RANT: Hard drives for a laptop built in 2003 are super hard to find! (bios, game)

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by TomSD

Oh and the comment when you purchased this laptop (2003), the maximum size available was 40gb's is crazy unless he means for that model because I'm pretty sure the first 160 Gb drive hit in 2001. It wasn't cheap like today but large drives have been around for a long time now.

For laptops, I'm thinking the biggest back then was probably around 80-100GB. I built a desktop PC in May 2002 and put the largest drive I could get in it which was 120GB. Given that laptop hard drive capacity usually lags behind desktop capacity by at least half, and given that capacity doubles about every 12-18 months, I'll guess the biggest laptop drive in 2003 was about 80-100GB.

[f_m]

Well, these days you can buy a new laptop for $300, so unless you pick up a used drive (or somehow get a cheap one), it might be worth looking at upgrading.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by f_m

Well, these days you can buy a new laptop for $300, so unless you pick up a used drive (or somehow get a cheap one), it might be worth looking at upgrading.

But he wants to keep his existing laptop because he gets free support from such tech geniuses as Ashish and Muhammad as long as it runs.

[TomSD]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

For laptops, I'm thinking the biggest back then was probably around 80-100GB. I built a desktop PC in May 2002 and put the largest drive I could get in it which was 120GB. Given that laptop hard drive capacity usually lags behind desktop capacity by at least half, and given that capacity doubles about every 12-18 months, I'll guess the biggest laptop drive in 2003 was about 80-100GB.

Right, I meant the technology in general. ATA-6 or 100 or whatever you want to call it came out in 2002 and broke the 137 Gb addressing limit. If that is the controller he has in his laptop my bet is all he needs is a BIOS flash (if that).

[hotornot]

On 9.2.09, DEEPAK, ID#156070, a supervisor in Dell's hardware tech support department in India said: "If you put a 160gb in there (a 2003 lappy) it will get detected by the system however, when we install the operating system it will not detect the hard drive. We cannot install an OS on a 160gb hard drive on this system. This system will not support beyond 40gbs."
ME:
"What would happen if we went ahead and put a 160gb in there and booted the computer up?"
DEEPAK:
"We will not be able to install the OS."
ME:
"Why?"
DEEPAK:
"Because 160gbs will not be detected by the OS. If you try to install the OS, it will...(inaudible)...the hard drive is not detected."
ME:
"Well wait a minute...are you telling me...if we put a 160 in there...it'll detect only 40 of those gigabytes and the remaining 120 gigs will not be detected...is that what you're telling me????"
DEEPAK:
"Yes"
ME:
"Hmm...I wish you would have put it that way in the first place. So what's wrong with that? Who cares? I don't know if your'e familiar with American dollars, but a 40gb hard drive costs twice as much (approx $140) than a 160gb hard drive (approximately $50). Do you get my point? I don't care about not being able to access the other 120gigs. 40gigs of storage is fine. So why not just slap the less expensive 160 in there and be done with it? Would doing that damage the computer?"
DEEPAK:
"It would not damage the computer but it will not get detected. The system is not designed for anything more than 40gbs."
ME:
"Okay, it's not designed...look...the keyword here sir, is 'hurt.' Another keyword here is 'damage.' If we put a 160 in this machine, will it damage the computer or will it hurt it?"
DEEPAK:
"No"
ME:
"Okay, so...if a person wants to save money - again, keeping in mind a 40gb hard drive costs twice as much as a 160gb hard drive - wouldn't you put the 160 in it?"
DEEPAK:
"We can only put the parts in it which are compatible. A 120gb or a 160gb is not compatible with this system."
ME:
"Look...if we put a 160 in, the computer would still be functional though, right?"
DEEPAK:
"No. We would not be able to install the operating system at all."
ME:
"But you just told me that if we put a 160 in, it would not damage the computer."
DEEPAK:
"It will not damage but it will not work. Yeah. If you put a 160 in, it will not damage the system, but it will not even function. Because you will not be able to install the OS on it. So...it's of no use."
ME:
"How do you define 'not work'? I mean, if you walk over to the computer and try to turn it on, is not going to turn on, or what? How do you define 'not work'?
DEEPAK:
"Okay, to work with the system we need to boot to Windows. So, that only happens when we install Windows on the system. And that basically gets installed on the hard drive. So, how can we work with the system when we cannot install the operating system on the hard drive?"

[TomSD]

OK so he is saying the BIOS will detect but Windows can't handle it? OMG, this is awesome! You are putting XP on it right? If BIOS has no problem with it XP won't either, lol. Worse case you can partition itm which I suggest anyway, for Windows to have enough to run and everything else to go on the larger partition.

EDIT: And yeah that year's 5100 used the ATA 100 interface. You shouldn't have any problem with larger drives.

[NHDave]

And what have we learned today children? DO NOT listen to 1st tier tech support people, they have no clue what they're talking about.

It's possible a 160GB won't work, there is a 120GB barrier, or the laptop will just see it as 120GB, or it may not work at all. I would try a 120GB.

[mensaguy]

That looks like some pretty strange advice from Dell. I OWN a Dell laptop made in 2003. Granted, it's a Latitude instead of an Inspiron, but most you you techs know that there isn't a lot of difference on the inside of them. The same components are often interchangeable. Mine had a failed 20GB hard drive in it when I got it, so I replaced it with a 250Gb drive. You can buy an 80GB drive for that machine fairly cheaply at the usual online retailers.

[NHDave]

I never cease to be amazed at the crappy advise/info given out by "support" people. Just today I had a client that had comcast upgrade their cable modem (to docsis 3 I assume) and they were only getting 9Mbps download speeds (this is on a hardwired desktop to their router mind you) and the "tech" told them they needed to buy a wireless N router to increase the hardwired desktops download speeds

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

But he wants to keep his existing laptop because he gets free support from such tech geniuses as Ashish and Muhammad as long as it runs.

Thanks a lot. I just spit coffee all over myself!