Application accelerator

**rajab** · April 28th, 2005, 11:10 PM

I have an AMD athlon 64 on an Asus motherboard with a VIA chipset. I have a 160 GB hdd, Win xp doesn't recognize the full capacity. My question is: Can I install the Intel Application Accelerator on my VIA chipset. Only Intel offers this solution. I've heard that using this accelerator on an Intel chipset will able the full 160 GB hdd capacity to be recognized, but is it compatible with my system??? Thx!

**SoloCamo** · April 28th, 2005, 11:22 PM

ummmm, Intel vs AMD. im guessing windows is recognizing about 150gbs? If so thats because it has windows on it already, and its been formatted. So it takes up some space automatically. Tell me what its reading as (how much space)

**Jarhed7276** · April 28th, 2005, 11:35 PM

The IAA will only work on Intel chipsets. You say WinXP doesn't recognize the full capacity; does the BIOS?

**CataclysmCow** · April 28th, 2005, 11:58 PM

Don't think about IAA for a solution to this.

What does disk management report for capacity? (start - run - dismgmt.msc)

What service pack are you using? LBA-48bit support was only enabled in atapi.sys after SP1.

What ATA controller are you using (if it's onboard what mobo do you have)?

im guessing windows is recognizing about 150gbs? If so thats because it has windows on it already, and its been formatted. So it takes up some space automatically.

Regardless of what space anything is taking up the capacity will still be reported the same. It's figured from the drives reported geometry ... bookkeeping and OS have nothing to do with it. This myth is mostly of a result of OSs reporting drive capacity in IEC units and HDD manufactures reporting size in SI units, but I assure you OS/filesystem and readings on drive size are not related.

**HeadBand** · April 29th, 2005, 12:08 AM

any nf3 should support that big of a drive just fine

so yeah it probobally needs sp1 if it is only recognizing 127gb

if it is recognizing arround 142 that is because the os uses base 2 and the hd manufacturer uses base 10...there is nothing wrong with this and nothing you can do

**CataclysmCow** · April 29th, 2005, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by HeadBand

if it is recognizing arround 142 that is because the os uses base 2 and the hd manufacturer uses base 10

160 * 10^9 / 2^30 = ~149.011
(Sorry for the cheap nitpick - I just appreciate accuracy).

**HeadBand** · April 29th, 2005, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by CataclysmCow

160 * 10^9 / 2^30 = ~149.011
(Sorry for the cheap nitpick - I just appreciate accuracy).

sorry i have a 160 gb and i just added up the partitions...but i missed one :/

**rajab** · April 29th, 2005, 05:55 PM

Ok. I thank you all for your quick responce. The reading in computer management is:
(C

partition basic NTFS 128 GB 21.05 unalocated space.
sum = 149.05. Almost 11 GB is lost. I am running XP Home SPK1.

Thx.

**rajab** · April 29th, 2005, 05:59 PM

Yes it says that I have 160GB. Thx

**VHockey86** · April 29th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Its not lost... you're just victum of deceptive advertising.
When hard drive manufacturers size what size it is... they use the decimal shortcut names..... so they say a "kilobyte" is 1000 bytes, when realistically its actualy 1024 (2^10). This carries through with kilobytes --> megabytes and megabytes to gigabytes -->

So all in all you have
(Hard_Drive_Advertised_Capacity)*1000*1000*1000/(1024*1024*1024)
Thats where you get the "missing" 10.5 gigs....

The hard drive capacity is actually only
160,000,000,000 bytes...but 160 gigs is really 171,798,691,480 bytes

**CataclysmCow** · April 29th, 2005, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by VHockey86

Its not lost... you're just victum of deceptive advertising.

There's nothing deceptive about it. HDD manufactures are technically in the right while some OS manufactures are at fault. HDD manufactures use the correct prefix for SI units (GB) while some OS manufactures use IEC prefixes but label them as SI units (GiB vs GB). If you want to point blame at someone point the blame at Microsoft. IEC prefixes were standardized almost 7 years ago.

they say a "kilobyte" is 1000 bytes, when realistically its actualy 1024 (2^10). ... 160 gigs is really 171,798,691,480 bytes

You are perpetuating the same myth that causes this whole misunderstanding. A kilobyte is not 2^10 bytes; 2^10 bytes is a kibibyte. "160 gigs" does not mention anything in terms of units, but assuming you mean GB's it's still not correct - a GB is 10^9 bytes - a GiB is 2^30 bytes.

**VHockey86** · April 29th, 2005, 08:34 PM

Yes, I know the difference between Kibibyte and Kilobytes, but I didnt feel like introducing the other units since "kilobytes" and such are what is used to describe stuff 99% of the time.

And yes, obviously by 160 gigs I meant 160Gigabytes, thus 160*10^9 bytes (SI prefix). I realize there is the other standard for kibi/gigi and what not, but ever operating system I've ever seen still reports base 2 data representations with the base 10 decimal prefixes. Just because it doesnt have the literal SI prefix meaning, that doesnt mean the term is completely wrong.

I'm not saying that they're wrong by advertising hard drive sizes as they do, I just mean that when someone checks their computer in windows and it says approx. 150 instead of 160, that can be rather deceptive.

But if you're going to be really picky, I was off with a typo, 840 instead of 480.. so sue me