Can slot-loading 350MHz iMac handle 160 GB disk?

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Wes Groleau, Nov 27, 2004.

  1. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Just got a 160 GB disk at Staples.

    Book says many Macs and PCs cannot handle disks
    bigger than 137 GB without a special interface card.

    First I ever heard of such a thing.

    Before I open up my iMac, any info or URIs about
    whether it will work in my 350 MHz slot-leader?

    If not, is there any place inside this special
    card can plug in? Where do I find this "special card"
     
    Wes Groleau, Nov 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wes Groleau

    Alice Faber Guest

    I have a 160MB Firewire/USB drive on a similar vintage iMac. Right now,
    it's partitioned (and reformatted to HFS+), but all of the drive was
    usable.
     
    Alice Faber, Nov 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wes Groleau

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    My 250 MB Maxtor (five partitions) works fine on an original issue iMac. A
    question is whether or not the OP's concern about a size limitation applies
    to internal but not external drives?

    -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Wes Groleau

    Guest Guest

    true. it is a hardware limitation, known as lba48 addressing.
    it will show up as a 128g drive and work fine. you won't be able to use
    the extra capacity, if its internally mounted.
    ata6 cards are available pretty much anywhere, but there is no pci slot
    in the imac, so it won't do much good.

    the only option is to get a firewire enclosure that *does* support
    large drives (i.e. >128g). not all do, so be sure to check.

    that imac might be old enough to not have firewire (i forget when that
    appeared), and thus you'd need a usb enclosure (which also handles
    large drives) and be stuck with usb 1. that would not be particularly
    pleasant.

    but if you choose to install it internally, it will work fine as a 128g
    drive.
     
    Guest, Nov 27, 2004
    #4
  5. Salut Wes

    never too late to learn something new ;-)
    It will, as a 137GB disk.
    I don't know of cards fitting an iMac. These are PCI cards for desktop
    computers (with no built-in monitor)

    Cheers
    Andreas
     
    Andreas Rutishauser, Nov 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    My apologies for leaving out an important detail:

    The alleged limitation also has something to do with
    the (internal) ATA interface.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
    will make violent revolution inevitable.
    -- John F. Kennedy
     
    Wes Groleau, Nov 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Thanks, Andreas . Rest of "answer" in next post.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
    Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who
    did it.
    -- Unknown
     
    Wes Groleau, Nov 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Wes Groleau

    Wes Groleau Guest

    I was guessing it was something like that. Having all partitions
    smaller than 100 GB won't overcome it?
    The book said you could actually have data loss
    if you try to use it without the special card. (??)

    If so, would this be prevented by first partitioning
    it on a "modern" Wintel box to block the last xx GB
    as a separate (unreachable by iMac) partition?

    Andreas said I could use it as a 137. You suggest
    under 128. What is (both of) your rationale(s)?

    Thanks for responding.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    A pessimist says the glass is half empty.

    An optimist says the glass is half full.

    An engineer says somebody made the glass
    twice as big as it needed to be.
     
    Wes Groleau, Nov 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Wes Groleau

    Tom Stiller Guest

    137,438,953,472 represented in "powers of two-ish" notation would be 128
    Gigawhatever
     
    Tom Stiller, Nov 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Wes Groleau

    Bev A. Kupf Guest

    Unfortunately, no.
    I don't envisage this happening.
    128 GB is 137438953472 bytes. My guess is that they
    both have the same number in mind.

    Beverly
     
    Bev A. Kupf, Nov 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Wes Groleau

    Guest Guest

    nope. the problem is it can't access anything over 128/137g. period. if
    a partition starts and/or ends above the 128/137 point, it will not be
    seen at all.
    the only way you can get data loss is if it was formatted as a 160g,
    you had stuff on it already, put it in a non-lba48 machine and kept
    using it.

    on the other hand, if you install it in a single machine and format it
    as a 128g, all will be fine.
    nope. with lba48, 128/137g is the most you can access, partitioning or
    not.
    same thing, just depends how you count.
     
    Guest, Nov 27, 2004
    #11
  12. the limitation applies to the onboard ATA controler. Only ATA controlers
    in macs with DDR ram can handle +120GB disk.
     
    Morten Reippuert Knudsen, Nov 29, 2004
    #12
  13. They also are known to work in the 2002 models of the "Quicksilver"
    model although it's technically not a supported configuration.

    G
     
    Gregory Weston, Nov 30, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.