Win2k biglba support

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by win2k, Nov 3, 2005.

  1. win2k

    win2k Guest

    Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    a registry setting.

    I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of data
    on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only to the
    other 160GB drive....

    So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.

    Btw does anyone know the likelihood of recovering such data by either software
    or a professional service as it was partially corrupted after chkdsk ran under
    non-bigLBA setting (thereby fixing 'errors' that weren't really errors)?
     
    win2k, Nov 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. win2k

    Richard Guest

    win2k wrote:
    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    > Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    > a registry setting.
    >
    > I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of data
    > on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only to the
    > other 160GB drive....
    >
    > So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.
    >
    > Btw does anyone know the likelihood of recovering such data by either software
    > or a professional service as it was partially corrupted after chkdsk ran under
    > non-bigLBA setting (thereby fixing 'errors' that weren't really errors)?


    Quite likly to be able to be recovered. I used filescavanger to recover a
    raidset that had something similar happen to it and it got most of the music and
    movies back off it.

    The problem that happened there was a change between 2 machines, the first being
    a compaq had 2 options for the way its accessed, and it was on the one thats
    different to everyone else.
     
    Richard, Nov 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. win2k

    Julian Visch Guest

    win2k wrote:

    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by
    > default? Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's
    > fixed by adding a registry setting.
    >
    > I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of
    > data on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only
    > to the other 160GB drive....
    >
    > So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.
    >
    > Btw does anyone know the likelihood of recovering such data by either
    > software or a professional service as it was partially corrupted after
    > chkdsk ran under non-bigLBA setting (thereby fixing 'errors' that weren't
    > really errors)?


    Try a linux boot of CD, that might allow you to look fully at your hard
    drive.
     
    Julian Visch, Nov 3, 2005
    #3
  4. win2k

    EMB Guest

    win2k wrote:
    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    > Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    > a registry setting.


    HDD's requiring bigLBA support didn't exist when Windows 2000 was
    released so it didn't need to be turned on.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Nov 3, 2005
    #4
  5. win2k

    Tony Guest

    After installing service pack 4 you shouldn't have an issue.

    win2k wrote:
    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    > Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    > a registry setting.
    >
    > I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of data
    > on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only to the
    > other 160GB drive....
    >
    > So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.
    >
    > Btw does anyone know the likelihood of recovering such data by either software
    > or a professional service as it was partially corrupted after chkdsk ran under
    > non-bigLBA setting (thereby fixing 'errors' that weren't really errors)?
     
    Tony, Nov 3, 2005
    #5
  6. win2k

    Tony Guest

    After installing service pack 4 you shouldn't have an issue.

    win2k wrote:
    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    > Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    > a registry setting.
    >
    > I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of data
    > on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only to the
    > other 160GB drive....
    >
    > So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.
    >
    > Btw does anyone know the likelihood of recovering such data by either software
    > or a professional service as it was partially corrupted after chkdsk ran under
    > non-bigLBA setting (thereby fixing 'errors' that weren't really errors)?
     
    Tony, Nov 3, 2005
    #6
  7. win2k

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > Anyone know why Windows 2000 doesn't allow bigLBA support (>137GB) by default?
    > Is there a performance overhead for it? As you may know, it's fixed by adding
    > a registry setting.
    >
    > I hope there's a good reason as after reinstalling Win2k I lost a lot of data
    > on my 160GB drives. Much of it was backed up, unfortunately some only to the
    > other 160GB drive....
    >
    > So I was curious as to why it's not set that way by default.


    A service pack is required as it is for XP.
     
    Rob J, Nov 4, 2005
    #7
    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. Frank B Denman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,906
    Barb Bowman [MVP-Windows]
    Aug 9, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXMgQnVzaA==?=

    Anti Virus Support + Japanese character support

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXMgQnVzaA==?=, Jul 30, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    575
    =?Utf-8?B?SGVjdG9y?=
    Jul 31, 2005
  3. thing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    866
    thing
    Aug 15, 2004
  4. Shane

    win2k support being dropped

    Shane, Jun 15, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    69
    Views:
    1,407
    Rob J
    Jul 16, 2005
  5. thing2
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    366
    Brett Roberts
    Aug 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page