250 Gig Hard Drive Recognized As Only 127 Gigs

I'm using an Asus CUV4X mother board with bios upgrade 1009 and W2K
SP4. The hard drive is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ATA/100 250
gigabytes. I was under the assumption that W2K SP4 would allow the
drive to be recognized as full capacity. In the bios under TYPE, I
have User HD, and under TRANSLATION, I have LBA, so I believe the bios
settings are correct. Under Disk Management, the drive is seen as
only 127 gigs. I'm now assuming that the limitation lies with the
motherboard; am I missing something- other bios or OS things I can do
to have the computer recognize the full capacity of the drive, or do I
need to buy a PCI adapter that supports 48 LBA in order for the drive
to be recognized as 250 gigs? And would the ADAPTEC Ultra ATA 100/133
IDE Dual Channel Adapter Card be the right card to get? I've seen
them on ebay for about $10.00... Thanks

In article <>,
says...

> I'm using an Asus CUV4X mother board with bios upgrade 1009 and W2K
> SP4. The hard drive is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ATA/100 250
> gigabytes. I was under the assumption that W2K SP4 would allow the
> drive to be recognized as full capacity. In the bios under TYPE, I
> have User HD, and under TRANSLATION, I have LBA, so I believe the bios
> settings are correct. Under Disk Management, the drive is seen as
> only 127 gigs. I'm now assuming that the limitation lies with the
> motherboard; am I missing something- other bios or OS things I can do
> to have the computer recognize the full capacity of the drive, or do I
> need to buy a PCI adapter that supports 48 LBA in order for the drive
> to be recognized as 250 gigs? And would the ADAPTEC Ultra ATA 100/133
> IDE Dual Channel Adapter Card be the right card to get? I've seen
> them on ebay for about $10.00... Thanks
>

Manual Method:
To enable EnableBigLba in the Windows registry, perform the following
steps:

# Start a registry editor (e.g., regedit.exe). In Windows, click on
Start->Run, enter "regedit".
# Navigate to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es
\atapi\Parameters registry subkey.
# From the Edit menu, select New, DWORD Value.
# Enter the name EnableBigLba, then press Enter.
# Double-click the new value, set it to 1, then click OK.
# Close the registry editor.
# Restart the machine for the change to take effect.

Asus has a list of boards that support LBA 48 addressing:

http://support.asus.com.tw/technical...e=en-us&NO=501

(link may wrap). The CUV4X-CME and CUV4X-V are on the list (lower right of
the table), but not the CUV4X. I see that it's an old board: the 1009 BIOS
(latest non-Beta) is from 2001. One check would be whether the BIOS setup
shows the full capacity of the drive. That would be independent of how Win2k
is set up.

An IDE controller card is one way to go. I'm not familiar with the Adaptec
card that you mention, but I used an old Promise Ultra100TX2 for a while. It
was cheap, but it supported LBA48 if its firmware was sufficiently
up-to-date.

I hope that you're not planning to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading this
antique. On the other hand, I sympathize with trying to keep a working
system running as long as is practical.

Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn to reply.

"soinie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I'm using an Asus CUV4X mother board with bios upgrade 1009 and W2K
> SP4. The hard drive is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ATA/100 250
> gigabytes. I was under the assumption that W2K SP4 would allow the
> drive to be recognized as full capacity. In the bios under TYPE, I
> have User HD, and under TRANSLATION, I have LBA, so I believe the bios
> settings are correct. Under Disk Management, the drive is seen as
> only 127 gigs. I'm now assuming that the limitation lies with the
> motherboard; am I missing something- other bios or OS things I can do
> to have the computer recognize the full capacity of the drive, or do I
> need to buy a PCI adapter that supports 48 LBA in order for the drive
> to be recognized as 250 gigs? And would the ADAPTEC Ultra ATA 100/133
> IDE Dual Channel Adapter Card be the right card to get? I've seen
> them on ebay for about $10.00... Thanks

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:10:05 -0400, "Bob Knowlden" <>
wrote:

>Asus has a list of boards that support LBA 48 addressing:
>
>http://support.asus.com.tw/technical...e=en-us&NO=501
>
>(link may wrap). The CUV4X-CME and CUV4X-V are on the list (lower right of
>the table), but not the CUV4X. I see that it's an old board: the 1009 BIOS
>(latest non-Beta) is from 2001. One check would be whether the BIOS setup
>shows the full capacity of the drive. That would be independent of how Win2k
>is set up.
>
>An IDE controller card is one way to go. I'm not familiar with the Adaptec
>card that you mention, but I used an old Promise Ultra100TX2 for a while. It
>was cheap, but it supported LBA48 if its firmware was sufficiently
>up-to-date.
>
>I hope that you're not planning to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading this
>antique. On the other hand, I sympathize with trying to keep a working
>system running as long as is practical.
>
>Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn to reply.
>

I really need that computer to access the Internet, download and store
things, hence the 250 gig drive. I've had a number of problems with
the primary machine's scsi hard drive which has since been rma'd to
Seagate, so computer no 2 has been indispensable- if you like to
upgrade and tweak your computers, then I think you need a fail safe
device to help get you out of trouble. I haven't done anything to it
other than buy this drive since I upgraded to W2k. It's still working
well and is relatively fast since it has only a few programs on it.
I'm willing to spend $20 or so dollars to keep it functional. It
appears that any motherboard previous to 2003 doesn't support 48 bit
LBA, so I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read
that doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively
wipe out the data on the hard drive. Thanks for the link.

On 2007-03-18, soinie <> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:10:05 -0400, "Bob Knowlden" <>
> wrote:
>
>>Asus has a list of boards that support LBA 48 addressing:
>>
>>http://support.asus.com.tw/technical...e=en-us&NO=501
>>
>>(link may wrap). The CUV4X-CME and CUV4X-V are on the list (lower right of
>>the table), but not the CUV4X. I see that it's an old board: the 1009 BIOS
>>(latest non-Beta) is from 2001. One check would be whether the BIOS setup
>>shows the full capacity of the drive. That would be independent of how Win2k
>>is set up.
>>
>>An IDE controller card is one way to go. I'm not familiar with the Adaptec
>>card that you mention, but I used an old Promise Ultra100TX2 for a while. It
>>was cheap, but it supported LBA48 if its firmware was sufficiently
>>up-to-date.
>>
>>I hope that you're not planning to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading this
>>antique. On the other hand, I sympathize with trying to keep a working
>>system running as long as is practical.
>>
>>Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn to reply.
>>
>
> I really need that computer to access the Internet, download and store
> things, hence the 250 gig drive. I've had a number of problems with
> the primary machine's scsi hard drive which has since been rma'd to
> Seagate, so computer no 2 has been indispensable- if you like to
> upgrade and tweak your computers, then I think you need a fail safe
> device to help get you out of trouble. I haven't done anything to it
> other than buy this drive since I upgraded to W2k. It's still working
> well and is relatively fast since it has only a few programs on it.
> I'm willing to spend $20 or so dollars to keep it functional. It
> appears that any motherboard previous to 2003 doesn't support 48 bit
> LBA, so I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read
> that doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively
> wipe out the data on the hard drive. Thanks for the link.

The problem/BUG is probably micro$oft crappy stuff esp since the jerks
didn't fix their sp4 to be able to recognize greater than 127 gig.

I had the same problem with winxp when I got a WD 160 gig drive; but
WD understood about m$ junk & supplied a ide card (Promise chipset)
with the correct driver for winxp.

A "ms-mvp" jerk at the windows newsgroup said that sp1 for winxp
"fixed" the problem; however, he didn't find it justified on how I
can "slipstream" sp1 into the original winxp.

You might try for the WD drivers at their website & see if it would
work with your ide controller; there is a driver for w2k to recognize
your 250 gig. Don't get a new ide card; check the manual to see
what chipset your ide controller uses & get the drivers for that
particular card.

guest wrote:
> On 2007-03-18, soinie <> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:10:05 -0400, "Bob Knowlden" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Asus has a list of boards that support LBA 48 addressing:
>>>
>>> http://support.asus.com.tw/technical...e=en-us&NO=501
>>>
>>> (link may wrap). The CUV4X-CME and CUV4X-V are on the list (lower right of
>>> the table), but not the CUV4X. I see that it's an old board: the 1009 BIOS
>>> (latest non-Beta) is from 2001. One check would be whether the BIOS setup
>>> shows the full capacity of the drive. That would be independent of how Win2k
>>> is set up.
>>>
>>> An IDE controller card is one way to go. I'm not familiar with the Adaptec
>>> card that you mention, but I used an old Promise Ultra100TX2 for a while. It
>>> was cheap, but it supported LBA48 if its firmware was sufficiently
>>> up-to-date.
>>>
>>> I hope that you're not planning to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading this
>>> antique. On the other hand, I sympathize with trying to keep a working
>>> system running as long as is practical.
>>>
>>> Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn to reply.
>>>
>> I really need that computer to access the Internet, download and store
>> things, hence the 250 gig drive. I've had a number of problems with
>> the primary machine's scsi hard drive which has since been rma'd to
>> Seagate, so computer no 2 has been indispensable- if you like to
>> upgrade and tweak your computers, then I think you need a fail safe
>> device to help get you out of trouble. I haven't done anything to it
>> other than buy this drive since I upgraded to W2k. It's still working
>> well and is relatively fast since it has only a few programs on it.
>> I'm willing to spend $20 or so dollars to keep it functional. It
>> appears that any motherboard previous to 2003 doesn't support 48 bit
>> LBA, so I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read
>> that doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively
>> wipe out the data on the hard drive. Thanks for the link.
>
> The problem/BUG is probably micro$oft crappy stuff esp since the jerks
> didn't fix their sp4 to be able to recognize greater than 127 gig.
>
> I had the same problem with winxp when I got a WD 160 gig drive; but
> WD understood about m$ junk & supplied a ide card (Promise chipset)
> with the correct driver for winxp.
>
> A "ms-mvp" jerk at the windows newsgroup said that sp1 for winxp
> "fixed" the problem; however, he didn't find it justified on how I
> can "slipstream" sp1 into the original winxp.
>
> You might try for the WD drivers at their website & see if it would
> work with your ide controller; there is a driver for w2k to recognize
> your 250 gig. Don't get a new ide card; check the manual to see
> what chipset your ide controller uses & get the drivers for that
> particular card.

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf

And a card like this can help. The card can support >137GB when the
motherboard interfaces cannot.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816102007

Paul

You can buy a card or partition your hd, appropriately

"soinie" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:10:05 -0400, "Bob Knowlden" <>
> wrote:
>
> >Asus has a list of boards that support LBA 48 addressing:
> >
>
>http://support.asus.com.tw/technical...nts_content.as
px?SLanguage=en-us&NO=501
> >
> >(link may wrap). The CUV4X-CME and CUV4X-V are on the list (lower right
of
> >the table), but not the CUV4X. I see that it's an old board: the 1009
BIOS
> >(latest non-Beta) is from 2001. One check would be whether the BIOS setup
> >shows the full capacity of the drive. That would be independent of how
Win2k
> >is set up.
> >
> >An IDE controller card is one way to go. I'm not familiar with the
Adaptec
> >card that you mention, but I used an old Promise Ultra100TX2 for a while.
It
> >was cheap, but it supported LBA48 if its firmware was sufficiently
> >up-to-date.
> >
> >I hope that you're not planning to spend hundreds of dollars upgrading
this
> >antique. On the other hand, I sympathize with trying to keep a working
> >system running as long as is practical.
> >
> >Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn to reply.
> >
>
> I really need that computer to access the Internet, download and store
> things, hence the 250 gig drive. I've had a number of problems with
> the primary machine's scsi hard drive which has since been rma'd to
> Seagate, so computer no 2 has been indispensable- if you like to
> upgrade and tweak your computers, then I think you need a fail safe
> device to help get you out of trouble. I haven't done anything to it
> other than buy this drive since I upgraded to W2k. It's still working
> well and is relatively fast since it has only a few programs on it.
> I'm willing to spend $20 or so dollars to keep it functional. It
> appears that any motherboard previous to 2003 doesn't support 48 bit
> LBA, so I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read
> that doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively
> wipe out the data on the hard drive. Thanks for the link.

Most 2001 motherboards supported 48 bit LBA, actually. Most, but not all.

Re: "I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read that
doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively wipe out
the data on the hard drive"

ANY attempt to access data even one byte beyond the 137 gig boundary
(127 binary, 137 decimal) can wipe out all of the data on the entire
drive. Be VERY, VERY careful what you do and how you use that drive
with that motherboard.

The best fix here would be a PCI controller card that supports 48 bit
LBA. An alternative is connecting the drive via USB, which also
eliminates the limitation, but you probably won't be able to boot from
the drive if you do that. You can get an older promise PCI card for $20
or less pretty easily on E-Bay (like maybe even $5 or so). Just make
sure that the card supports 48 bit LBA ... older controller cards can
have the same issues as older motherboards.

soinie wrote:

>
> I really need that computer to access the Internet, download and store
> things, hence the 250 gig drive. I've had a number of problems with
> the primary machine's scsi hard drive which has since been rma'd to
> Seagate, so computer no 2 has been indispensable- if you like to
> upgrade and tweak your computers, then I think you need a fail safe
> device to help get you out of trouble. I haven't done anything to it
> other than buy this drive since I upgraded to W2k. It's still working
> well and is relatively fast since it has only a few programs on it.
> I'm willing to spend $20 or so dollars to keep it functional. It
> appears that any motherboard previous to 2003 doesn't support 48 bit
> LBA, so I'm probably not going to edit the registry entry since I read
> that doing so without support from the motherboard could effectively
> wipe out the data on the hard drive. Thanks for the link.

In his case the problem is in the motherboard itself, the physical IDE
port can't support it. There is no workaround for that other than a new
motherboard or some other type of controller for the drive.

Windows XP with SP1 requires a very simple one-line registry key to be
added to support (or more correctly to turn on the support for) 48 bit
LBA; SP2 has the support enabled by default.


guest wrote:

>
> The problem/BUG is probably micro$oft crappy stuff esp since the jerks
> didn't fix their sp4 to be able to recognize greater than 127 gig.
>
> I had the same problem with winxp when I got a WD 160 gig drive; but
> WD understood about m$ junk & supplied a ide card (Promise chipset)
> with the correct driver for winxp.
>
> A "ms-mvp" jerk at the windows newsgroup said that sp1 for winxp
> "fixed" the problem; however, he didn't find it justified on how I
> can "slipstream" sp1 into the original winxp.
>
> You might try for the WD drivers at their website & see if it would
> work with your ide controller; there is a driver for w2k to recognize
> your 250 gig. Don't get a new ide card; check the manual to see
> what chipset your ide controller uses & get the drivers for that
> particular card.

I thought that he stated that the bios recognized all 250 gig!

My MSI motherboard is circa 2000 & does see all of 160 gig; had
an older board (1998) that also had LBA for its ide controller.

I had used the supplied WD controller for installation of the
harddrive as per instuctions & added the supplied driver; then
removed the pci controller & reconnected the drive to the
motherboard's ide controller without any problems.

It is puzzulling that the AUSU board to be so "behind"
the MSI motherboard; but then I'm running the 900 mhz Athlon 7, still.

On 2007-03-18, Barry Watzman <> wrote:
> In his case the problem is in the motherboard itself, the physical IDE
> port can't support it. There is no workaround for that other than a new
> motherboard or some other type of controller for the drive.
>
> Windows XP with SP1 requires a very simple one-line registry key to be
> added to support (or more correctly to turn on the support for) 48 bit
> LBA; SP2 has the support enabled by default.
>
>
> guest wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem/BUG is probably micro$oft crappy stuff esp since the jerks
>> didn't fix their sp4 to be able to recognize greater than 127 gig.
>>
>> I had the same problem with winxp when I got a WD 160 gig drive; but
>> WD understood about m$ junk & supplied a ide card (Promise chipset)
>> with the correct driver for winxp.
>>
>> A "ms-mvp" jerk at the windows newsgroup said that sp1 for winxp
>> "fixed" the problem; however, he didn't find it justified on how I
>> can "slipstream" sp1 into the original winxp.
>>
>> You might try for the WD drivers at their website & see if it would
>> work with your ide controller; there is a driver for w2k to recognize
>> your 250 gig. Don't get a new ide card; check the manual to see
>> what chipset your ide controller uses & get the drivers for that
>> particular card.