Seagate Barracuda 160 GB IDE becomes corrupted. RMA?

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:06:26 GMT, Andy wrote:

:On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
:wrote:
:
:So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
:that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB IDE drive
:without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?
:
:If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
:in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
:registry:
:------ cut -----
:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
:
:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
:After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
:capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
:configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives?

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

3. How do I execute the EnableBigLba.reg file?

Thanks!!

Dan

PS One more question:

4. The EnableBigLba.reg file - I create it with a text editor, such as
notepad? Thanks...

Dan
:
:
:If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
:with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
:effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
:I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
:entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for each OS partition I
:have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
:not? Thanks for any info on this.
:
:Dan
:
:PS Another question I have is the following:
:
:Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
:the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
:automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
:the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
:installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
:user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
:brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
:valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
:suddenly and entirely without warning.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:06:26 GMT, Andy wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB
IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry:
:------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
has been configured to properly access large drives?

The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
physical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

Yes.

3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?

Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
It will ask you if you want to run it.


If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install
disk with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't
be in effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that
means that I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make
that registry entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for
each OS partition I have, including both my Win2000 ones and my
Win98SE. Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that
creates the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't
want to automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could
have created the registry entry automatically as part of the
service pack installation. Or, they could have at least put up a
dialogue asking the user if they wanted to. It just seems like a
serious mistake to not have brought the issue to the user's
attention. I might have lost a ton of valuable data. After all,
everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and suddenly and entirely
without warning.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:06:26 GMT, Andy wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB
IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry:
:------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives?

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

3. How do I execute the EnableBigLba.reg file?

Thanks!!

Dan

PS One more question:

4. The EnableBigLba.reg file - I create it with a text editor, such as
notepad? Thanks...

Yep.

Dan


If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install
disk with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't
be in effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that
means that I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make
that registry entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for
each OS partition I have, including both my Win2000 ones and my
Win98SE. Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that
creates the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't
want to automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could
have created the registry entry automatically as part of the
service pack installation. Or, they could have at least put up a
dialogue asking the user if they wanted to. It just seems like a
serious mistake to not have brought the issue to the user's
attention. I might have lost a ton of valuable data. After all,
everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and suddenly and entirely
without warning.

"Andy" wrote in message
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry right
that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB IDE drive
without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
registry:
------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
------ cut -----

After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

That doesn't compute.
If capacity was to differ with 48-bit enabled/disabled there wouldn't
be a problem to start with. Clearly that's not the case.



If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install disk
with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't be in
effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that means that
I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make that registry
entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for each OS partition I
have, including both my Win2000 ones and my Win98SE. Is this correct or
not? Thanks for any info on this.

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that creates
the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't want to
automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could have created
the registry entry automatically as part of the service pack
installation. Or, they could have at least put up a dialogue asking the
user if they wanted to. It just seems like a serious mistake to not have
brought the issue to the user's attention. I might have lost a ton of
valuable data. After all, everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and
suddenly and entirely without warning.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:04:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

an_Musicant wrote:
: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:06:26 GMT, Andy wrote:
:
: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
: wrote:
:
: So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
: right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB
: IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?
:
: If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following lines
: in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in the
: registry:
: :------ cut -----
: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
:
: :[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
: :"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
: :------ cut -----
: After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
: capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
: configured to properly access large drives.
:
: I have a few of questions:
:
: 1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
: has been configured to properly access large drives?
:
:The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
hysical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
:If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB. Now, after doing the registry
hack it says:

Physical Drives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Drive #1 - ST3120026A (111 GB) ]

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 (Active) FAT32 C: (BOOTWIN98SE) 0 MB 3004 MB
#2 NTFS D: (Boot1Win2000) 3004 MB 6000 MB
#3 NTFS E: (Boot2Win2000) 9005 MB 6000 MB
#4 NTFS F: (BootDataNTFS) 15006 MB 99464 MB

[ Drive #2 - ST3160023A (149 GB) ] ------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 FAT32 H: (160_FAT32) 7 MB 40005 MB
#2 NTFS I: (160_NTFS) 40013 MB 112611 MB

[ Drive #3 - ST3200822A (186 GB) ] ------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 NTFS G: (---200_NTFS) 7 MB 190771 MB


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I edited the registry by hand.

Dan
:
: 2. I assume I leave out the lines:
:
: ------cut------
:
:Yes.
:
: 3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?
:
:Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
:It will ask you if you want to run it.
:
:
: If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install
: disk with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't
: be in effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that
: means that I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I make
: that registry entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that for
: each OS partition I have, including both my Win2000 ones and my
: Win98SE. Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.
:
: Dan
:
: PS Another question I have is the following:
:
: Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that
: creates the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't
: want to automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could
: have created the registry entry automatically as part of the
: service pack installation. Or, they could have at least put up a
: dialogue asking the user if they wanted to. It just seems like a
: serious mistake to not have brought the issue to the user's
: attention. I might have lost a ton of valuable data. After all,
: everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and suddenly and entirely
: without warning.
:

Thanks for the washup.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:04:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:06:26 GMT, Andy wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:31:22 GMT, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

So, I'm wondering something now. Assuming I get the registry entry
right that will enable 48-bit LBA and that lets me use a 137 GB
IDE drive without errors, what happens when I reinstall my OS's?

If you want to make life easier for yourself, put the following
lines in a file named EnableBigLba.reg and execute it to put it in
the registry:
:------ cut -----
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\atapi\Parameters]
:"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001
:------ cut -----
After you modify the registry, run Disk Management and look at the
capacity of the large disks to confirm that Windows 2000 has been
configured to properly access large drives.

I have a few of questions:

1. How can I verify in Disk Management that Windows 2000
has been configured to properly access large drives?

The simplest quick check for that is using Everest, the
physical drive entry I flagged in your Everest report.
If it shows 127G, EnableBigLBA hasnt been enabled.

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the
capacity of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB. Now, after doing the
registry hack it says:

Physical Drives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[ Drive #1 - ST3120026A (111 GB) ]

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 (Active) FAT32 C: (BOOTWIN98SE) 0 MB 3004 MB
#2 NTFS D: (Boot1Win2000) 3004 MB 6000 MB
#3 NTFS E: (Boot2Win2000) 9005 MB 6000 MB
#4 NTFS F: (BootDataNTFS) 15006 MB 99464 MB

[ Drive #2 - ST3160023A (149 GB) ] ------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 FAT32 H: (160_FAT32) 7 MB 40005 MB
#2 NTFS I: (160_NTFS) 40013 MB 112611 MB

[ Drive #3 - ST3200822A (186 GB) ] ------------

Partition Partition Type Drive Start Offset Partition Length
#1 NTFS G: (---200_NTFS) 7 MB 190771 MB


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I edited the registry by hand.

Dan

2. I assume I leave out the lines:

------cut------

Yes.

3. How do I execute the EnagleBigLba.reg file?

Just double click on the file in the explorer display.
It will ask you if you want to run it.


If I install Win2000, even if I slipstream SP4 onto a CDR install
disk with my SP2 install disk, after the install, 48-bit LBA won't
be in effect until AFTER I make the registry entry. I presume that
means that I better disconnect my 137 IDE HDD's until AFTER I
make that registry entry. Is that correct? And I have to do that
for each OS partition I have, including both my Win2000 ones and
my Win98SE. Is this correct or not? Thanks for any info on this.

Dan

PS Another question I have is the following:

Why didn't Microsoft include functionality in SP3 or SP4 that
creates the registry setting? Is there a reason a person wouldn't
want to automatically have 48-bit LBA enabled? Surely, they could
have created the registry entry automatically as part of the
service pack installation. Or, they could have at least put up a
dialogue asking the user if they wanted to. It just seems like a
serious mistake to not have brought the issue to the user's
attention. I might have lost a ton of valuable data. After all,
everything on my 160 GB drive was lost, and suddenly and entirely
without warning.

In article , Dan_Musicant
writes

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB.

You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:15:58 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

:In article , Dan_Musicant
writes
:
:Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
:of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB.
:
:You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
:drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

Ah, well, if you read this thread at the start you'd have seen that I
did actually lose every byte of data on my 160 GB drive. Luckily, my 200
GB drive escaped unharmed, AFAIK. It's the 200 GB drive that has my
important data. Everything on the 160 GB drive that I cared about that I
know about I had backed up, so AFAIK, I didn't lose anything in terms of
data. Lesson number one to learn: ALWAYS have any data backed up that
you would miss if your HD goes belly up.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
In article , Dan_Musicant writes

Yes, it's working now it seems. My first Everest report had the capacity
of my 160 and 200 GB drives as 127 GB.

You had a close shave. Had you written more than 127GB of data to those
drives, you would have lost all data on them too.

That is like saying that all drivers have the same bug.

But hey, maybe MS only certifies the drivers if the bug is present.

In article ews.net,
Folkert Rienstra writes

But hey, maybe MS only certifies the drivers if the bug is present.

Anything M$ does wouldn't surprise me.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.