Prob with Windows Pro x64 or Samsung HDD?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=, Dec 12, 2005.

  1. Hi pple,

    Last sat, i assembled the following rig

    AMD Athlon64 x2 4600
    2 x 512MB GEIL 3200
    Gigabyte K8N-SLI
    Samsung 200GB SATAII
    Gigabyte 6600GT 120MB
    Windows XP x64 OEM

    My problem is that windows only see 120GB out of my 200GB HDD. The case is
    the same when i swap HDDs and even tried reinstalling Windows.

    Can anyone provide any assistance?

    Thanks in advance!
     
    =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=, Dec 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    The Grinch Guest

    "=?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Hi pple,
    >
    > Last sat, i assembled the following rig
    >
    > AMD Athlon64 x2 4600
    > 2 x 512MB GEIL 3200
    > Gigabyte K8N-SLI
    > Samsung 200GB SATAII
    > Gigabyte 6600GT 120MB
    > Windows XP x64 OEM
    >
    > My problem is that windows only see 120GB out of my 200GB HDD. The
    > case is the same when i swap HDDs and even tried reinstalling Windows.
    >
    > Can anyone provide any assistance?
    >
    > Thanks in advance!
    >


    I'd say check your BIOS settings. I have 250 and 320 GB SATA-2 drives with
    no problems here.

    I went with the 4400 and got 4GB ram with the savings. You're wasting a
    good CPU by only giving it a gig of memory.
     
    The Grinch, Dec 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. It depends on how the OP is using the machine. Although I too have 4GB with
    my dual core AMD, I don't agree that everyone who goes 64 ought to have that
    much unless he either just wants to or has applications that require that
    much.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9729F3832F847thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    > "=?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Hi pple,
    >>
    >> Last sat, i assembled the following rig
    >>
    >> AMD Athlon64 x2 4600
    >> 2 x 512MB GEIL 3200
    >> Gigabyte K8N-SLI
    >> Samsung 200GB SATAII
    >> Gigabyte 6600GT 120MB
    >> Windows XP x64 OEM
    >>
    >> My problem is that windows only see 120GB out of my 200GB HDD. The
    >> case is the same when i swap HDDs and even tried reinstalling Windows.
    >>
    >> Can anyone provide any assistance?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance!
    >>

    >
    > I'd say check your BIOS settings. I have 250 and 320 GB SATA-2 drives with
    > no problems here.
    >
    > I went with the 4400 and got 4GB ram with the savings. You're wasting a
    > good CPU by only giving it a gig of memory.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #3
  4. The BIOS recognized the drive properly by did not have any reading of the
    diskspace.

    I am beginning to think tat it is the nForce chipset.

    What chipset are you running by?

    Well, i am just a desktop user, i dun need that much ram.

    "The Grinch" wrote:
    >
    > I'd say check your BIOS settings. I have 250 and 320 GB SATA-2 drives with
    > no problems here.
    >
    > I went with the 4400 and got 4GB ram with the savings. You're wasting a
    > good CPU by only giving it a gig of memory.
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=, Dec 12, 2005
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    The Grinch Guest

    "=?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=" <> wrote in
    news::

    > The BIOS recognized the drive properly by did not have any reading of
    > the diskspace.
    >
    > I am beginning to think tat it is the nForce chipset.
    >
    > What chipset are you running by?


    I have an Abit SLI board with nForce chipset

    >
    > Well, i am just a desktop user, i dun need that much ram.
    >
    > "The Grinch" wrote:
    >>
    >> I'd say check your BIOS settings. I have 250 and 320 GB SATA-2 drives
    >> with no problems here.
    >>
    >> I went with the 4400 and got 4GB ram with the savings. You're wasting
    >> a good CPU by only giving it a gig of memory.
    >>

    >
     
    The Grinch, Dec 12, 2005
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    The Grinch Guest

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    news:#x6#GCu$:

    > It depends on how the OP is using the machine. Although I too have
    > 4GB with my dual core AMD, I don't agree that everyone who goes 64
    > ought to have that much unless he either just wants to or has
    > applications that require that much.
    >


    Well, the main advantage of dual core is with multitasking and you're not
    going to get much multitasking out of a gig of memory.
     
    The Grinch, Dec 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that way.
    All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I doubled that
    for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way because I am a
    technophile, not because I need it.

    On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really need
    for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to recommend as much
    as the user's budget allows and the box will take. It would follow that I
    would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual use but again recommend as
    much as the user is willing to invest in.

    Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn on the
    power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more memory."

    But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing light
    productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't have more
    memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns972A119DFBF49thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    > news:#x6#GCu$:
    >
    >> It depends on how the OP is using the machine. Although I too have
    >> 4GB with my dual core AMD, I don't agree that everyone who goes 64
    >> ought to have that much unless he either just wants to or has
    >> applications that require that much.
    >>

    >
    > Well, the main advantage of dual core is with multitasking and you're not
    > going to get much multitasking out of a gig of memory.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    The Grinch Guest

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    news:uWfDftu$:

    > Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    > demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
    > way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
    > doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
    > because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
    >
    > On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
    > need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
    > recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
    > It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
    > use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
    >
    > Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
    > on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
    > memory."


    Good advice ;)

    >
    > But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
    > light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
    > have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
    >


    With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file rather
    quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has over
    the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram than
    they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock speed.
     
    The Grinch, Dec 12, 2005
    #8
  9. What does Disk Management say about free space on the drive?

    Have you checked the disk model number - as reported in Device Manager - on
    the manufacturer's site to confirm that the disk you have is a 200GB and not
    a 120GB drive?


    "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns972A10568DDE2thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    > "=?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> The BIOS recognized the drive properly by did not have any reading of
    >> the diskspace.
    >>
    >> I am beginning to think tat it is the nForce chipset.
    >>
    >> What chipset are you running by?

    >
    > I have an Abit SLI board with nForce chipset
    >
    >>
    >> Well, i am just a desktop user, i dun need that much ram.
    >>
    >> "The Grinch" wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I'd say check your BIOS settings. I have 250 and 320 GB SATA-2 drives
    >>> with no problems here.
    >>>
    >>> I went with the 4400 and got 4GB ram with the savings. You're wasting
    >>> a good CPU by only giving it a gig of memory.
    >>>

    >>

    >
     
    Dominic Payer, Dec 12, 2005
    #9
  10. I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
    would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at the
    time I bought the box.

    How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know what
    he's running.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    > news:uWfDftu$:
    >
    >> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    >> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
    >> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
    >> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
    >> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
    >> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
    >> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
    >> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
    >> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
    >>
    >> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
    >> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
    >> memory."

    >
    > Good advice ;)
    >
    >>
    >> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
    >> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
    >> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
    >>

    >
    > With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file rather
    > quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has over
    > the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
    > than
    > they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock speed.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+ x2,
    x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and do
    email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most people
    don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always insist that
    you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.


    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%2363M%23pz$...
    >I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
    >would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
    >the time I bought the box.
    >
    > How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
    > what he's running.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    >> news:uWfDftu$:
    >>
    >>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    >>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
    >>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
    >>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
    >>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
    >>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
    >>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
    >>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
    >>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
    >>>
    >>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
    >>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
    >>> memory."

    >>
    >> Good advice ;)
    >>
    >>>
    >>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
    >>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
    >>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
    >>>

    >>
    >> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file rather
    >> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
    >> over
    >> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
    >> than
    >> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock speed.

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Dec 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
    ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
    others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level of
    those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away from
    the community.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:OYBak6z$...
    > It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+ x2,
    > x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and do
    > email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most people
    > don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always insist
    > that you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:%2363M%23pz$...
    >>I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
    >>would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
    >>the time I bought the box.
    >>
    >> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
    >> what he's running.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >> "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    >>> news:uWfDftu$:
    >>>
    >>>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    >>>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
    >>>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
    >>>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
    >>>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
    >>>>
    >>>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
    >>>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
    >>>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
    >>>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
    >>>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
    >>>>
    >>>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
    >>>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
    >>>> memory."
    >>>
    >>> Good advice ;)
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
    >>>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
    >>>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file
    >>> rather
    >>> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
    >>> over
    >>> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
    >>> than
    >>> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock
    >>> speed.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Good philosophy and obvious in your posts here. Thanks.


    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%23cePXP0$...
    > Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
    > ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
    > others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
    > of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
    > from the community.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:OYBak6z$...
    >> It is kinda hopeless to convince some here that you don't need a 4800+
    >> x2, x64, 4 GB ram, 7800 GT 512mb video, to run Word, browse the net and
    >> do email. Also lots of programs that make the computer useful to most
    >> people don't run or run with missing features. Some people will always
    >> insist that you need a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti to drive around town.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%2363M%23pz$...
    >>>I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I really
    >>>would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the 4400+ at
    >>>the time I bought the box.
    >>>
    >>> How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't know
    >>> what he's running.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >>> "The Grinch" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns972A1BC0BD351thegrinchwhosville@216.196.97.131...
    >>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    >>>> news:uWfDftu$:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Why not? You may be using several programs together that place a high
    >>>>> demand on memory, but by no means do all users use their machines that
    >>>>> way. All of my desktops running XP Pro SP2 have 2 GB of ram and I
    >>>>> doubled that for my x64 box. But I understand that I do it that way
    >>>>> because I am a technophile, not because I need it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On the other hand, I am routinely asked what regular home users really
    >>>>> need for SP2 and my standard reply is 512MB. I then go on to
    >>>>> recommend as much as the user's budget allows and the box will take.
    >>>>> It would follow that I would recommend 1GB for x64 and up for casual
    >>>>> use but again recommend as much as the user is willing to invest in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mark Minasi has a rule of thumb for when to add memory: "If you turn
    >>>>> on the power on the computer and the lights don't dim, add more
    >>>>> memory."
    >>>>
    >>>> Good advice ;)
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But if a user is only surfing the net, handling his email, and doing
    >>>>> light productivity work why make him feel like a fool if he doesn't
    >>>>> have more memory than I can justify to him on practical grounds?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> With only a gig of memory you're going to be hitting the swap file
    >>>> rather
    >>>> quickly and that will override the small speed advantage the 4600 has
    >>>> over
    >>>> the 4400. I realize most people would rather not spend any more on ram
    >>>> than
    >>>> they have to but I get more mileage out of ram than I do cpu clock
    >>>> speed.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Dec 12, 2005
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    Colin Nowell Guest

    I agree with John. An excellent philosophy to work by and one I share with
    you.

    Colin

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:%23cePXP0$...
    > Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
    > ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
    > others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
    > of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
    > from the community.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
     
    Colin Nowell, Dec 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Thanks folks.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Colin Nowell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I agree with John. An excellent philosophy to work by and one I share with
    >you.
    >
    > Colin
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23cePXP0$...
    >> Yes. The problem is an over-generalized pride of ownership. My pride of
    >> ownership guides my buying choices but it doesn't guide my advice for
    >> others. One has to advise others on the needs, budget, and comfort level
    >> of those others. Imposing one's own preferences drives casual users away
    >> from the community.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)

    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Dec 12, 2005
    #15
  16. =?Utf-8?B?YW5kZWVseW0=?=

    The Grinch Guest

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in
    news:#63M#pz$:

    > I prefer the 4400+ over the 4600+ because of the cache sizes. I
    > really would like a 4800+ but the price performance sweet spot was the
    > 4400+ at the time I bought the box.
    >
    > How do you know the user will be bumping the swap file? You don't
    > know what he's running.
    >


    Cache size was the reason I choose the 4400 too. True, I don't know what
    most people do with their computers but if 512-1M is sufficient ram then
    they probably don't have enough use for 64-bit to justify the cost.

    My NSP has 70 days binary retention. Check out alt.binaries.bone****....39
    million headers there requires every bit of 2GB ram to hold. That one group
    pushes 32-bit to its limit. There's no way to have 4 or 5 other large
    groups open too. When my NSP reaches 80 days retention I'd be screwed
    unless I pull headers in smaller chunks instead of all at once.
     
    The Grinch, Dec 13, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gareth not NLL or anybody else.

    Printer prob and also networking prob

    Gareth not NLL or anybody else., Jan 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    649
  2. Bernard

    Opinion on Samsung new 19inch Samsung 971p LCD

    Bernard, Oct 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,720
  3. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,120
  4. LineOut

    Audio prob that's more than a sound card prob

    LineOut, Apr 18, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    687
    chuckcar
    Apr 19, 2008
  5. Skybuck Flying
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,598
    David Craig
    Aug 11, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page