Moin, Wrong. It switches over to 48-bit LBA commands when accesses are made to and beyond the 256th billion physical sector.Hmm, what happens if a multi-sectors transfer starts just below and ends beyond 128GB? If this leads to the harddisk producing an error, would the original code be able to handle it? The data loss would be noticed much beyond the 128Gb barrier. Also, if you read the previous posts I have made in this thread, that data loss is statistically a rare occurrence and only applies to specific BIOSae and hardware configurations which are not very prominent.Well, not that rare. And it might even happen to bigger than 128GB disk if the BIOS decides to map them into something with 240 heads. Thus it is important to test not only for correct function around 128GB but also around 32GB. I just see a general warning, not a specific one about .2222 vs. .2225. Except in the cases where the user is in for an unpleasant surprise because (s)he 1) wasn't even aware that a 32GB problem existed on the drives already in the system 2) has not used a HD >32GB yet and happens to trigger the problem with the new >128GB HD 3) later on adds a HD whose mapping triggers the problem, not even aware that another HD, even smaller than 128GB, could lead to trouble when a working big HD already is present in the system - how long would it take said user to identify the .2222 code as the source of the problem? I'd rather be on the safe side. Especially if it's only a *slight* slowdown it's not worth taking the risk, and does anyone know what other fixes Microsoft built into the .2225? MOW