| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 21752 | 2002-07-03 05:08:00 | Hard Drive not showing correct size | arthur (823) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 59360 | 2002-07-03 05:08:00 | I installed two 40Gb hard drives in a new machine. There is no operating system yet, except DOS from a floppy. The slave drive is showing up as 33Gb instead of the 40. If I change the master slave jumpers on the drives, the slave still shows 33Gb and the master is fine even though they have been swapped. I have changed the IDE cable and auto-detected in BIOS but it still shows 33Gb. ??? |
arthur (823) | ||
| 59361 | 2002-07-03 05:54:00 | Havent got a definative answer, but many BIOS are unable to handle anything above 32 GB (32.768 in decimal as DOS reports) Doesnt answer why the master is always detected OK but does point in the direction of DOS Have a hunt around on Google? |
godfather (25) | ||
| 59362 | 2002-07-03 06:29:00 | I believe that some drives have a jumper option to limit them to this size. If the drives are the same make and model have a look to see if there are jumpers on the PCB (apart from MA/SL/CS ...which are at the edge) and whether they are configured the same way. Check the drive manufacturer's site for information on the drives. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 59363 | 2002-07-03 12:02:00 | Are both of the HDDs the same. Some manufacturers use a *metric* system. eg. 1GB = 1,000MB as opposed to 1GB = 1,024MB. |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 59364 | 2002-07-03 21:45:00 | Yes both drives are the same. | arthur (823) | ||
| 59365 | 2002-07-04 07:54:00 | i installed a seagate 40GB HDD some months back and had a similar problem. i called the 0800 number and talked to a very knowledgeable guy in the states who told me how to add a second jumper to make it work. it did the trick. g |
glenn (177) | ||
| 59366 | 2002-07-04 11:45:00 | I believe the reason for the difference in capacity size is because the different numbering systems used. Hard drive manufacturers use the numerical system (the numbering system one would encounter in mathematics) and this value is placed on the hard drive. Whereas computer systems use the binary numbering system, hence the difference in capacity size. If on the other hand you had said that the size reported is half the size of the hard drive then I'd be concerned. I do believe you have nothing to worry about. You haven't lost any hard drive capacity at all ... it's all there, just reported differently as mentioned above. ... Matt |
kr0-n0s (685) | ||
| 59367 | 2002-07-04 11:56:00 | Numbering system does not make THAT much difference 40 GB becomes 39.06GB, not 33 |
godfather (25) | ||
| 59368 | 2002-07-08 03:55:00 | Logged back in after a while of absence and read the reply about "NOT making that much of a difference" ... sure it does! And I still maintain it's the way the size is reported and explains why there is a difference ... . Someone posted something re: hard drive capcacity ... she actually did the math (something, admittedly I was never good at). Can't remember what the post is called (can't be bothered finding out to tell the truth) ... suggest finding it and taking note. ... Matt |
kr0-n0s (685) | ||
| 59369 | 2002-07-08 04:13:00 | I Mb =1,024 bytes 40,000 Mb divided by 1.024 = 39,062,500 But numbers are often rounded and dependant on cylinders etc so the 40 Gb metic is probably not "real" anyway so it could be as low as say 37 GB binary but not 33, thats way too much. And besides, the other drive reports OK and they are identical I await the flame or the confirmation.... |
godfather (25) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||