XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11
On Sat, 11/23/2024 3:22 PM, Alan K. wrote:
On 11/23/24 02:27 PM, Dan wrote:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/WD_BLACK-Handheld-compatible-laptops-Microsoft/dp/B0CN17F7XC/ref=sr_1_4?
WD_BLACK SN770M 2TB M.2 2230 internal SSD, for Handheld Gaming Devices
and compatible laptops, PCIe Gen 4.0, Speeds up to 5150 MB/s, TLC 3D
4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 18,440 ratings
My laptop is a 13th gen core i5.
I found a spec sheet that says no more than 500G.
I have a dell laptop 5570 and it too will only go to 500G.  Bummer!!!
It came with 128 and 128 & 256 were sata drives, and the 500G had to be nvme. All m2.
Odd that the socket would take for sata and nvme.
It likely has only been "verified" with such a device size.
I see nothing from a standards perspective that does not
allow larger capacity chips to work.
Certain parts of the hardware industry, work on the concept of "verified".
This includes empty USB hard drive enclosures, where the manufacturer actually updates the web site when they get a new hard drive in, a bigger one, they test it, and it works. A product that started with a "2TB" rating, today might
have a "24TB" rating. Part of it is power consumption characteristics,
and the design of such tries to prevent the power envelope from expanding
and causing problems.
Not all firmware designs for enclosures, were "tolerant" of size. Mistakes
have been made in the past. The SIL3112 for example, it would freeze if
a ~1TB? drive was connected. There was one size of device which caused a problem. A change to the firmware module in the BIOS image, could fix this.
And some users at the time, used BIOS programming tools, to remove the
old firmware module and inject a new one. At least a few people got that
to work, and they could then boot from their new bigger SIL3112 hosted drive. Other SIL3112 chips were on removable cards, and it was easier to flash up
the firmware module on those (the INT0x13 support so that MSDOS could read it).
I can't see a reason an NVMe would have a capacity limit. Unless it was a branded play, a lockin scheme, there really should not be a capacity barrier. Partition the thing GPT, size should be unlimited.
*******
The connector pins have meaning, the OPs situation is likely
the one on the left (just a shorter module than the size of
the example in the picture).
https://www.atpinc.com/upload/images/2020/04-22/793d32bfe7674ebc995893a8af3661f8.jpg
Another example of a site showing the different types.
https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000144170/how-to-distinguish-the-differences-between-m-2-cards
The dimensions on a PCIe Rev5 module may be a bit different. I don't have any examples to test here, so can't tell you whether a PCIe Rev5 module plugs into a PCIe Rev4 slot. Or vice-versa. Maybe some day there will be a web page
with the details. For the OP, this is not a concern, as hs hasn't decided
on a PCIe Rev5 by accident, and the selected item should be fine. A PCIe Rev4 in a PCIe Rev3 connector, should work fine.
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
