Is my system 48-bit LBA compatible?
ungvi...@thaimail.com
bought this computer in May 2003, so I'm not sure if my BIOS and IDE
can handle the full capacity. (In other words, whether it supports 48-
bit LBA.) I have a report from Everest that says these:
> BIOS Properties:
> BIOS Type Award
> Award BIOS Type Phoenix-Award BIOS v6.00PG
> Award BIOS Message W6390VMS V2.4 040303 18:13:39
> System BIOS Date 04/03/03
> Video BIOS Date 01/05/07
>
> [ VIA Bus Master IDE Controller ]
>
> Device Properties:
> Driver Description VIA Bus Master IDE Controller
> Driver Date 01/07/2001
> Driver Version 5.1.2600.0
> Driver Provider Microsoft
> INF File mshdc.inf
>
> Device Resources:
> Port B400-B40F
>
> [ IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers / VIA Bus Master IDE Controller ]
>
> Device Properties:
> Driver Description VIA Bus Master IDE Controller
> Driver Date 01/07/2001
> Driver Version 5.1.2600.0
> Driver Provider Microsoft
> INF File mshdc.inf
> Hardware ID PCI\VEN_1106&DEV_0571&SUBSYS_39011462&REV_06
> Location Information PCI bus 0, device 17, function 1
> PCI Device VIA VT82C571 IDE Controller
>
> Device Resources:
> Port B400-B40F
If you need more information, I can post the full Everest report here.
BTW I've already upgraded to XP SP2, so that removes that particular
potential compatibility problem.
kony
I built a system with that board for a relative, though now
details are fuzzy years later. It either supported 48bit
LBA with the first bios, or supported it with an early bios
soon thereafter.
If your board is running an early bios, update the bios to
the last offered by MSI. After doing so (if not already) it
should support any drive capacity that is available,
including 320GB. MSI probably has newer bios for this board
than I do, but I do have versions through 1.8 if you can't
get it from MSI's website.
Paul
There is some mumbling here about supporting a 160GB disk, near the
bottom of the page. Your BIOS version of 2.4 is later than the 1.1
version where the issue is mentioned. 137GB would be the transition
point to 48 bit LBA, so it is probably OK.
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func=downloaddetail&type=bios&maincat_no=1&prod_no=307
That motherboard also appears on an HP.com web page, but I didn't manage
to find any BIOS information or updates there.
There are also workarounds, such as installing a PCI card with IDE controller
on it. Like a Promise Ultra133 TX2 or something more recent.
http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.pdf
Paul
Ken Maltby
"Paul" <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message news:ggb8lk$2ir$1...@aioe.org...
OK, I give up!
How did you two establish that the OP was talking about an
MSI board? There are a few boards using that chipset, not
only MSI boards, and even MSI has more than one such
board.
Luck;
Ken
Paul
Kony mentioned it was an MSI board, so I tried MS-6390.
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func=downloaddetail&type=bios&maincat_no=1&prod_no=307
I found three manuals, for versions V1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Now that
I look at it, the BIOS are divided into some for "PCB 2.0". The
2.4 version would be for PCB 2.0, whatever that means.
To add some fun to it, the pictures in the three manuals are
all different, so it doesn't look like two versions share the
same PCB.
A V1.0 board claims VT8233A/VT8235 as the Southbridge,
while the other two claim VT8235 (and UltraDMA 133).
Ultra133 came out in ATA/ATAPI 6, at the same time as
48 bit LBA.
The chipset info from VIA, indicates that VT8233A is UltraDMA 133
capable, which raises the question why the MSI manual doesn't
mention it. Based on the VIA information, that would suggest
the hardware is ready. But no one can make any statements
about the BIOS, unless the BIOS provider chooses to do so.
(top of page 6...)
http://www.via.com.tw/en/downloads/whitepapers/chipsets/legacy/chipsets_km266.pdf
So, you're right, it is an untraceable mess.
The date of the BIOS mentioning "160GB HDD" is 2002-04-12.
The V2.4 BIOS is 2003-04-03. For Asus motherboards, the
cutoff date for 48Bit LBA was Jan 2003 (their claim is
any board Asus started producing after that date, should be
48 bit LBA). So a BIOS delivered in April 2003, is
still too close to that point in history, to say
with certainty that they fixed it.
That is why I included instructions for a workaround,
in case it doesn't work out. Even boards that are
supposed to be 48 bit LBA, sometimes demonstrate
they are not. So seeing a notation on a BIOS download
page, doesn't mean it is guaranteed.
Paul
Ken Maltby
"Paul" <nos...@needed.com> wrote in message news:ggbr4k$bo5$1...@aioe.org...
This would have been much simpler if the OP had mentioned
the exact make and model of the motherboard.
Why is it that posters want to keep this kind of information
secret?
Luck;
Ken
Grinder
I'm afraid I can't tell you that.
~misfit~
LOL! I'm pleased I'd just finished my coffee.
However it never ceases to amaze me how people seem so parsimonious with the
facts when asking questions. Sometimes I wonder if the posts are
trolling.....
Cheers,
--
Shaun.