Disk partitioning size

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:49:07 -1000, "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote:

>It figures... Test are done on a number of machines with different OS's
>including Vista. All fail the exact same way. One should actually test
>instead of just guess. It is very easy to replicate.

I'l give it a test as soon as I get another machine. I don't feel like testing it on this machine just in case your
correct. I'm getting a machine that wont boot in a few days. I'll use that one. I have plenty of large drives to test
with.

How can I make sure I'm writing to the "sweet spot" on the drive? Can I just fill it up with compressed files beyond
that point?
____ _
| __\_\_o____/_|
<[___\_\_-----<------------------<No Spam Please><
| o'

 

You just need to write to the disk until it reaches past 137gb then reboot

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"John" <seetheplane@my.sig> wrote in message
news:0fqvt418d59v56kgo02qttcploa3hrr5n5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:49:07 -1000, "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote:

>It figures... Test are done on a number of machines with different OS's
>including Vista. All fail the exact same way. One should actually test
>instead of just guess. It is very easy to replicate.

I'l give it a test as soon as I get another machine. I don't feel like
testing it on this machine just in case your
correct. I'm getting a machine that wont boot in a few days. I'll use that
one. I have plenty of large drives to test
with.

How can I make sure I'm writing to the "sweet spot" on the drive? Can I just
fill it up with compressed files beyond
that point?
____ _
| __\_\_o____/_|
<[___\_\_-----<------------------<No Spam Please><
| o'

 

You must fill up the unused space before 137gb to write past 137gb

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"John" <seetheplane@my.sig> wrote in message
news:0fqvt418d59v56kgo02qttcploa3hrr5n5@4ax.com...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:49:07 -1000, "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote:

>It figures... Test are done on a number of machines with different OS's
>including Vista. All fail the exact same way. One should actually test
>instead of just guess. It is very easy to replicate.

I'l give it a test as soon as I get another machine. I don't feel like
testing it on this machine just in case your
correct. I'm getting a machine that wont boot in a few days. I'll use that
one. I have plenty of large drives to test
with.

How can I make sure I'm writing to the "sweet spot" on the drive? Can I just
fill it up with compressed files beyond
that point?
____ _
| __\_\_o____/_|
<[___\_\_-----<------------------<No Spam Please><
| o'

 

NO, IT DOESN'T! Suit yourself and think what you want but your
information is out of date. This problem was fixed with the release of
Service Pack 1 and 48-Bit LBA support, if your installation media
includes SP1 or better you will not have any problems with the 28-bit
137GB barrier. I have seen many, many installations on large hard
drives and many of these drives were packed to near capacity and none
have experienced any data loss problems.

John

Randem wrote:
> Sure it still applies as in the article. It has been tested and is
> repeatable EVERY time.
>

 

There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply do
not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
*millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date

John

Randem wrote:
> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>

 

So now you are expanding your claim to also include Vista as being non
48-Bit LBA compliant. Vista natively supports 48 bit LBA, if you can't
get this to work with Vista then you have problems with your test
computer or your controller drivers are out of date or not properly
loaded. Most Vista boxes today probably ship installed on 250GB drive
or larger and many users are cramming these drive to capacity with
multimedia files! You claim that Vista suffers this same 28-bit LBA
barrier has pretty well exposed your claim as being flawed, end of story.

John

Randem wrote:
> It figures... Test are done on a number of machines with different OS's
> including Vista. All fail the exact same way. One should actually test
> instead of just guess. It is very easy to replicate.
>

 

Yeah, I think so!

John John (MVP) wrote:
> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply do
> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>
> John
>
> Randem wrote:
>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.

 

Testing works way better than just guessing and believing... But for those
who would rather not test...

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ulYVC5kuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> NO, IT DOESN'T! Suit yourself and think what you want but your
> information is out of date. This problem was fixed with the release of
> Service Pack 1 and 48-Bit LBA support, if your installation media includes
> SP1 or better you will not have any problems with the 28-bit 137GB
> barrier. I have seen many, many installations on large hard drives and
> many of these drives were packed to near capacity and none have
> experienced any data loss problems.
>
> John
>
> Randem wrote:
>> Sure it still applies as in the article. It has been tested and is
>> repeatable EVERY time.
>>

 

I get these new Vista boxes in my shop and the owner complains that they
copied large amounts of data to their hard disk then they mysteriously
cannot boot their computer... hmmm. I repair these computers because Windows
messed up their file system and soon as I fix them they can mysteriously
boot... These MUST be accidents...(sarcasm). You can nay-say all you want
but you mysteriously do not do any test... Why is that? Would a test destroy
your mis-believe world?

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uHqq9TluJHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> So now you are expanding your claim to also include Vista as being non
> 48-Bit LBA compliant. Vista natively supports 48 bit LBA, if you can't
> get this to work with Vista then you have problems with your test computer
> or your controller drivers are out of date or not properly loaded. Most
> Vista boxes today probably ship installed on 250GB drive or larger and
> many users are cramming these drive to capacity with multimedia files!
> You claim that Vista suffers this same 28-bit LBA barrier has pretty well
> exposed your claim as being flawed, end of story.
>
> John
>
> Randem wrote:
>> It figures... Test are done on a number of machines with different OS's
>> including Vista. All fail the exact same way. One should actually test
>> instead of just guess. It is very easy to replicate.
>>

 

Shipped on a large drive yes, but it may be years before any of them wander
into the situation where the problem lies. These types of issues have been
around for a long time with people such as yourselves denying anything wrong
until MS releases an update and a knowledgebase article then You guys are
nowhere around to admit you were wrong, coincidence?

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, I think so!
>
> John John (MVP) wrote:
>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply do
>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>
>> John
>>
>> Randem wrote:
>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>
>

 

All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
that... hmmmm.

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, I think so!
>
> John John (MVP) wrote:
>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply do
>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>
>> John
>>
>> Randem wrote:
>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>
>

 

I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
(alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system"). I'll
leave it at that. LOL.

Randem wrote:
> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
> that... hmmmm.
>
> --
> Randem Systems
> Your Installation Specialist
> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Yeah, I think so!
>>
>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply do
>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Randem wrote:
>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.

 

Whatever, you LACK of testing abilities shines very brightly here. All you
can do is attempt to verbally tear down others withh no evidence
what-so-ever. It's a simple test why can't you perform it? Or is that very
evident?

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23vLHm8uuJHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
> (alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system"). I'll
> leave it at that. LOL.
>
> Randem wrote:
>> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
>> that... hmmmm.
>>
>> --
>> Randem Systems
>> Your Installation Specialist
>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Yeah, I think so!
>>>
>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply
>>>> do
>>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front page
>>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there is
>>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>
>

 

OK, tell me what to test.
I can setup my test PC for XP or Vista
Give me the steps to perform
(in ordered sequence).
and I'll run the test.

I have a spare 160GB drive, will that do?

--
JS
http:/www.pagestart.com


"Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
news:OkfdZ$uuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Whatever, you LACK of testing abilities shines very brightly here. All you
> can do is attempt to verbally tear down others withh no evidence
> what-so-ever. It's a simple test why can't you perform it? Or is that very
> evident?
>
> --
> Randem Systems
> Your Installation Specialist
> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23vLHm8uuJHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
>> (alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system"). I'll
>> leave it at that. LOL.
>>
>> Randem wrote:
>>> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
>>> that... hmmmm.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Randem Systems
>>> Your Installation Specialist
>>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Yeah, I think so!
>>>>
>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>>>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply
>>>>> do
>>>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front
>>>>> page
>>>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>>>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>>>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>>
>>
>
>

 

I'll wait up for this too. But, don't hold your breath.

JS wrote:
> OK, tell me what to test.
> I can setup my test PC for XP or Vista
> Give me the steps to perform
> (in ordered sequence).
> and I'll run the test.
>
> I have a spare 160GB drive, will that do?
>
> --
> JS
> http:/www.pagestart.com
>
>
> "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
> news:OkfdZ$uuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Whatever, you LACK of testing abilities shines very brightly here. All
>> you
>> can do is attempt to verbally tear down others withh no evidence
>> what-so-ever. It's a simple test why can't you perform it? Or is that
>> very
>> evident?
>>
>> --
>> Randem Systems
>> Your Installation Specialist
>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23vLHm8uuJHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
>>> (alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system"). I'll
>>> leave it at that. LOL.
>>>
>>> Randem wrote:
>>>> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
>>>> that... hmmmm.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Randem Systems
>>>> Your Installation Specialist
>>>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>>>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>>>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>>>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Yeah, I think so!
>>>>>
>>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>>>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>>>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>>>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>>>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>>>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>>>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front
>>>>>> page
>>>>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many
>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>>>>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>>>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.

 

What is evident is a clear case of self-projection for both of you.

Randem wrote:
> Whatever, you LACK of testing abilities shines very brightly here. All you
> can do is attempt to verbally tear down others withh no evidence
> what-so-ever. It's a simple test why can't you perform it? Or is that very
> evident?
>
> --
> Randem Systems
> Your Installation Specialist
> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23vLHm8uuJHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
>> (alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system"). I'll
>> leave it at that. LOL.
>>
>> Randem wrote:
>>> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
>>> that... hmmmm.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Randem Systems
>>> Your Installation Specialist
>>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Yeah, I think so!
>>>>
>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out on
>>>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions simply
>>>>> do
>>>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front
>>>>> page
>>>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many Windows
>>>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and none
>>>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.

 

There was a problem with the 137GB barrier and hibernation or creation
of memory dump files when SP1 was first released but that was addressed
in late 2002 or early 2003 with a hotfix.

Other than that you are the only one who reports this behaviour with
your tests. Where are the tests and reports from all the others? Why
are there no confirmation of this by experts in this field? Why are
none of the hard drive manufacturers reporting this? Why is this
information not available 48bitlba.com? Why are there no articles on
the Microsoft Knowledge Base or on Technet about this? Why is it that
this was never reported by any of the major computer manufacturers and
why is it that none of them even have a mention of this on their web
site? Why is it that this isn't reported by any of the printed or
online business or computer publications? Why is it that this isn't
reported by any of the Microsoft critics out there?

Do you seriously think that such a serious problem would have gone
unnoticed for more than 7 years and that by chance you have discovered
and are the only one to know of such a major flaw with Windows XP
installations on large disks? This Big LBA problem has been with us all
along with Windows 2000 and it was present when XP was first released
and everybody knew about it.

As for your assertion that Vista cannot properly handle 48-bit LBA that
is just plain untrue. Few Windows versions have been so scrutinized and
criticized as Vista, 48-bit LBA was old news and mainstream when Vista
first appeared in beta release, if such a major flaw existed on Vista it
would have been quickly exposed during beta testing and none of the
critics would have let this pass and go by unnoticed, Microsoft would
have gotten hammered over it!

Your claim that nobody knows about this because they buy computers with
Windows installed on large drives and it takes users a long time for
their drives to fill up before the problem shows up just doesn't hold up
to scrutiny. I know many people who have bought Vista machines on 250GB
hard drives and in a matter of a few months their drive was filled to
capacity with movies and music files and their disks did not fail. If
what you say was true *NONE* of the computer manufacturers would want to
suffer the complaints and wrath of the consumers over this problem, not
a single one of them would ship a computer with Windows installed on
anything bigger than a 120GB drive, all the manufacturers would explain
this to their customers and customers who need more storage capacity
would be sold computers with multiple hard disks. Such a major problem
would be reported all over the internet and it would even make headline
news on CNN! Your tests simply do not support the facts and the
experience of others out there.

John

Randem wrote:
> I get these new Vista boxes in my shop and the owner complains that they
> copied large amounts of data to their hard disk then they mysteriously
> cannot boot their computer... hmmm. I repair these computers because Windows
> messed up their file system and soon as I fix them they can mysteriously
> boot... These MUST be accidents...(sarcasm). You can nay-say all you want
> but you mysteriously do not do any test... Why is that? Would a test destroy
> your mis-believe world?
>

 

I'd respectfully suggest: forget it, John. (You'll likely have about
as much success as in trying to educate a couple of other posters in here on
much of anything.

As for me, I've gotta go get my oil changed now. Ooops, I meant my
registry cleaned out (since my computer is acting soooo slow these days).
LOL)


John John (MVP) wrote:
> There was a problem with the 137GB barrier and hibernation or creation
> of memory dump files when SP1 was first released but that was addressed
> in late 2002 or early 2003 with a hotfix.
>
> Other than that you are the only one who reports this behaviour with
> your tests. Where are the tests and reports from all the others? Why
> are there no confirmation of this by experts in this field? Why are
> none of the hard drive manufacturers reporting this? Why is this
> information not available 48bitlba.com? Why are there no articles on
> the Microsoft Knowledge Base or on Technet about this? Why is it that
> this was never reported by any of the major computer manufacturers and
> why is it that none of them even have a mention of this on their web
> site? Why is it that this isn't reported by any of the printed or
> online business or computer publications? Why is it that this isn't
> reported by any of the Microsoft critics out there?
>
> Do you seriously think that such a serious problem would have gone
> unnoticed for more than 7 years and that by chance you have discovered
> and are the only one to know of such a major flaw with Windows XP
> installations on large disks? This Big LBA problem has been with us all
> along with Windows 2000 and it was present when XP was first released
> and everybody knew about it.
>
> As for your assertion that Vista cannot properly handle 48-bit LBA that
> is just plain untrue. Few Windows versions have been so scrutinized and
> criticized as Vista, 48-bit LBA was old news and mainstream when Vista
> first appeared in beta release, if such a major flaw existed on Vista it
> would have been quickly exposed during beta testing and none of the
> critics would have let this pass and go by unnoticed, Microsoft would
> have gotten hammered over it!
>
> Your claim that nobody knows about this because they buy computers with
> Windows installed on large drives and it takes users a long time for
> their drives to fill up before the problem shows up just doesn't hold up
> to scrutiny. I know many people who have bought Vista machines on 250GB
> hard drives and in a matter of a few months their drive was filled to
> capacity with movies and music files and their disks did not fail. If
> what you say was true *NONE* of the computer manufacturers would want to
> suffer the complaints and wrath of the consumers over this problem, not
> a single one of them would ship a computer with Windows installed on
> anything bigger than a 120GB drive, all the manufacturers would explain
> this to their customers and customers who need more storage capacity
> would be sold computers with multiple hard disks. Such a major problem
> would be reported all over the internet and it would even make headline
> news on CNN! Your tests simply do not support the facts and the
> experience of others out there.
>
> John
>
> Randem wrote:
>> I get these new Vista boxes in my shop and the owner complains that they
>> copied large amounts of data to their hard disk then they mysteriously
>> cannot boot their computer... hmmm. I repair these computers because
>> Windows
>> messed up their file system and soon as I fix them they can mysteriously
>> boot... These MUST be accidents...(sarcasm). You can nay-say all you want
>> but you mysteriously do not do any test... Why is that? Would a test
>> destroy
>> your mis-believe world?

 

The world is not flat...

To test:

1 - Copy files or folders to large hard disk till it reaches past 137GB

2 - Reboot

Something that simple even you guys can follow it. I have given the solution
to this problem that many have used to fix the problem. But you guys still
tell the world the world is flat... I guess this problem must be in the
other people's minds who have this problem and have had it fixed. Please
tell this user he was imagining his hard disk crash
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/19004/?o=400#556461


BTW: Here are the articles that MS has posted and the ONLY error they have
fixed. Show me anywhere in these documents where it states that MS has fixed
this particular problem.

List of Fixes in Windows XP by Service Pack

SP1 - SP1a - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324720
SP2 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811113
SP3 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946480/

Corrupted Large Hard Disk Fix from Hibernation

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];331958


--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ukZgdavuJHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I'll wait up for this too. But, don't hold your breath.
>
> JS wrote:
>> OK, tell me what to test.
>> I can setup my test PC for XP or Vista
>> Give me the steps to perform
>> (in ordered sequence).
>> and I'll run the test.
>>
>> I have a spare 160GB drive, will that do?
>>
>> --
>> JS
>> http:/www.pagestart.com
>>
>>
>> "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
>> news:OkfdZ$uuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Whatever, you LACK of testing abilities shines very brightly here. All
>>> you
>>> can do is attempt to verbally tear down others withh no evidence
>>> what-so-ever. It's a simple test why can't you perform it? Or is that
>>> very
>>> evident?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Randem Systems
>>> Your Installation Specialist
>>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23vLHm8uuJHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> I'm sure your "tests" are equally as substantive and valid as Twayne's
>>>> (alleged) "tests" on registry cleaners ("speeding up the system").
>>>> I'll
>>>> leave it at that. LOL.
>>>>
>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>> All it take is a simple test... but some how you guys can't seem to do
>>>>> that... hmmmm.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Randem Systems
>>>>> Your Installation Specialist
>>>>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>>>>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>>>>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>>>>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23VMkJeluJHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Yeah, I think so!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John John (MVP) wrote:
>>>>>>> There are tons of Windows XP OEM installation that were shipped out
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> large drives and none of them are failing because of problems with
>>>>>>> 48-bit LBA addressing! I don't care what you say the facts and
>>>>>>> experience of others simply do not support your claims. Computer
>>>>>>> manufacturers have been shipping XP installations on 160GB and 250GB
>>>>>>> hard drives for many years now and users have been installing retail
>>>>>>> versions on large drives for as many years and your assertions
>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not bear out. If what you say were true there would have been
>>>>>>> *millions* of complaints about this and the problem would be front
>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>> news and discussed all over the place. I have seen many, many
>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>> XP installations on large hard drives filed to near capacity and
>>>>>>> none
>>>>>>> have succumbed to the 137GB 28-bit LBA barrier, this problem was
>>>>>>> addressed with SP1 and your information is out of date
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Randem wrote:
>>>>>>>> It has been tested in SP2 and SP3 with ALL updates applied so there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> certainly no mistake... It is very easy to replicate.
>
>

 

You seem to have a lot of time to tell people that the world is flat but no
time to test, hmmmm... How long was it before MS reported that problem with
hibernation? I suppose to the people who had the unreported problem it was
all in their minds before MS made a knowledgebase article about it. I guess
it did not exist before then...

It is easy to test, why haven't you at least done that?

--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ucJsogvuJHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> There was a problem with the 137GB barrier and hibernation or creation of
> memory dump files when SP1 was first released but that was addressed in
> late 2002 or early 2003 with a hotfix.
>
> Other than that you are the only one who reports this behaviour with your
> tests. Where are the tests and reports from all the others? Why are
> there no confirmation of this by experts in this field? Why are none of
> the hard drive manufacturers reporting this? Why is this information not
> available 48bitlba.com? Why are there no articles on the Microsoft
> Knowledge Base or on Technet about this? Why is it that this was never
> reported by any of the major computer manufacturers and why is it that
> none of them even have a mention of this on their web site? Why is it
> that this isn't reported by any of the printed or online business or
> computer publications? Why is it that this isn't reported by any of the
> Microsoft critics out there?
>
> Do you seriously think that such a serious problem would have gone
> unnoticed for more than 7 years and that by chance you have discovered and
> are the only one to know of such a major flaw with Windows XP
> installations on large disks? This Big LBA problem has been with us all
> along with Windows 2000 and it was present when XP was first released and
> everybody knew about it.
>
> As for your assertion that Vista cannot properly handle 48-bit LBA that is
> just plain untrue. Few Windows versions have been so scrutinized and
> criticized as Vista, 48-bit LBA was old news and mainstream when Vista
> first appeared in beta release, if such a major flaw existed on Vista it
> would have been quickly exposed during beta testing and none of the
> critics would have let this pass and go by unnoticed, Microsoft would have
> gotten hammered over it!
>
> Your claim that nobody knows about this because they buy computers with
> Windows installed on large drives and it takes users a long time for their
> drives to fill up before the problem shows up just doesn't hold up to
> scrutiny. I know many people who have bought Vista machines on 250GB hard
> drives and in a matter of a few months their drive was filled to capacity
> with movies and music files and their disks did not fail. If what you say
> was true *NONE* of the computer manufacturers would want to suffer the
> complaints and wrath of the consumers over this problem, not a single one
> of them would ship a computer with Windows installed on anything bigger
> than a 120GB drive, all the manufacturers would explain this to their
> customers and customers who need more storage capacity would be sold
> computers with multiple hard disks. Such a major problem would be
> reported all over the internet and it would even make headline news on
> CNN! Your tests simply do not support the facts and the experience of
> others out there.
>
> John
>
> Randem wrote:
>> I get these new Vista boxes in my shop and the owner complains that they
>> copied large amounts of data to their hard disk then they mysteriously
>> cannot boot their computer... hmmm. I repair these computers because
>> Windows messed up their file system and soon as I fix them they can
>> mysteriously boot... These MUST be accidents...(sarcasm). You can nay-say
>> all you want but you mysteriously do not do any test... Why is that?
>> Would a test destroy your mis-believe world?
>>