BIOS 137GB limit, but XP sees 232 GB! Safe?

Hi,

I've got an old MSI Gateway-OEM motherboard (MS-6330) that doesn't
support 48-bit LBA with its latest BIOS revision, so my Western Digital
250GB drive shows up as 137GB in BIOS, as expected.

But, in Windows, Disk Management shows it as the full 232 GB, and I'm
able to create >137GB partitions, format, and use them.

Is this safe to use without messing with drive overlays? I'm not going
to boot from the drive, it'll be used for storage only.

Thanks!

Hmm, odd you didn't mention any service packs for XP like SP1 or SP2.

--
Jonny
<sarmadgilani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136397616.715870.49240@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've got an old MSI Gateway-OEM motherboard (MS-6330) that doesn't
> support 48-bit LBA with its latest BIOS revision, so my Western Digital
> 250GB drive shows up as 137GB in BIOS, as expected.
>
> But, in Windows, Disk Management shows it as the full 232 GB, and I'm
> able to create >137GB partitions, format, and use them.
>
> Is this safe to use without messing with drive overlays? I'm not going
> to boot from the drive, it'll be used for storage only.
>
> Thanks!
>

Oops, sorry.. I've got SP2. So I know that Windows can support the
drive just fine, but I want to make sure that my BIOS limitations won't
hurt me.

I would think that Windows doesn't care that the BIOS only reports 137
GB, since it correctly detected the whole drive. But I'm not sure about
data loss or corruption in the future... I would think that BIOS is
irrelevant in this case?

There is I believe a theoretical possibility of data lose/corruption.
Incidentally, this also applies if a large drive is formated to 137gb, then
large Lba is enabled and then in the subsequent free space another partition
is created.
(Read this on some Win tech paper)

<sarmadgilani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136402009.881849.178180@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Oops, sorry.. I've got SP2. So I know that Windows can support the
> drive just fine, but I want to make sure that my BIOS limitations won't
> hurt me.
>
> I would think that Windows doesn't care that the BIOS only reports 137
> GB, since it correctly detected the whole drive. But I'm not sure about
> data loss or corruption in the future... I would think that BIOS is
> irrelevant in this case?
>

I've looked at KB articles and the like, and I can't even find a
reference to a situation where the BIOS only supports 32-bit LBA, but
that Windows can detect the full size.

I guess it comes down to whether or not Windows cares about the
translated geometry that BIOS gives it.. seems like it is disregarding
what BIOS reports since it can see and access the whole drive. At least
I think that's the case... wish I could find a straight answer though!

If your bios specifically states it supports HD's up to a certain size it
maybe because at the time of release it wasnt envisaged that there would be
any larger HD's and as such it wasnt tested on anything larger.
I would, however, remain wary upon relying on the integrity of any data.

<sarmadgilani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136407984.917123.9350@g47g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> I've looked at KB articles and the like, and I can't even find a
> reference to a situation where the BIOS only supports 32-bit LBA, but
> that Windows can detect the full size.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether or not Windows cares about the
> translated geometry that BIOS gives it.. seems like it is disregarding
> what BIOS reports since it can see and access the whole drive. At least
> I think that's the case... wish I could find a straight answer though!
>

Once Windows has been booted and is running, the BIOS is irrelevant
when Windows accesses the hard drives.

On 4 Jan 2006 10:00:16 -0800, sarmadgilani@gmail.com wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've got an old MSI Gateway-OEM motherboard (MS-6330) that doesn't
>support 48-bit LBA with its latest BIOS revision, so my Western Digital
>250GB drive shows up as 137GB in BIOS, as expected.
>
>But, in Windows, Disk Management shows it as the full 232 GB, and I'm
>able to create >137GB partitions, format, and use them.
>
>Is this safe to use without messing with drive overlays? I'm not going
>to boot from the drive, it'll be used for storage only.
>
>Thanks!

Its 28 bit LBA on the older bios versions.

--
Jonny
<sarmadgilani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136407984.917123.9350@g47g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> I've looked at KB articles and the like, and I can't even find a
> reference to a situation where the BIOS only supports 32-bit LBA, but
> that Windows can detect the full size.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether or not Windows cares about the
> translated geometry that BIOS gives it.. seems like it is disregarding
> what BIOS reports since it can see and access the whole drive. At least
> I think that's the case... wish I could find a straight answer though!
>

Its 28 bit LBA on the older bios versions.

--
Jonny
<sarmadgilani@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136407984.917123.9350@g47g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...
> I've looked at KB articles and the like, and I can't even find a
> reference to a situation where the BIOS only supports 32-bit LBA, but
> that Windows can detect the full size.
>
> I guess it comes down to whether or not Windows cares about the
> translated geometry that BIOS gives it.. seems like it is disregarding
> what BIOS reports since it can see and access the whole drive. At least
> I think that's the case... wish I could find a straight answer though!
>

That's what I thought too; BIOS shouldn't matter after the system is
booted up. I would think that I only have to worry if I wanted to make
bootable partition that spans the 137 GB boundary, since in that case
BIOS needs to access it correctly.