R50 BIOS only seeing 240 heads of 255 on 160GB HDD.

[LagrangeL2]

I have an IBM Thinkpad R50 (type 1830, model DU2), apparently made around 2004-2005. I bought it used, in mid 2010. It had a 30GB hard disk, which I found way too small, so I tried to upgrade it a few days ago. I bought a Samsung HM160HC (160GB 2.5" PATA). It's also marked "LBA 312, 581, 808", which is a bummer, because I don't think the R50 supports LBA of any kind, much less the 48-bit LBA which I'm guessing this disk uses.

I managed to copy the 30GB partition of the old drive to the new drive by putting both drives in my desktop (using IDE cable converter modules and Powerquest Partition Magic, with full BIOS and OS support for 48-bit LBA). The partitions and data check out fine according to both Partition Magic and Chkdsk, *in the desktop*. The old disk shows 240 heads, the new disk shows 255 heads.

*But*, when I put the new disk in my Thinkpad, it won't boot. I put the Partition Magic CD in the Thinkpad and booted from that, and it says "Drive geometry error. The drive only has 240 heads, but it was formated with 255 head geometry. Erase all partitions and reformat using correct geometry".

But that's wrong! The disk has 255 heads, not 240. Apparently the Thinkpad R50's BIOS only sees the first 240 heads (and hence only reports 240 heads to Partition Magic), so it tries to access the disk as if it was using that geometry, and it can't read the OS files, so boot fails.

Is there any way around this? Has anyone here come across this issue? Perhaps use a Dynamic Drive Overlay or something like that to make the disk look like 240 heads to the R50's BIOS? Suggestions?

--
In a quandry,
Robbie Hatley

[frankiepankie]

Do you have the newest BIOS on your R50 ?

And i would suggest to use other cloning software like Acronis True Image. I can vague remember that Partition Magic shouldn't been used anymore with modern OS'es.

For what its worth: I am using an 160GB WD1600BEKT SATA in an Ultraby Slim converter in my FrankenPad (R51 board in T40 casing, see signature).

[RealBlackStuff]

That's definitely a screwup from Partition Magic.
That program is way too old (2002-2003) to still be used.
Dump it ASAP and follow frankiepankie's advice about Acronis TrueImage.

[LagrangeL2]

Do you have the newest BIOS on your R50 ?

Yes, I upgraded both onboard firmwares (first the "BIOS", then the "embedded controller"). However, the "newest" BIOS is circa 2007. Judging by that fact, Lenovo/IBM have apparently stopped supporting R50.

Also, neither the old nor new BIOS has any settings whatsoever regarding hard disks, IDA, ASA, 28-bit-LBA, or 48-bit-LBA. Without these settings, it's going to have, at best,
no support for that portion of a large hard disk over 137GB; and at worst, no support for large hard disks *whatsoever*. Very short-sighted design work by IBM and/or Lenovo (or whomever they farmed-out the design to).

And i would suggest to use other cloning software like Acronis True Image. I can vague remember that Partition Magic shouldn't been used anymore with modern OS'es.

I don't use modern OSs. (Too expensive, and phone home.)

Partitioning is not done "with" OSs, anyway. It's done *before* installing any OSs on a hard disk. In fact, in most cases, it's better to run a partition manager from a CD, so that there is no OS attempting to access any hard disks while the partition manager is running.

Also, this is not a partition issue; it's clearly a 48-bit LBA issue, which is something totally unrelated, at a drastically-lower level of abstraction than partitioning (just as partitioning is at a drastically-lower level of abstraction than file systems or OSs).

And unless this "True Image" has some way to reprogram the HDD's own on-board firmware, changing it from 48-bit-LBA to 28-bit-LBA or non-LBA (and I'll wager 1000000:1 odds it doesn't, because only the manufacturer -- Samsung in this case -- has access to the firmware source code), then it can't make this disk work in this computer.

(This is not to say that this "True Image" you mention is not more up-to-date and better than Partition Magic. I guess you're probably right, and it's both better and more up-to-date. *But*, I seriously doubt that me acquiring it would help this particular problem. It would be like trying to repair my broken washing machine by updating my motorcycle from a Honda to a Harley. Nice bike, but not relevant.)

I tried Samsung's own disk diagnostic software, "ESTOOL", today. It has a setting for changing the LBA from 48-bit to 28-bit (which would also down-size the disk from 160GB to 136GB of course), but it fails with the <sarcasm>highly informative</sarcasm> error code "Abort Command". On trying to do the same thing another way, it fails with "sector id not found".

So either this software is buggy, or it simply won't work from MS-DOS 6.22 (from which I'm running it), or the HDD is physically bad. Or some combination (or all) of the above.

(<bitterness>I suspect the answer is "all of the above". I'm beginning to suspect that Samsung has no one on their staff knowledgeable in hard disks, and hence they should not be producing them. They should stick with TVs and monitors and pocket calculators and such crap, and leave hard disks to companies that actually do know what they're doing, such as Seagate, Western Digital, etal.</bitterness>)

Which mean's I'm probably out $65 I can't afford for this stupid hard disk, unless I can get Microcenter to take the dam thing back. Apparently the IBM Thinkpad R50 simply cannot use hard disks larger than 136GB or with more than 240 "heads" (as seen through 28-bit LBA).

So the trick will probably be to research any HDD model before buying it, to make sure the size is under 137GB and the "heads" are no more than 240. Which is tricky, because this entire category of products (2.5" IDE HDDs) is considered "obsolete". 99.9% of available laptop HDDs are SATA these days.

(Yes, I could try to get this 160GB PATA to work in a USB carrier, but it's a bummer carrying a HDD around separately; I prefer it inside the computer, so I don't have to keep connecting/disconnecting it, and I don't forget and leave it laying around at Starbucks, library, etc.)

[LagrangeL2]

That's definitely a screwup from Partition Magic.

I don't see how. Partition managers don't generally come with DDOs, because they don't have access to HDD mfgs' firmware source code. Hence neither PQPM nor Acronis True Image can change any HDD's LBA mode from 48-bit to 28-bit or vice versa. Some HDDs come with a jumper for that, but this drive doesn't. And some HDDs (including this one) come with software for that... but in this case, the software isn't working. (Bad software or bad disk.)

In short, it's a 48-bit-LBA issue, not a partition-manager issue, and the cure is almost certainly going to be using a different drive. Basically, the reason I'm posting here is to see if anyone knows any shoehorning techniques to get this beast to work in an R50; but that does not appear to be the case.

That program is way too old (2002-2003) to still be used.
Dump it ASAP and follow frankiepankie's advice about Acronis TrueImage.

It's a 6-year-old computer. Hence older diagnostic/utility software is actually more chronologically appropriate.

Not to say that Acronis TrueImage isn't a good idea. I'll look into acquiring it later. But unless you can tell me it has 48-bit-LBA to 28-bit-LBA conversion ability for a Samsung 2.5" IDE internal laptop HDD, it's not of immediate value to me.

[Harryc]

The way you've tried to copy one drive to another using a desktop will never produce a drive that is bootable in a Thinkpad. They just don't work that way. You need to install the new drive in the Thinkpad, and attach the old drive via a USB enclosure or USB adapter cable, then run your cloning software as a bootable CD. Clone from the external drive to the internal. It will boot if the old image is good.

[RealBlackStuff]

Also, neither the old nor new BIOS has any settings whatsoever regarding hard disks, IDA, ASA, 28-bit-LBA, or 48-bit-LBA. Without these settings, it's going to have, at best,
no support for that portion of a large hard disk over 137GB; and at worst, no support for large hard disks *whatsoever*. Very short-sighted design work by IBM and/or Lenovo (or whomever they farmed-out the design to).

Don't know where you got this "knowledge" from, but it is wrong.
There are no limitations as to the size of a HD in the R50 (or in any IBM laptop since at least the A31/A31p).
Follow Harryc's advice and you (or rather your laptop) will be grand.
And stop using crappy antiquated programs that create havoc with a newer OS.

[rssb]

This may be unrelated but the sticker on most IBM/ Lenovo hard drives says 240 heads as opposed to 255 heads for same hard size hard drives from the same manufacturers ( i have noticed it on Hitachi Travelstar drives).

The recovery cds when they create the partition use 240 heads. Now if one boots them up a linux cd and uses fdisk, you will notice that fdisk will complain that partition does not end on cylinder boundary. Change number of heads to 240 in expert mode, they errors are gone.

Next if you decide to wipe the 'same' hard drive in the 'same' computer with any latest Linux OS, or use a retail windows OS cd /dvd they will create the partition table with 255 heads. I have seen this across T4x, Z6x, T6x series most of them with Hitachi drives.

So dont know if this a firmware thing, Bios recognition which is definitely different from other vendors like Dell, Toshibha etc. who all use 255 heads ( which is printed on all retail hard drives if you would get from best buy, new egg or Fry's etc.)

[LagrangeL2]

LagrangeL2 wrote:
"Also, neither the old nor new BIOS has any settings whatsoever
regarding hard disks, IDA, ASA, 28-bit-LBA, or 48-bit-LBA.
Without these settings, it's going to have, at best, no support for
that portion of a large hard disk over 137GB; and at worst,
no support for large hard disks *whatsoever*. Very short-sighted
design work by IBM and/or Lenovo (or whomever they farmed-out
the design to)."

Don't know where you got this "knowledge" from, but it is wrong.

What is "wrong"? That you can't run safely run 160GB HDDs on a 28-bit-LBA machine? No, that's not "wrong", that's fact. You can try, and it will seem to be working, but guess what? As soon as the disk starts to get full -- more specifically, as soon as you try to write to the 137-160GB portion of the disk, it will actually overwrite the 0-23GB portion instead. What's in the 0-23GB portion? Your operating system and programs. Oooooops, you just wiped out your OS and apps, what a bummer. Try it the hard way if you don't believe me. (Or just google it; that would be wiser if you really don't care to destroy your computer.) If this is what you meant, you are mistaken, and had better learn better, or face disaster..

Or by "wrong" do you mean my assertion that R50 "apparently does not use 48-bit LBA"? I never stated that as being "knowledge" (that's a misquote on your part), but as being the apparent truth. If you have evidence that this is not so, what is your evidence?

Or by "wrong", do you you mean my assertion that R50s cannot safely use hard disks larger than 137GB? If they don't have 48-bit LBA, then they can't use hard disks over 137GB, *period*, so it still comes back to 48-bit LBA. Does IBM-Thinkpad-R50-1830-DU2 use 48-bit-LBA, or not? That is the key question.

And if these computers *do* use 48-bit LBA, where are the settings for it? I've asked this several times, but no one has answered it yet.

So in short, answering a complex post with "You're wrong." is too vague to be useful. Do you care to be a bit more specific, please?

There are no limitations as to the size of a HD in the R50 (or in any IBM laptop since at least the A31/A31p).

Unless they use 48-bit LBA, they're all limited to HDs no larger than 137GB, yes.

*Do* they use 48-bit LBA? And if so, where are the settings, and what is the evidence? No one has answered this yet.

Follow Harryc's advice and you (or rather your laptop) will be grand.
And stop using crappy antiquated programs that create havoc with a newer OS.

I have zero interest in your value judgements as to what (or who) is (or is not, in your estimation, as the case may be) "grand" (whatever that means to you) or "crappy" (whatever that means to you).

And no, as I already pointed out, this has nothing to do with "newer OSs" (which I don't use), or indeed with OSs at all for that matter (an unrelated topic, as I also pointed out). That's already been covered. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, why endlessly repeat things which are obviously false? Seems puzzling to me.

[ajkula66]

@LagrangeL2:

Let me put it to you very bluntly: dozens if not hundreds of people - myself included - on this forum have been running 160, 250 and 320GB drives on T4x and R5x machines. If you do a minimal search, you'll be able to verify this yourself.

There are NO settings to be adjusted. Plug the drive. Install the OS. End of story.

You either have a defective drive or are doing something wrong. Period.

[Harryc]

48-bit LBA was a BIOS option turned on for all Thinkpad models years ago. As George said, there is no setting for it. Also, on the OS side, WinXP without at least SP1 will not support 48 bit LBA.

[LagrangeL2]

The way you've tried to copy one drive to another using a desktop will never produce a drive that is bootable in a Thinkpad. They just don't work that way. You need to install the new drive in the Thinkpad, and attach the old drive via a USB enclosure or USB adapter cable, then run your cloning software as a bootable CD. Clone from the external drive to the internal. It will boot if the old image is good.

Ok, this actually makes some sense. Clearly the R50 has a 240-head max for some reason, so a disk that's been partitioned and formated a 255-head HD isn't going to work.

Now, I'm not certain at all that wiping the partitions and doing it the way you describe would work either, if the HD isn't manufactured that way. If one can get the the Thinkpad BIOS's 240h geometry to map bijectively to the disk firmware's 255h geometry, it could work, at least for a partition under 137GB, and bigger if this beast has secret hidden settingless 48-bit LBA. Experimental at this point. I think I'll try what you suggest, and if it seems to work, I'll purposely fill the 160GB HD up with junk, all the way to 160GB. But I predict 75% odds that when I do, it will overwrite the OS and apps in the bottom 23GB, cause I don't think this beast has 48-bit LBA. We'll see. Won't hurt anything (other than wasting my time), because I still have the original 30GB HDD.

As for the data archives I'd like to be able to put on my internal HDD.... For now, I've stripped the internal HDD to just OS and apps and related, and put everything else in my old external Maxtor 300GB USB/1394. Works, but the external HD is nearly as large and heavy as the computer itself. The two together are the weight of a bowling ball in my backpack.

If I can't get the 160GB to work internally, I'll either try to return it to the store, or put it in a modern USB or 1394 carrier; should only weigh about 1LB (as opposed to about 7LB for my Maxtor).

Anyway, thanks for the insightful observation that the way I was trying to do it just won't work. I think you're right. I'll try it your way and see what happens.

--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley

[LagrangeL2]

Let me put it to you very bluntly: dozens if not hundreds of people - myself included - on this forum have been running 160, 250 and 320GB drives on T4x and R5x machines.

That wasn't especially "blunt".

But if you say so, I'll take your word for it that folks are using big HDs on these machines. (IDE, and partitioned beyond 137GB, I assume you mean, since that was the context.)

If you do a minimal search, you'll be able to verify this yourself.

Social research isn't my forte. I'm INTJ, not ESFP.

There are NO settings to be adjusted. Plug the drive. Install the OS.

BIOS by dummies, for dummies. Sigh.

End of story.

All real stories are never-ending.

You either have a defective drive or are doing something wrong.

I'm sure something's worng somewhere, yes.

Period.

Which? Cretaceous, perhaps? I prefer Ordovician, myself.

--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley

[LagrangeL2]

This may be unrelated but the sticker on most IBM/ Lenovo hard drives says 240 heads as opposed to 255 heads for same hard size hard drives from the same manufacturers ( i have noticed it on Hitachi Travelstar drives).

The recovery cds when they create the partition use 240 heads. Now if one boots them up a linux cd and uses fdisk, you will notice that fdisk will complain that partition does not end on cylinder boundary. Change number of heads to 240 in expert mode, they errors are gone.

Next if you decide to wipe the 'same' hard drive in the 'same' computer with any latest Linux OS, or use a retail windows OS cd /dvd they will create the partition table with 255 heads. I have seen this across T4x, Z6x, T6x series most of them with Hitachi drives.

So dont know if this a firmware thing, Bios recognition which is definitely different from other vendors like Dell, Toshibha etc. who all use 255 heads ( which is printed on all retail hard drives if you would get from best buy, new egg or Fry's etc.)

Fascinating. Seems to imply that LBA geometry is more flexible than I had assumed. I somehow doubt that all these "240-head" disks came out of the factory that way. I'm guessing they're all 255-heads "under the hood", and IBM/Lenovo just chooses to partition and format them as 240-heads, and that they somehow get the remapping to work. Seems bizarre to me, and clearly causes problems with folks trying to partition/format the disk in one machine and transfer it to a Thinkpad (doesn't work). Well, I'll try partitioning the 160GB HD as 240h with it in the Thinkpad, and see if it works.

--
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley

[ajkula66]

LagrangeL2 wrote:

BIOS by dummies, for dummies. Sigh.

No. BIOS by Phoenix, as sold by IBM. If they are dummies...

Social research isn't my forte.

I don't recall using the term "social". Right. Because I didn't.

I'm INTJ, not ESFP.

Splendid. Who cares?

Which? Cretaceous, perhaps? I prefer Ordovician, myself.

See above.

[RealBlackStuff]

And your 132GB 'stumbling block' only exists as long as those HDs are formatted in FAT (which is what IBM did).
I'll bow out of this conversation.

[LagrangeL2]

LagrangeL2 wrote:

"BIOS by dummies, for dummies. Sigh."

No. BIOS by Phoenix, as sold by IBM. If they are dummies...

Non-dummies don't try to pretend that 255-head hard disks actually have only 240 heads, and then expect the rest of the world to pretend likewise. That's exactly like burying one's head in the sand and then expecting everyone to agree it's midnight, when it's actually noon. Stupid, stupid, stupid. No wonder Partition Magic couldn't understand it. (To it's credit, Acronis Disk Director did, not that that helped me any in the end... but more on this in a reply I'll write in a few minutes to the fellow who suggested I put the 160GB in the Thinkpad, put the 30GB in an IDE->USB converter, and run Acronis software. The story of what happened next is interesting.)

"Social research isn't my forte."

I don't recall using the term "social". Right. Because I didn't.

No one said you did. I pointed out the fact that you were suggesting I do social research, and the fact that that is not really my forte. I never said you used the *word* "social". Why weasel so?

"I'm INTJ, not ESFP."

Splendid. Who cares?

Apathy is not something to brag about. Why not learn, instead? Yes, even learn things that are not related to your usual specialty, whatever that may be. It provides breadth and perspective.

"Which? Cretaceous, perhaps? I prefer Ordovician, myself."

See above.

Prosaic response to "See above.":
I see all of what's above, and understand it all fully. (Except for why IBM/Lenovo chose to do such an idiotic CHS remapping.) Do you? (Hint: Most of the above is jokes. Surprise, surprise. Do try to develop a sense of humor. You'll get ulcers the way you're going about it.)

Poetic response to "See above.":
Yes, I place Mary See and her son Charles above most other candy makers; their chocolates are sublime. (Hint: This is a joke. Have a chuckle. It won't kill you, I promise.)

--
RH

[LagrangeL2]

And your 132GB 'stumbling block' only exists as long as those HDs are formatted in FAT (which is what IBM did).
I'll bow out of this conversation.

The limit I'm talking about is 137GB, not 132GB. (Are you thinking about some other limit, maybe?) This limit is not related to file systems (FAT, FAT32, NTFS, Linux, whatever); it's at a lower level of abstraction, namely the hardware-and-BIOS level.

Disks over a certain size (I think it's around 1 or 2 GB) can't use the old direct (physical) CHS numbers, because the cylinder numbers would get too big. So "28-bit Logical Block Addressing" (aka "28-bit LBA" or just "LBA" for short) was invented to remap the "heads" and "cylinders" numbers to keep them within reason.

But 28 bits is not enough to address all the sectors of a disk over 137GB, so later, when disk sizes got larger, a new scheme named "48-bit Logical Block Addressing" (aka "48-bit LBA", or "Big LBA") was invented to handle disks in the hundreds or thousands of GB. (I'm not sure what the upper limit is, but it's huge.)

All of this is at the level of hardware and BIOS. If it's not working right, then no disk access (at least, to those parts of a disk more than 137GB from CHS=(0,0,0) ) can work correctly, regardless of OS or file system.

Of course, even if you do have 48-bit LBA working correctly at the hardware/BIOS level, if the OS doesn't understand 48-bit LBA, it will not correctly address those part of a hard disk which are more than 137GB removed from cylinder 0, track 0, sector 0. Instead, if it attempts to write data to the "beyond 137GB" portions of the hard disk, the data "wraps around" and starts overwriting the lower portions of the disk. It will usually corrupt all of the following:
1. MBR.
2. Partition table.
3. First-Primary-Sector boot record.
4. Operating-System Files.
5. Application-Program Files.
6. Data files.
Won't physically damage the disk, but will require low-level formatting, repartitioning, file-system formatting, repair of MBR, repair of partition table, repair of first-partition boot record, re-installation of OS, re-installation of all programs, and re-installation of all data. Hope you had backups. 10-50 man-hours of labor down the drain in seconds flat.

Windows 2000 had the capability of using 48-bit LBA, but it had to be enabled manually by making an edit to an unpublicized, cryptic entry buried deeply in the registry. Failing to do this before installing a hard disk over 137GB in size had disastrous consequences. (I should know. Been there, done that, wiped out or damaged several GB of un-backed-up files.)

Windows XP made this automated around... service pack 2? 3? I forget. Early versions had the bug; later service packs don't.

But again, nothing you can do at the OS level will allow a 138GB+ disk to work right if the underlying hardware and BIOS isn't set up to use 48-LBA. That has to be straightened-out first, by upgrading the BIOS or replacing the motherboard as necessary.

Not that any of this really applies to the case of my R50; the BIOS and OS both apparently do correctly understand 48-bit LBA, so that was not the problem. (It has several other problems instead, even thornier; more on that in a separate post.) But I thought I'd better clear up your misunderstanding.

--
Cheers,
RH

[LagrangeL2]

Ok, feedback time!!!


Short version:

I finally overcame the problems I was struggling with -- with help from the kind folks who posted in this thread, especially FrankiePankie, RealBlackStuff, HarryC, and RSSB -- but ultimately I ran into other, even worse problems, and had to abandon upgrading my hard disk altogether. (Turns out, it can't be upgraded.) Instead, I got a new lightweight 0.5 TB Western Digital external USB hardisk, about the size and weight of a pack of cigarettes, and only costs $65. So I'll keep all my data on that, and use the internal disk for OS and apps only. If you don't need the gory details, you can stop reading here. Thanks for your help, and have a great day!


Long version:

Ok, so you want the details, eh? Cool. I think you'll find them interesting.

Well, I put the new, blank, 160LB 255-head disk in my Thinkpad R50, and I put my original 30GB 240-head disk on an IDE->USB converter cable, as suggested by HarryC.

I fired up Partition Magic, but it mis-interpreted the 240-head disk as being 255 heads, so I knew that wasn't going to work.

So I went and got Acronis Disk Commander 11, inspired by FrankiePankie's suggestion that I use Acronis True Image. The Acronis software correctly figured-out the 255Heads -> 240Heads remapping, and it correctly copied the partition to the new disk. I also made two new partition (drives D: and E:) in the unallocated remainder, for data. On reboot, the machine correctly booted Windows XP from the new hard disk.

That's when the real troubles began, unfortunately. I immediately got this error message from Microsoft: "The hardware on this system has changed substantially, and reactivation is required. Furthermore, on attempt to reactivate, reactivation has failed. You must now purchase Windows 7 for $149.95 within the next 3 days, or your computer will stop working."

I think the reason for this is, this computer is used, and does not have the original hard disk. The current disk used to be in a Dell computer, as evidenced by the existence of "Dell" folders both in C:\ and in C:\Windows. For some reason, perhaps because the original disk was bad, the used-computer store swapped it. So from the point-of-view of Windows XP, the motherboard has already been changed. And now I'm trying to change the hard disk as well, which is the equivalent of moving the Windows-XP installation to a whole new computer. Since this was almost certainly an OEM licence rather than a retail-box license, that is simply not allowed; therefore, this Windows XP installation will literally self-destruct in 3 days.

Well, I'm not likely to have $149.95 available in the next 3 days; finances are tight for me right now. So I'll have to take the new disk out and go back to the old one. But that's OK, because at 0.5TB, my new external HD is much bigger even than the 160GB disk I was trying to install in this machine, and it's quite small and light, so I'll just carry it in my backpack alongside the Thinkpad. If my finances improve in the near future, I'll reinstall the 160GB and upgrade it to Windows 7. But for now, the external-HD approach will work fine.

So in the end, thanks to all the folks who helped. Even though this particular HD transplant attempt failed (for OS-license reasons, not technical reasons), I learned a lot from this.

--
Cheers,
RH