Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

maximum capacity of hard disk(s) supported?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 anniyan

anniyan

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 08 March 2014 - 07:11 AM

this is the report of my friend's desktop PC generated by speccy.exe (from piriform.com). his hard disk has failed. he wants to buy new hard disk(s) to replace it. what is the maximum capacity, interface, speed, etc., blah, blah, of [one or more] hard disk(s) supported by this configuration? and the corresponding OS' version, edition, architecture. please elaborate all these in detail in layman's words coz i am no hardware expert. can this configuration be upgraded without trashing away a majority of these parts to make it a decently powerful rig? also opine on his opportunities and methods involved in the types of recovering his important data (lots of his work documents) from his old failed HDD in detail, (rather than to become bankrupt by giving it to the data-recovery wing of a HDD giant like se*g*te to get the data recovered coz of hefty charge) :P . EXPERT answers are most welcome and more than that. thanks in advance. :)
 

Summary
Operating System
	MS Windows XP Professional 32-bit SP3
CPU
	Intel Pentium D 820
	SmithField 90nm Technology
RAM
	512 MB Single-Channel DDR @ 199MHz (3-4-0-8)
Motherboard
	Intel Corporation D101GGC (Socket 775)	40 °C
Graphics
	SyncMaster (1024x768@60Hz)
	ATI video (Intel)
Hard Drives
	39.1GB SAMSUNG SAMSUNG SP0411N (PATA)	38 °C
Optical Drives
	HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-H42N
Audio
	Realtek High Definition Audio

Device Tree
		ACPI Multiprocessor PC
				Microsoft ACPI-Compliant System
					Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
					Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
					ACPI Fan
					ACPI Thermal Zone
					ACPI Power Button
					System board
					ACPI Fixed Feature Button
						PCI bus
							PCI standard host CPU bridge
							ATI SMBus
							Motherboard resources
							Communications Port (COM1)
							PS/2 Compatible Mouse
							Standard 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural PS/2 keyboard
							Motherboard resources
								PCI standard PCI-to-PCI bridge
										ATI RADEON XPRESS 200 Series
											Plug and Play Monitor
								Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller
									Primary IDE Channel
									Secondary IDE Channel
								Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller
									Primary IDE Channel
									Secondary IDE Channel
								Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller
									USB Root Hub
								Standard OpenHCD USB Host Controller
									USB Root Hub
								Standard Enhanced PCI to USB Host Controller
										USB Root Hub
												USB Mass Storage Device
												USB DISK 2.0 USB Device
												Generic volume
												USB Mass Storage Device
												Sony Storage Media USB Device
												Generic volume
								ATI IDE Controller
										Primary IDE Channel
											HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-H42N
										Secondary IDE Channel
											SAMSUNG SP0411N
								Microsoft UAA Bus Driver for High Definition Audio
									Realtek High Definition Audio
								PCI standard ISA bridge
									ISAPNP Read Data Port
									Motherboard resources
									Programmable interrupt controller
									Direct memory access controller
									System timer
									System CMOS/real time clock
									System speaker
									Numeric data processor
								PCI standard PCI-to-PCI bridge
									Realtek RTL8139/810x Family Fast Ethernet NIC
								Extended IO Bus
										AV13UF0Y IDE Controller
								Standard floppy disk controller
									Floppy disk drive
								ECP Printer Port (LPT1)
									Printer Port Logical Interface

Edited by hamluis, 24 March 2014 - 01:34 PM.
Moved from System Building to Internal Hardware - Hamluis.


Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 ironpenguin

ironpenguin

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:53 AM

Posted 08 March 2014 - 08:36 AM

From what i am reading about the specifications on the motherboard, should be able to handle 2 terabyte drives.

 

Same with windows XP, should support it fine.

 

As far as drive type, it also supports SATA and PATA drives. Which is good. As its currently running a PATA drive, if you end up getting it a SATA drive you might need to buy new cables for it.

 

Other then the cables, i dont think you will have any problems with a new hard drive.



#3 anniyan

anniyan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 08 March 2014 - 07:15 PM

i have extra SATA cables that came with the motherboard by default, so that is no problem. but the problem is that the SATA standard is revised many times, so i dont know which is appropriate for mine.

 

From what i am reading about the specifications on the motherboard, should be able to handle 2 terabyte drives. Same with windows XP, should support it fine.

 

can i please know this' source? nothing to do with doubting your statement, but just wanna learn about this further.

 

and thank you very much :)



Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security

#4 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:53 PM

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:21 PM

2 Tb is the maximum size internal disk supported by the partition scheme used by Windows XP.  Above this, the MBR partition scheme runs out of addresses.  Note early versions of Windows XP (pre SP1) had partition size limits of 128 Gb.  Reasons for the 2Tb limit are documented here.

 

There is a workaround that makes it possible to use larger drives than 2 Tb, but it can be for data only, and not used as a boot drive.  See this.  Some drive manufacturers have released other tools as well.

 

It is also possible to use some external disks that are larger than 2 Tb as some of them use a workaround to get above the limit for MBR disks.  The workaround is to make the USB disk controller emulate 4096 byte sectors (instead of 512 bytes) which allows for a theoretical 16 Tb limit.

 

As for speeds, SATA standards are backward and forward compatible.  The motherboard has a SATA-1 (150 MB/s) controller but it can use drives compliant with SATA II or SATA III.  They will just operate at the lower speed. 


Edited by jonuk76, 08 March 2014 - 10:07 PM.

7sbvuf-6.png


#5 anniyan

anniyan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:23 PM

@ ironpenguin, jonuk76 - thank you for your timely and helpful points. 1TB is enough for him, coz that offers the optimal price-per-GB compared to <1TB and >1TB drives. but computer hardware dealers near my place scared him like hell, saying that this configuration can support only 40GB to 160GB at the maximum, else windows will become woefully slow and will get hung very often, coz of the limitation that the motherboard is a very old model. since 1TB drives cost just only a bit more than 160GB drives, even he wants to install a 1TB drive; but those people scare him by saying so. so he wants to be very sure that his configuration (including the motherboard) can support 1TB drives without any problems, before proceeding to buy the HDD(s). and about the data recovery question, any EXPERT suggestions from anyone (including the above 2 gentlemen), in this forum? BTW, any links to resources (even those outside the BC website [if permitted by BC rules]) on my queries that can elaborate in detail are more than welcome. thanks in advance.

Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security

#6 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:53 PM

Posted 11 March 2014 - 08:25 PM

Here is a dated, but quite interesting guide to some of the historic limits on hard drive size - http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm  It covers up to 2003 when it was last updated.

This is a little more up to date (2007) - http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Hard-Disk-Drives-Capacity-Limits/482/1

Similar details in a less wordy format - http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html

 

As an educated guess, I think the computer probably dates from around 2005-2006.  It just has a relatively small HDD for it's time installed.  At the time, I believe drives of 250 Gb and more were on the market.  Anything released at this time should not have the 128 Gb ATA limitation (which was removed in ATA-6/Ultra ATA-100 which introduced 48bit LBA addresses).  I don't know the exact year ATA-6 came into use, but certainly before 2005.  This limit didn't apply to SATA in any case.

 

Hope this helps a bit :)


7sbvuf-6.png


#7 anniyan

anniyan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 15 March 2014 - 01:37 PM

oh MAN! why has it to be too nerdy-wordy ! those loooong pages of jargons :P i am a tech-enthusiast, but no hardware expert, yet. i barely understand what you are trying to convey. can i please request you to ease it a bit? to the point, can my configuration support a 1GB HDD without slowing down the machine? can additional RAM help?

Edited by anniyan, 15 March 2014 - 01:47 PM.


Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security

#8 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:53 PM

Posted 15 March 2014 - 02:06 PM

Well you asked for links to back up what had already been said.  Those were the most relevant I could find.  The main point I was trying to convey (perhaps unsuccessfully) was that this system being made in approx 2005-2006 will be beyond the lower disk limits which were present in older machines - 128Gb drive limits for example, but is still subject to the 2Tb limit for boot disks.

 

The short and sweet answer to your two questions is yes and yes.  In fact a 1Tb drive will be much faster than the 40Gb drive, because of it's higher data density.  In my opinion, XP sucks with 512mb once it's fully patched and loaded with antivirus software.  1Gb is good, 2Gb is better so yes a memory upgrade will be helpful.  However, XP is going end of life anyway (no more updates or patches for any critical security problems found) so you might want to consider a more extensive upgrade including to a new operating system.  For newer versions of Windows like 7 or 8, you need at least 2Gb and more is better.  2Gb is the maximum that can be used in that machine.  Therefore for Windows 7 or 8 it would probably be more realistic and cost effective to buy a new one, once the cost of hardware upgrades and the cost of the OS license is considered.


Edited by jonuk76, 15 March 2014 - 02:48 PM.

7sbvuf-6.png


#9 anniyan

anniyan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 15 March 2014 - 05:09 PM

oh cool ! "yes and yes" wasn't that easy? :P sorry, i was just kidding. thank you very much for your valuable time and knowledge: that is a lot of expertise, i am amazed, especially at the links you have in hand at the nick of time. i must be really lucky to have YOU clearing my doubt. the technical-chat-support-representative at INTEL pointed my friend to ask any HDD company and the one at SEAGATE pointed my friend to ask the motherboard company - yeah, precisely, pointing to each other; and i was clueless.

so the bottomline, as far as i understood is that, there is NO connection between the HDD capacity and slowing down of the PC, and all i need to look for is if the OS and the ATA standard in this configuration have an addressing scheme that covers 1TB, and this configuration has it, right? and you recommend adding 1GB more of RAM, ONLY for the sake of satisfying what the OS needs, irrespective of how small or large, the HDD capacity is, right? sorry, if i am a bit dumb, i am new to these hardware stuff, but am i right?

 

on a side note, as i had already asked in my 1st post, can i know about the feasibility of recovering data from the FAILED HDD? it is not booting.


Edited by anniyan, 15 March 2014 - 05:11 PM.


Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security

#10 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:12:53 PM

Posted 16 March 2014 - 07:52 AM

oh cool ! "yes and yes" wasn't that easy? :P sorry, i was just kidding. thank you very much for your valuable time and knowledge: that is a lot of expertise, i am amazed, especially at the links you have in hand at the nick of time. i must be really lucky to have YOU clearing my doubt. the technical-chat-support-representative at INTEL pointed my friend to ask any HDD company and the one at SEAGATE pointed my friend to ask the motherboard company - yeah, precisely, pointing to each other; and i was clueless.

 

I've been tinkering with computers since the 90's and actually run into some of the limits mentioned and had to do workarounds.   As amazing as it sounds now, the first computer I took apart would not support a hard drive larger than 528mb.  It doesn't surprise me these companies don't want to take responsibility for recommending anything, although you'd hope that at least someone there would know what they were talking about.

so the bottomline, as far as i understood is that, there is NO connection between the HDD capacity and slowing down of the PC, and all i need to look for is if the OS and the ATA standard in this configuration have an addressing scheme that covers 1TB, and this configuration has it, right? and you recommend adding 1GB more of RAM, ONLY for the sake of satisfying what the OS needs, irrespective of how small or large, the HDD capacity is, right? sorry, if i am a bit dumb, i am new to these hardware stuff, but am i right?

 

Yes, that's right.  And for reasons already mentioned a 1Tb drive will be faster, not slower than a 40Gb one.  Memory size is not important as far as the hard drive size goes, but Windows XP SP3 will be a lot better with 1Gb or more, compared to 512mb.

 

on a side note, as i had already asked in my 1st post, can i know about the feasibility of recovering data from the FAILED HDD? it is not booting.

 

Data recovery from a dead hard drive is not an area I am particularly familiar with.  There are downloadable tools you can use to recover data from a failed drive, but it really depends on how bad the drive is.  Not booting tells us that there is at least some file corruption.  It could be a relatively minor file system problem or there could be major physical problems with the disk that will make recovery of the data difficult.  I would suggest making a new post in the internal hardware forum just about this issue. 


7sbvuf-6.png


#11 anniyan

anniyan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 222 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under your bed, mwahahahahaha!
  • Local time:06:23 PM

Posted 16 March 2014 - 08:08 AM

ok, thank you very much, i would do that :)



Become a BleepingComputer fan on Facebook
Have you seen.....Select Real Security




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users