Can My Comp Read Over 137 Gbs?

[Keikan]

Back in my day Maxtor was called "Quantum"

[Mivaro]

Originally posted by Chewie UK@18 July 2004 - 06:32
I remember paying £100 for a second hand Seagate 90MB for my Amiga, but I imagine clocker still has fond memories of a 486SX33 with an awe-inducing 20MB internal drive. w0w!

I think my first pc (386) had a 10 mb HD...

[tesco]

First computer I used didn't have a hard drive.

Booted off network, damn those things were fast. Running UNIX\ICONIX.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Chewie UK@17 July 2004 - 23:32
I imagine clocker still has fond memories of a 486SX33 with an awe-inducing 20MB internal drive. w0w!

ha!

I remember when hard drives were stone tablets.
Data corruption was never a problem, but seek times sucked.

[lynx]

I went to Plymouth, did 6 hours work and then came straight back, 700 miles in total.

That was a hard drive.

[Storm]

Originally posted by clocker+18 July 2004 - 03:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 July 2004 - 03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I agree with Ross...it&#39;s the OS not the PC itself.
XP WILL recognize a HDD over 137GB. [/b]

not nessisarily........ my old comp (AMD 200 MHz, 64MB Ram) WONT take my 120GB HDD......... wont even take a 20 GB HDD........ just way to big for the mobo to "understand"

<!--QuoteBegin-Keikan@18 July 2004 - 05:34
You people complainin about 137gb is too little, back in my day we had 6gb hard drives&#33;
Only able to fit 1 modern game and 1 iso at a time[/quote]
hahaha.......... my folks first comp was a second hand laptop........ 5MB HDD

from the days mr Gates said that 640KB was all the memory anyone would ever need

[lynx]

Originally posted by Storm@18 July 2004 - 19:12
from the days mr Gates said that 640KB was all the memory anyone would ever need

I think that was someone at IBM, and it was 512k, but what the heck.

It was still a stupid decision to put the bios ABOVE the main memory (as it was in those days).

[Storm]

Originally posted by lynx@18 July 2004 - 20:29
It was still a stupid decision to put the bios ABOVE the main memory (as it was in those days).

please elaborate.......

does it have something to do with the higher and lower memory? never understood that

[Snee]

VIA KT133chipsets only supported up to 120 allegedly(tho&#39; I think it may have been possible to make another partition on bigger discs with a minumum of fiddling), so it&#39;s possible for your chipset to be unable to handle larger discs on-spec.

But if the &#39;puter is newer than that, I think it should be able to handle bigger discs, no matter the chipset, don&#39;t know what dell uses, as I think the shift to mobos that could handle larger discs happened right after KT133 went out of style. 2000 something.

Anyway, this guy seems to be using a 4500 with 200gb hd.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Storm+18 July 2004 - 19:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Storm &#064; 18 July 2004 - 19:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@18 July 2004 - 20:29
It was still a stupid decision to put the bios ABOVE the main memory (as it was in those days).

please elaborate.......

does it have something to do with the higher and lower memory? never understood that [/b][/quote]
Bios sits in the gap between 640k and 1M, although there are usually some big holes in it. If it had been put in the area 0k to 384k, or better still floating depending on the amount of memory, access to memory would have been much easier.

Someone did actually make a pc with that format, and it ran a modified version of MS-DOS. Although programs still had to sit in the first 1M of memory, they could access memory above 1M for data. This was because there was no system protection to stop the bios getting corrupted, because the bios wasn&#39;t in the way, Of course it didn&#39;t take off because not enough people were willing to make 2 versions of their software.

Edit: Btw, I don&#39;t think NT based systems (NT, Win2k, XP etc) use the memory below 640k very much, possibly just for some system tables. And they don&#39;t use the bios either (after booting), except possibly in Safe Mode.