Hard Disc linking
in [Storage]
|
Prev: USB 2.0 port
Next: Physical hard drive failure.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 29 Jul 2005 18:38 "Peter" <peterfoxghost(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:7yvGe.6681$q23.1140806(a)news20.bellglobal.com... > > 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 Not necessarily a problem. > (BIOS dated pre 1995, > or if you are experiencing system hang conditions) Right. > you will need to close the 4092 cylinder limit jumper Or 2 GB capacity limitation jumper. 4092 assumes a 16 head translation. > in conjunction with your drive selection of Master, Slave or Cable Select. > >
From: J. Clarke on 1 Aug 2005 16:38
Arno Wagner wrote: > 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. First, BIOS manufacturers don't sell to end users, so they would not be likely to be selling new licenses as a result of the limits, and second the only people running the kind of machines that were in existence when the limits were established are a few hobbyists with a taste for antiques. > 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 -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |