440 chipset and hard drive limitation

Here is everything you need to know about the 440BX chipset:

http://developer.intel.com/design/ch...shts/index.htm

There is a lot of information, so hopefully you will be able to quickly
find
what you're looking for. Good luck.


And if you don't want PDF documents try:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3CC345F7

Rita

"Mark M" wrote in message
...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
uses.

Is this actually true?

No, and you know that very well.

I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
addressing limitation.

Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:

http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/...OS_GA-6BXE.htm
Can you read the description for version F2?
Given that this is fixed in a BIOS release, it is implied that this is a
BIOS problem, not a chipset limit....
75GB, is an 'odd' place for such a limit, but is is probably a combination
of internal limits on track numbers/head numbers.

I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
do not help. :-)


I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

See?!

EWr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" wrote in message news:UeScc.72$lA5.31@newsfe1-win...
"Mark M" wrote in message ...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it
uses.

Is this actually true?

No, and you know that very well.

I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
addressing limitation.

Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me
in emails. And that is a possible interpretation of this:

http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/...OS_GA-6BXE.htm
Can you read the description for version F2?

Given that this is fixed in a BIOS release, it is implied that this is a
BIOS problem, not a chipset limit....

Obviously.

75GB, is an 'odd' place for such a limit, but is is probably a combination
of internal limits on track numbers/head numbers.

Which is hard to imagine with the natural CHS addressing limit at 32 GB.
And that's for both ATA interface (P-CHS) and BIOS side (L-CHS).

Which leaves setting size limitations through emulated P-CHS.
That is best left alone since some bioses do unexpected things
e.g. by setting the SET MAX ADDRESS permanently.


I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about
their motherboards than I do. It is confusing. Your ejaculations
do not help. :-)


I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

See?!

EWr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!

Best Wishes

"Mark M" wrote in message ...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their old
GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives larger than
75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX chipset which it uses.

Is this actually true?

No, and you know that very well.

I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

But you *do* know that these type of limitations (bugs) are all software.


In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it may
be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately from the LBA
addressing limitation.

Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be telling me in emails.

So you jumped up for joy thinking "I finally got a new stupid question to ask".

And that is a possible interpretation of this:

http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/...OS_GA-6BXE.htm
Can you read the description for version F2?

I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more about their
motherboards than I do. It is confusing.

They are mainly marketing operations that buy their boards elsewhere.
They know of problems through persons like yourself or from the operations
that provide the boards and/or firmware. They are just the 'inbetween'.

Your ejaculations do not help. :-)

Hmm, and here I thought that such an attention starved person like yourself
would appreciate a warm shower. *eg*




I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

See?!

Ewr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited experience in
these matters has not encountered this before. I have not seen
China but that does not mean it does not exist. Heh!

"Mark M" wrote in message
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in

'wrote in' what?


"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Got a note from Gigabyte tech support saying that their
old GA-6BXE motherboard does not support hard drives
larger than 75 GB because of a limitation in the 440 BX
chipset which it uses.

Is this actually true?

No, and you know that very well.

I do not know everything, Folkert! :-)

But you *do* know that these type of limitations (bugs) are
all software.


I don't think that is true unless you call embedded code in chips
"software".

There is no embedded code in ATA (host)controllers.
And it is probably the opposite for that sentence to make sense.



In fact I do not know all the spec of the 440BX chipset so it
may be that there is a limitation the 440BX has separately
from the LBA addressing limitation.

Certainly that is what Gigabyte Tech Support seem to be
telling me in emails.

So you jumped up for joy thinking "I finally got a new stupid
question to ask".

Folkie, please take this the right way ... I have no problem if you
wish to beat your old drum and shout out about what you (rather
incorrectly) think is the poor way I approach these things.
Maybe I am insanely stupid and inept. But maybe not.

Whatever I am, I do the best I can. And your repeated inaccurate
observations on my approach will not somehow magically persuade me
otherwise.

Perhaps I should make it my quest to offer endless pedantry in
comments to your postings? Heh!

Hey, if that keeps you off the street ....
The risk is that you prove yourself to be "insanely stupid and inept".



And that is a possible interpretation of this:

http://tw.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/...S/BIOS_GA-6BXE.
htm Can you read the description for version F2?

I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Gigabyte knows more
about their motherboards than I do. It is confusing.

They are mainly marketing operations that buy their boards
elsewhere. They know of problems through persons like yourself
or from the operations that provide the boards and/or firmware.
They are just the 'inbetween'.

That is a good guess if you misinterpreted what I wrote. I wrote that
I got this info from Gigabyte Tech Support and I mean from Taiwan.

So?

Even if you missed that you could have seen the web page I referred
to and noticed that the Gigabyte company was of the opinion that
version F2 of the BIOS ugrade overcame the 75 GB limit.

So?


I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined rectangle
in a CAD program to make the design look different from
someone elses and then ordering some sweatshop to make it and
plonk a BIOS on it directly from AWARD with their name
in it, doesn't make them more than just a marketing operation.



Your ejaculations do not help. :-)

Hmm, and here I thought that such an attention starved person
like yourself would appreciate a warm shower. *eg*


I have not come across a 75 GB limit.

See?!

Ewr, what does that prove? It shos that my limited
experience in these matters has not encountered this before.
I have not seen China but that does not mean it does not
exist. Heh!

"Mark M" wrote in message ...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined rectangle
in a CAD program to make the design look different from
someone elses and then ordering some sweatshop to make it and
plonk a BIOS on it directly from AWARD with their name
in it, doesn't make them more than just a marketing operation.


So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB limit
on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?

Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).

Mark M wrote in
:

But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
referring to (bearng in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?

Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
"128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?

I've been following this thread and I don't know what's going on at
Gigabyte but either a) they really screwed up when they wrote the bios or
b) the tech response you received is wrong.

I've got a Tyan Tiger 100 S1832DL motherboard, thats a 440BX Dual. It has
the ATA drive size limit you would expect at 128 / 137 GB, depending on
your method of measuring HD size. It does NOT have a limit at 75GB. I've
verified this by installing 160GB drives on the board controller and
comming up against the 128 / 137 limit.

From the Maxtor site:
http://tinyurl.com/3395l

So I don't know about any BX boards with a 75GB limit, but I can say for
certain my BX board doesn't.

"Mark M" wrote in message
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message ...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined
rectangle in a CAD program to make the design look
different from someone elses and then ordering some
sweatshop to make it and plonk a BIOS on it directly from
AWARD with their name in it, doesn't make them more than
just a marketing operation.


So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB
limit on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?

Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).


Well Folkert you wont believe this but the last email I got from
Gigabyte tech support said this:

QUOTE
I am correct i have one of these boards myself.

Aha, so Gigabyte tech support is a one person operation.
And now that person is covering for himself.


Question :
I think you are wrong when you say "im afraid the 440 chipset only
allows up to 75GB".
UNQUOTE

Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte organization?
Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.

We already established that they weren't. It's not the chipset.


But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?

Read my response to Roger.


Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
"128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?

"Mark M" wrote in message
-- snip --

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte
organization? Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.

We already established that they weren't. It's not the
chipset.


But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about
and why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they
could be referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is
said to fix it)?

Read my response to Roger.


I must confess I don't really understand the details of what you
have written to him. To take a guess maybe "P-CHS" means "physical
CHS" and you are referring to an emulation of the physcial CHS.

L-CHS is the CHS as used by the software interface (int13 etc.)
P-CHS is a translated CHS as used by the harddrive interface.

For some odd reason software makers and hardware makers went a dif-
ferent route expanding the old 20-bit (528MB) CHS (1024 16 63) to 24-
bit (8GB) CHS. L-CHS expanded the Heads register with 4 bits (1024 256
63) and P-CHS expanded the Cylinder register with 6 bits (65536 16 63).
Although 2 bits more P-CHS is still limited to C*H*S= 8GB.


Anyway, it seems it may lie deep in the BIOS so I will just accept
that the BIOS flash fixes it. I can't try the BIOS flash for a
while so I will have to wait to see if it really does do the trick.


Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB"
or "128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" wrote in message

"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

"Mark M" wrote in message
...
"Folkert Rienstra" wrote:

Clear enough for me. Doesn't change a word of what I said.
Just pushing a few chips around in a predetermined
rectangle in a CAD program to make the design look
different from someone elses and then ordering some
sweatshop to make it and plonk a BIOS on it directly from
AWARD with their name in it, doesn't make them more than
just a marketing operation.


So can you explain why Gigabyte are saying there in a 75 GB
limit on this board which their BIOS upgrade overcomes?

Because some clown sent them the revised bios saying that it
resolved the 75GB limitation (or something similar obscure).


Well Folkert you wont believe this but the last email I got from
Gigabyte tech support said this:

QUOTE
I am correct i have one of these boards myself.

Aha, so Gigabyte tech support is a one person operation.
And now that person is covering for himself.


Question :
I think you are wrong when you say "im afraid the 440 chipset only
allows up to 75GB".
UNQUOTE

Maybe this belief pervades the whole of the Gigabyte organization?
Maybe, just maybe, they are correct.

We already established that they weren't. It's not the chipset.


But I am left wondering what the hell they are talking about and
why they say there is a 75 GB limit. Any ideas what they could be
referring to (bearing in mind that a BIOS flash is said to fix it)?

Read my response to Roger.


Surely it could not be that they are unable to write "137 GB" or
"128 GB" and instead they wrote 75 GB by mistake?
Both Folkert, and I think that this problem, is probably down to a numeric
'translation' limit inside the BIOS. There is definately no 'chipset' limit
at this point (given that a BIOS change fixes it, and thousands of other
boards with the same chipset do not have a problem). Basically, there are a
number of different 'values' used inside the IDE code. There are the
'numbers' used to refer to cylinders, heads etc., that are translated inside
the drive to the 'real' geometry of the drive, and are also translated from
'LBA' values inside the BIOS. Now (for instance, not a real example...),
suppose you elected to take the values at one point in the BIOS, and do the
arithmetic using BCD, and use a register at some point in the maths, that
limited the maximum value in the 'maths' to 99999999. Since you are dealing
with 'sector counts', this would give a drive size 'limit' of 50GB. This
would be entirely a 'BIOS' problem (trying to blame it on the chipset, would
just be down to wanting to find somebody else to blame for the programmers
error). 75G, is a very 'odd' number in these terms, since generally all the
arithmetic is binary (with some silly 'oddities' in the actual numbers
allowed, which are the result of 'history' in the interface, and the upgrade
methods chosen at times). It sounds as though perhaps one part of the
conversion code, is thorougly 'screwed'...

Best Wishes