Scott Reynolds <sar@gol.com> said:

>On 10/31/2003 5:41 AM, Haluk wrote:
>
>> "Bryan Parker" <puntspeedchunk@yahoo.com>, haber iletisinde sunlari
>> yazdi:f082qv0f1i2f8uoa5t4tvf8ufa26qm7no8@4ax.com...
>> 
>>>"Haluk" <yokoolebiri@spam.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Scott Reynolds" <sar@gol.com>, haber iletisinde sunlari
>>>>yazdi:bnqfte$q68$4@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp...
>>>>
>>>>>On 10/29/2003 9:32 PM, Haluk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Fabian" <lajzar@hotmail.com>, haber iletisinde ?unlar?
>>>>>>yazd?:bno6ck$11c1m9$1@ID-174912.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Haluk hu kiteb:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Jean-Marc Desperrier" <jmdesp@alussinan.org>, haber iletisinde
>>>>>>>>sunlari yazdi:bno0q3$4ld$1@reader1.imaginet.fr...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>SR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The "Computer Management" reports the HD as 128 GB   and
>>>>>>>>>>Partition Magic shows it as 131 GB.
>>>>>>>>>>185.2 GB is written on the hard disk...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So you go with your 180 Gb disk, but you've been hitting the LBA
>>>>>>>>>adressing limits of 128 Gb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Back in 94 when disks were beginning to hit the 512 Mo limit, LBA
>> 
>> was
>> 
>>>>>>>>>something revolutionnary designed to avoid this kind of problem,
>>>>>>>>>ever, imagine this, it would go up to 128 Gb !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Isn't it somewhat dumb to manufacture 180Gb HDs when there is 128Gb
>>>>>>>>limit? just thinking out loud
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I imagine it was also somewhat dumb to build massive 1GB drives when
>>>>>>>there was a 512MB limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I may be wrong here but I think they have increased the limit (to 2Gb
>>>>
>>>>per
>>>>
>>>>>>partition for Fat32) than introduced 1GB harddrives. Not sure though,
>>>>
>>>>it's
>>>>
>>>>>>been so long time. Ahh, floppy days, test drive, packman. Anyone
>>>>
>>>>remember
>>>>
>>>>>>5.25" floppies?
>>>>>
>>>>>Hell, I remember 8" floppies.
>>>>
>>>>I meant no offense sir... :)
>>>
>>>You don't know what I would have given for an 8"
>>>floppy this afternoon!
>> 
>> Well If I'm to make a choice here I'd prefer today's 3.5" ones. They are
>> compact and more resillient...
>
>They may be smaller, but they're harder.

Now, where have I heard that a thousand times
before?


--
Bryan
the severe subnormal foreigner
http://www.trainerbryan.com/old_fjlij.html