Hard Disc linking
in [Storage]
|
Prev: USB 2.0 port
Next: Physical hard drive failure.
From: Rod Speed on 28 Jul 2005 21:28 Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to(a)myweb.nl> wrote: > "Arno Wagner" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:3ksdbhF103jhpU1(a)individual.net >> Previously nospam <nospam(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> Thanks everyone >> >>> Why would you want/need to have a cylinder limit? > > What cylinder limit. > Any drive over 8GB has a cylinder limit by default. Wrong when LBA is used. >> Simple: For software that was designed to stop working >> when a certain number of cylinders is exceeded. Some say >> this is simply lack of vision, but I strongly suspect >> that doing this type of coding in a mainboard BIOS >> serves to force the customer to buy new hardware. >> >>> Is it a hardware issue or an OS issue. >> >> Purely software, but might force you to buy new hardware.
From: Arno Wagner on 29 Jul 2005 10:34 Previously J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote: > Arno Wagner wrote: >> Previously nospam <nospam(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> Thanks everyone >> >>> Why would you want/need to have a cylinder limit? >> >> Simple: For software that was designed to stop working >> when a certain number of cylinders is exceeded. Some say >> this is simply lack of vision, but I strongly suspect >> that doing this type of coding in a mainboard BIOS >> serves to force the customer to buy new hardware. > Since the mainboard BIOS is bought from Phoenix or Award or AMI or one of > their competitors and not written by the mainboard manufacturer, this > doesn't seem to be a likely motivation. > One could argue that the 32-bit addressing limit in IDE was there to "force > the customer to buy new hardware". In fact that limit is some 5,000 times > larger than the largest drives on the market when IDE first shipped, so it > seems more likely that it never occurred to anybody that PCs would ever > have drives that big. Actually I expect it occured to lots of people, but they allways said, "what the hell, we can sell more Hardware/BIOS licenses that way if it does happen". I am not talking about the 32 bit limit, but also about the set of limits that came before it, which were many. Note that SCSI allways had 32bit sector addresses, even when PC disks were limited to ~500MB by the BIOS, so there definitely were people that expected these limits to be reached long ago. SCSI did add longer addresses also quite some time ago. Arno
From: Eric Gisin on 29 Jul 2005 12:55 "Arno Wagner" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:3kut3sFv4tfoU2(a)individual.net... > Previously J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote: > > > One could argue that the 32-bit addressing limit in IDE was there to "force > > the customer to buy new hardware". In fact that limit is some 5,000 times > > larger than the largest drives on the market when IDE first shipped, so it > > seems more likely that it never occurred to anybody that PCs would ever > > have drives that big. > What 32-bit IDE limit? > Actually I expect it occured to lots of people, but they allways > said, "what the hell, we can sell more Hardware/BIOS licenses > that way if it does happen". I am not talking about the > 32 bit limit, but also about the set of limits that came before > it, which were many. > What 32-bit IDE limit? > Note that SCSI allways had 32bit sector addresses, even when PC > disks were limited to ~500MB by the BIOS, so there definitely were > people that expected these limits to be reached long ago. SCSI > did add longer addresses also quite some time ago. > But SCSI was limited to 8GB 10 years ago, even with 32-bit. You two idiots can continue showing the group your ignorance of IDE. The rest of us know the actual IDE hardware limits, and Int13 limits.
From: Peter on 29 Jul 2005 15:35 > Why would you want/need to have a cylinder limit? > > Is it a hardware issue or an OS issue. If you have an older system BIOS that does not address capacities over 2.1GB (BIOS dated pre 1995, or if you are experiencing system hang conditions) you will need to close the 4092 cylinder limit jumper in conjunction with your drive selection of Master, Slave or Cable Select.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 29 Jul 2005 18:37
"Arno Wagner" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:3kut3sFv4tfoU2(a)individual.net... > Previously J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)snet.net.invalid> wrote: > > Arno Wagner wrote: > > >> Previously nospam <nospam(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Thanks everyone > >> > >>> Why would you want/need to have a cylinder limit? > >> > >> Simple: For software that was designed to stop working > >> when a certain number of cylinders is exceeded. Some say > >> this is simply lack of vision, but I strongly suspect > >> that doing this type of coding in a mainboard BIOS > >> serves to force the customer to buy new hardware. > > > Since the mainboard BIOS is bought from Phoenix or Award or AMI or one of > > their competitors and not written by the mainboard manufacturer, this > > doesn't seem to be a likely motivation. > > > One could argue that the 32-bit addressing limit in IDE was there to "force > > the customer to buy new hardware". In fact that limit is some 5,000 times > > larger than the largest drives on the market when IDE first shipped, so it > > seems more likely that it never occurred to anybody that PCs would ever > > have drives that big. > > Actually I expect it occured to lots of people, but they allways > said, "what the hell, we can sell more Hardware/BIOS licenses > that way if it does happen". > I am not talking about the 32-bit limit, but also about the set of limits > that came before it, which were many. Nope, ATA started with 28-bit (not 32-bit) right from ATA-1. > > Note that SCSI allways had 32bit sector addresses, even when PC > disks were limited to ~500MB by the BIOS, so there definitely were > people that expected these limits to be reached long ago. SCSI > did add longer addresses also quite some time ago. > > Arno |