
and the cpu speed, comms speeds, etc etc etc are decimal.


I believe you are wrong here.

Since all numbers can be represented by the binary system cpu speed, comms
speeds, etc etc etc can be represented in any number system commonly used,
decimal, binary, hexadecimal or whatever. If by "intrisically binary" you
mean "power of two" then you have to include bus widths (8 bit, 16 bit, 32
bit, etc.), register sizes, many data types (byte, word, dword, etc.),
processors themselves (there aren't too many 10 bit or 100 bit processors on
the market). I could go on but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

The point is that either system can represent the values correctly but
computers (at least the kind we're talking about) are digital, meaning they
are essentially a large group of inter-connected switches that can have one
of two states, on or off. This type of system is easy to represent using
binary numbers. Problems come about when we use decimal representations of
binary numbers (like when I used "8 bit" above instead of "10000 bit").
Then we carry it one step farther by re-defining kilo (and mega, etc.) which
traditionally meant 1000 (decimal) to 1024 (decimal) instead of coining a
new word for the 1024 value.



The 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary decimal hybrid.


I don't know what you mean by that.

Someone with better math skills than I may be able to explain this in
more detail.

The problem isnt with the math skills, its understanding the basics like
the fact that
the SI standard GB is decimal and that only memory is binary organised in
a PC.



Actually, if there is a problem, its with people calling non-standard things
standard. When you have many ways used to represent the same thing there is
no standard.

Charlie

"Charlie" wrote:

....

I believe you are wrong here.

Being right doesn't mean much to Rod Speed.

I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Anything is possible (and that would prove it).

Obviously you haven't tried communicating with him before. Please
don't take his forthcoming insulting reply as an indication of
USENET in general.

If he weren't pathological about insulting others here on USENET, he
would receive more intelligent replies to his frequent oftentimes
ignorant posts and that would make replies to him about as fun as
replies to w_tom (so, there's room for improvement).

But thanks for giving it a go.









The point is that either system can represent the values correctly
but computers (at least the kind we're talking about) are digital,
meaning they are essentially a large group of inter-connected
switches that can have one of two states, on or off. This type of
system is easy to represent using binary numbers. Problems come
about when we use decimal representations of binary numbers (like
when I used "8 bit" above instead of "10000 bit"). Then we carry
it one step farther by re-defining kilo (and mega, etc.) which
traditionally meant 1000 (decimal) to 1024 (decimal) instead of
coining a new word for the 1024 value.



The 1.44MB floppy is actually a weird binary decimal hybrid.


I don't know what you mean by that.

Someone with better math skills than I may be able to explain
this in more detail.

The problem isnt with the math skills, its understanding the
basics like the fact that the SI standard GB is decimal and that
only memory is binary organised in a PC.



Actually, if there is a problem, its with people calling
non-standard things standard. When you have many ways used to
represent the same thing there is no standard.

Charlie