Jump to content

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!


Recommended Posts

im just wanting some confirmation, i just installed 98se and usp3, drivers and stuff, and i installed 48BITLBA and intel application accelerator and on a 40gb disk then ghosted it to a 160gb disk and ran the 160gb disk and i filled it up using MAKE2GB from COPY2GB i filled the disk to 149GB its not really 160GB :( oh well so i have 139mb left and windows still boots so i can assume i didnt have any problems with 48bitlba?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hard Drive manufacturers are all cheating about the number of Gb. They say 160 Gb while it's infact 160 billions of bytes.

160 000 000 000b is 149 GB indeed. ((160 000 000 000/1024)/1024)/1024 = 149

So it's normal.

Download Dingue Calculator on my website (signature). I included a data unit convertor...

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard Drive manufacturers are all cheating.
No they're not. A 160 GB disk should be able to store 160 * 109 bytes. This equals to 149 GiB which is 149 * 230. This is convented by the IEC in 1999.

@awergh:

Theoretically your test is not rock solid. There could be corruption which do not stop Windows from booting. Since you've passed the 128 GiB limit with 32 GiB, about 25% of the disk should be currupted when the patch doesn't work.

I *think* you're safe, since I can't imagine that windows would not give a single complain with such a corruption, but it *is* possible. LLXX advices that you should test the disk integrety with scandisk, after having filled it with data. You should *not* use W98 scandisk, which can corrupt partitions bigger than 127 GiB, but WinME scandisk, or some 3th party scanner. In any case it's recommended to exchange scandisk and defrag with the WinME versions, when using partitions >127 GiB, as you can read earlier in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my though about 149gb instead of 160gb was that Seagate got sued recently, but maybe they havent put the right amounts yet.

well i did have a bsod about vmm or something recently so im not sure i re cloned the drive from the 40gb, and i decided to do what i intend which is 120gb partion and 29gb for other os or something, but im only at 9gb full of 20gb because i decided not to use MAKE2GB for some reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, it's safest to divide the drive into 127GB partitions in case you reinstal windows and forget to update defrag and scandisk to ME.

160Gb vs 149Gb: Maybe it's legal, yet it's not honest. The bigger the drives are the bigger the difference and the disapointment of the poeple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

160Gb vs 149Gb: Maybe it's legal, yet it's not honest.

That's true. In this case Windows is wrong. It should not mention the disk as 149GB, but 149GiB. On the other hand, W98 is older than the '99 IEC convention, so how could it conform? On the third hand, AFAIK Vista still does it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do ytou mean vista does it wrong afaik all OSs treat a GB as 1024MB

Well, this is going slightly off-topic. You will know that 1 kB is not 1000 bytes but 1024. Yet the 'k' prefix means 1000. In 'binary environments' it was practise to use the 'k' prefix for 1024, because it's easy, it was relatively accurate (only 2.4% wrong), and there was no other prefix available. But memory and disks became bigger. the difference between a 'real' MB and a 'practical' MB is almost 5%, for GB this is 7.3%, and for TB this will be 10%. Your brandnew 1TB disk will be 100GB too small! As Fredledingue stated: 'The bigger the drives are the bigger the difference'. And the 'binary environment' became less well defined. The decimal and binary prefixes became mixed. In earlier days I had an 14k4 modem, which could handle a full duplex 14400 bits/second. In this case a 'k' is obviously 1000. Why? Isn't is a 'binary device'? What about my 4Mb broadband? It turns out to be 4000000b. But the upload is 1Mb, which is 1048576b. Did you know that the 1.44MB floppy size is 1.44 * 1024 * 1000 bytes?

So this practise became inconvenient. For this reason the IEC introduced the binary prefixes Ki, Mi, Gi, ...

The harddisk manufacturers are right when they sell you a 160GB harddisk which can contain 160000000000 bytes. They are using an international standard. It would be nice if they sold you a 149GiB disk, but as long as their competitors don't, they cannot do that.

Vista (and all OSs) should use the right prefix. Using standards in a wrong way is confusing and error prone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I read about GiB, KiB etc... eventhought the convention was created in 1999.

Why no one ever used it? Why M$ never made a patch to diplay GiB instaed of GB, starting from w98se?

Maybe to maintain the confusion about data tranfer speed and storage. I maintain this confusion is intentional.

I also wonder why hard drive manufacturers never do 160 GiB HD, and do only 160 GB...

After a Vista OS installatiom, a 160 GB has only 134 GiB of storage left.

I wonder how many consumer complained that they didn't have the right HD in their new computer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Did you know that the 1.44MB floppy size is 1.44 * 1024 * 1000 bytes?

I think foppy size is derived from its physical geometry, so you should write 80*18*2*512 = 1474560 instead

meaningless 1.44*1024*1000 even if the result is same.

Anyway I don't bother about MB and MiB, it's not serious difference compared e.g. to nowdays HDD sizes.

From your experience you will know where is used MiBs and MBs. But sometimes I wonder too, e.g. I would expect that

CF card will use MiBs because it contains flash chips which are surely 2^N sized but they probably save this capacity

for badblock relocation and other hidden storage for CF controller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that the 1.44MB floppy size is 1.44 * 1024 * 1000 bytes?
I think foppy size is derived from its physical geometry, so you should write 80*18*2*512 = 1474560 instead meaningless 1.44*1024*1000 even if the result is same.

1.44*1000*1024 is not meaningless. It's historical grown. The predecessor was a 720kB (720*1024) floppy. This floppy size was exactly doubled, making a 1440kB floppy, in short 1.44MB. This should have been 1.406MB, of course, but how could the marketor say he doubled the size of the '720', and then sell you a floppy which is not twice as big?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.44*1000*1024 is not meaningless. It's historical grown. The predecessor was a 720kB (720*1024) floppy. This floppy size was exactly doubled, making a 1440kB floppy, in short 1.44MB. This should have been 1.406MB, of course, but how could the marketor say he doubled the size of the '720', and then sell you a floppy which is not twice as big?

Uh... The 1.44 meg floppy is actually 1.38MB, not 1.40. That of course, if you're not using a hacked filesystem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

A standard 1.44MB floppy has 2 sides, 18 sectors/track, 80 tracks and 512 bytes/sector. This gives 2*18*80*512 bytes = 1474560 bytes, which is 1.40625 MiB.

Maybe it has a formatted size of 1.38 (MB? MiB?), but the used filesystem is not a part of the floppy specification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

A standard 1.44MB floppy has 2 sides, 18 sectors/track, 80 tracks and 512 bytes/sector. This gives 2*18*80*512 bytes = 1474560 bytes, which is 1.40625 MiB.

Maybe it has a formatted size of 1.38 (MB? MiB?), but the used filesystem is not a part of the floppy specification.

Yes, the formatted size is 1.38MiB (FAT12). Maybe it's not part of the spec, but since when did we care about anything but usable capacities of our drives?

It's the same as saying that a 305GiB drive is actually 320GiB (the marketed capacity). :rolleyes:

Edited by Th3_uN1Qu3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my though about GB instead of GB was that Seagate got sued recently, but maybe they haven't put the right amounts yet.

well i did have a bsod about vmm or something recently so I'm not sure i re cloned the drive from the GB, and i decided to do what i intend which is 120gb partion and 29gb for other os or something, but I'm only at 9gb full of 20gb because i decided not to use MAKE2GB for some reason

:hello: I hope this doesn't cause any trouble. But just for informational purposes, as follows. When you format a 160 Gig hd, E.G., it takes approx.. 10 Gigs to format it. And yes windows does use the method where it looks as disk space the same as memory, i.e. : 1024 instead of 1000. Which as was stated earlier reads space as smaller than if you read it from DOS, which uses the actual byte size. Also if you use NTFS (XP not the older ver.s, it uses 2k clusters. NTFS used to use 64k.) So if you put a 1k file in a 2k cluster it takes up 2k. Fat32 uses 32k clusters if the partition is over 16 Gig.s. So if you put a 1k file there it = 32k. on the HD. Only 1 file will fit in a cluster. You can make the cluster size littler with fat32 but if you exceed the DOS limits of to many clusters, there will be problems with data, scandisk, ext. I don't want to sound like a know it all, I AM NOT!!! The longer I work on computers the more I learn. I have been working on computers since the before original Intel 80086 chip came out. I still have computers with these chips. (They were called XT computers instead of AT.) I also still have "Billy Boy Gates" original DOS (Ver.1) He purchased DOS from another programmer for $5,000. He had to adapt it to work with the Intel chips. He named it DOS for Disk Operating System. He licensed DOS to IBM before he even knew of the OS. He went & found DOS after he licensed it. He is the worlds greatest salesman!!! (For the true story of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, MS & Apple read the book "Fire in the Valley", or watch the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, which was made from the book, as a "T.N.T. original" (Ted Turner's Turner Network Television.) If you've read this far I am sure you have guessed I am "Older than Old". (I am 49 years old, & have a loving wife of 20 years, & a 15 year old daughter.) I work mainly on networking & trouble shooting computers, mainly for commercial accounts. New computers are as "disposable as BIC lighters". I am writing this message on a 2000 HP Vectra Business computer with a 650 MHz. PIII. It works as good as the day I bought it. (I paid $2000 for the computer, monitor, mouse, speakers, ext.) It will still be working 20 years from now. (I have several 20 year old computers that still function perfect.) Once again I am not a know it all. I have paid my dues though. I learned computers in 1979 at our local community college. (There were only mainframe computers then, no PC.s) The "state of the art OS was Unix, which of course is what Linux was derived from. There is not much call for Unix or Linux programmers these days. Anyway, enough nostalgia! I hope to be a valuable part of this forum & to keep learning from all of you! I think this is a nice forum! I am happy to have found it. Cheers to all!

Edited by Gape
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...