2nd Hard Drive showing under capacity

  AragornUK 12:38 16 Dec 2004


A mate of mine has bought a new Seagate Barracuda 80GB HDD, He has installed it in his system as a Primary Slave, and entered FDISK. This is where the problem starts. His BIOS shows it as an 80GB drive, but FDISK is only clocking it as around 10.5GB. He is currently running a 40GB as a Master, and both BIOS and FDISK recognised that drive on install without a problem.

His system is a Win98 based Athlon XP2600+. Any ideas on causes?

  xania 13:17 16 Dec 2004

Some older BIOS's are incapable of seeing the entirety of larger hard disks, but there are two ways of overcoming this problem. The hard disk manufacturers sites click here

will usually provide a disk wizard to overcome the problem. Alternatively, you can use a decent Partition Manager to partition the drive into smaller chunks to overcome the problem.

  AragornUK 13:24 16 Dec 2004

Thanks for that, however we have considered that possibility. The BIOS itself IS recognising the disc. Shows up in POST and BIOS settings as Seagate 80GB drive. Tha main drive in the system is also a 40GB anyway. The MoBo is new enough to deal with the size of the drive. From my understanding, if it's a problem with the Hard Disk controller in the BIOS, the drive size usually shows as 8.4GB anyway, not 10.5.

Keep digging if you can, cos I think he's on the point of slinging it out of the window :o/

  obbit 13:28 16 Dec 2004

could possibly be a jumper on the hard drive itself. check on the HD label.

  ACOLYTE 13:32 16 Dec 2004

I think this is an FDISK problem with 98 that doesnt regognise disks over a certain amount i think 64gb is the largest could be wrong tho.

click here microsoft link with update for fdisk.exe.

  AragornUK 13:35 16 Dec 2004

According to the label, the jumper should just be removed if running the drive as a slave. He has done this (without losing the tiny little thing, which in itself is an achievment). I'm stumped now :o(

  AragornUK 13:52 16 Dec 2004

Thanks. I've had a look at the link, and it seems promising - except for one thing. The MS info says that the FDISK problem reports the full size of the drive LESS the 64GB error. This would mean that on his 80GB drive it should be reporting it as 16GB (80-64). I know there is usually an overhead in formatting, but I thought that only became apparent AFTER the drive is formatted. ie 80GB drive. Still 80GB after FDISK and partitioning. Only 76GB (or less) after formatting.

Is it possible that the FDISK is reporting what the FORMATTED size of the drive would be? 80GB - formatting overhead - the 64GB error margin?

  xania 17:04 16 Dec 2004


If this were wrong, the POST would not read the HD.

ACOLYTE - what a useful link.

AragornUK - I still think that disk wizard is your best bet.

  AragornUK 09:51 18 Dec 2004

OK. We got it sorted. The link Acolyte provided appears to have done it. New version of FDISK recognised the HD as the right size from the off.

Anything he STILL can't handle is now his own problem :o)

Thanks for your help, and thanks for the link Acolyte. Will file it for future reference ;o)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

What went wrong at the Designs of the Year 2017

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment regarder des séries et talk-shows américains en France ?