Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
thefly said:no. That is not correct. The file allocation table has nothing to do with the hard drives physical limitation.
fat 32 Supports up to 2 terabytes in size: Compared to 2GB of FAT16, 1000 times more.
Ntfs supports even more.
I think the 127 gig limit has to do with enhanced bios translation modes.
Remember the 504 meg limitation and then the 8 gig limitation after that?
It must have something to do with the bios and it's limitations to addressing the size of the drive.
But i'm not sure.
Diggrr said:Huh, I would have thought it was getting to a physical size restriction of not being able to put data tracks too close together for resolution reasons.
Much like CD couldn't jump to DVD until a mass produceable laser was available to read the much denser resolution that a DVD has.
thefly said:Great! thanks madman.
ultra ata 133 is the new 48 bit format? I don't think seagate or ibm is following this are they?