DOS and Harddrive Capacity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim Richards
  • Start date Start date
J

Jim Richards

Using XP Pro w/SP2. When I Boot to A:\ and go into FDISK, it shows the
maximum capacity of the harddrive as 48935 GB BUT it is a WD 120 GB HD
formatted NTFS. Is there anyway to get DOS to read the correct capacity of
the HD? Thanks in advance, Jim.
 
Jim Richards said:
Using XP Pro w/SP2. When I Boot to A:\ and go into FDISK, it shows the
maximum capacity of the harddrive as 48935 GB BUT it is a WD 120 GB HD
formatted NTFS. Is there anyway to get DOS to read the correct capacity of
the HD? Thanks in advance, Jim.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.
 
Jim Richards said:
Using XP Pro w/SP2. When I Boot to A:\ and go into FDISK, it shows the
maximum capacity of the harddrive as 48935 GB BUT it is a WD 120 GB HD
formatted NTFS. Is there anyway to get DOS to read the correct capacity of
the HD? Thanks in advance, Jim.
Click to expand...

Go here:
http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm

Close to the bottom of the page you'll see download info for a revised FDISK
program supporting larger hard disks. See the readme for info about FORMAT.
 
Thanks Colon. I downloaded that NewFDISK at the link you provided, copied it
to my Boot Disk, booted to A:\, ran FDISK and low and behold DOS reported
the correct GBs for each of my partitions that equalled the total capacity
of my HD. This is just excellent. Thanks a bunch. Jim
 
Jim Richards said:
Using XP Pro w/SP2. When I Boot to A:\ and go into FDISK, it shows the
maximum capacity of the harddrive as 48935 GB BUT it is a WD 120 GB HD
formatted NTFS. Is there anyway to get DOS to read the correct capacity of
the HD? Thanks in advance, Jim.
Click to expand...

No, you ain't using XP anything if you boot DOS from a floppy.
BTW: which DOS? Which version, and which FDISK?

Forget about DOS and FDISK, use Mikhail Ranish's Partition Manager
instead. This one comes as it's own OS and runs just using BIOS calls.
Executing PART.EXE from Windows and will create the boot floppy.

If you don't want to fiddle with your BIOS' settings (disable booting
from floppy and/or CD-ROM, both are a security risk!) enhance the
XP boot manager to start any floppy disk using my BOOTSECT.ANY from
http://home.nexgo.de/skanthak/bootsect.html

Stefan
 
Yer welcome, Jim.
Glad things worked out for you.


Jim Richards said:
Thanks Colon. I downloaded that NewFDISK at the link you provided, copied it
to my Boot Disk, booted to A:\, ran FDISK and low and behold DOS reported
the correct GBs for each of my partitions that equalled the total capacity
of my HD. This is just excellent. Thanks a bunch. Jim
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Stefan, for your comments BUT I must take exception to your
statement "No, you ain't using XP anything if you boot DOS from a floppy."
Sir, this is my sixth PC which I built from scratch, piece by piece. The
only OS installed is XP Pro and I do boot to DOS using my System Floppy Disk
from Win 98SE. Maybe I am using incorrect terminology when I say I boot to
DOS. What I actually do is boot to A:\ where I run the FDISK program. Maybe
this isn't DOS. It certainly is not DOS 6.22 and I thought it was DOS 7.0
but maybe I am wrong. Anyhow, if you can set me straight on this I would
appreciate it very much. I used DOS (Versions thru 6.22) for many years
before I embraced Windows. Have a good day, Jim
 
I think we are getting a little tied up with terminology, and perhaps taking
the comments of others a bit too personally.

Stefan was not saying that you do not indeed have XP installed on your
machine. But having it installed so that it will boot from the hard drive,
does not mean that you are "using" XP when you boot from a floppy created by
Windows 98. At that point, what you are actually using is a somewhat limited
version of Windows 98. No, this is not DOS 6.22, but perhaps something like
DOS 7.0. You should be able to find out which version of "DOS" by typing the
"VER" command after booting from floppy to a command prompt.

But, whatever it is and whatever the VER command says, when you boot this
way you are not actually running XP.

And as for your request to "set you straight", that is the only reason that
Stefan and I are making the comments we are making.


/Al
 
Please check http://learn.to/quote/ and stop top posting!
Thank you Stefan, for your comments BUT I must take exception to your
statement "No, you ain't using XP anything if you boot DOS from a floppy."
Sir, this is my sixth PC which I built from scratch, piece by piece. The
only OS installed is XP Pro
Click to expand...

Disconnect your hard disk (or just all IDE/ATA/SATA devices; except
your LS-120/LS-240, if your floppy happens to be this kind of EIDE device).
Can you still boot XP? No! But you can boot ANY OS from floppy.
So your question has NOTHING to do with XP or even Windows.

Or boot any random Linux LiveCD. You still have XP installed, but thats
completely irrelevant.
and I do boot to DOS using my System Floppy Disk from Win 98SE.
Maybe I am using incorrect terminology when I say I boot to DOS.
Click to expand...

No, it's just the inappropriate group for your (well known) DOS problem.
Even if you'd create your DOS boot floppy from XP itself (yes, it can
do that, you'll get a rudimentary Win ME boot floppy) its the wrong group.
What I actually do is boot to A:\ where I run the FDISK program. Maybe
this isn't DOS. It certainly is not DOS 6.22 and I thought it was DOS 7.0
but maybe I am wrong. Anyhow, if you can set me straight on this I would
appreciate it very much. I used DOS (Versions thru 6.22) for many years
before I embraced Windows. Have a good day, Jim
Click to expand...

Type "ver" at the prompt when you have booted from that disk.
You shall see something like "DOS 7.1 .... 2222".

Stefan

[fullquote removed]
 
Thanks Al, for your comments and suggestions. You wrote: "You should be able
to find out which version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after booting
from floppy to a command prompt." Al, I did this and was surprised to see
"Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222]" I do not understand just what it means.
Would you please explain it to me. TIA, Jim
 
P.S> And I have not been offended by any comments that each of you have
made. On the contrary, I am learning from you guys and I appreciate ALL
those comments a lot. Jim
Jim Richards said:
Thanks Al, for your comments and suggestions. You wrote: "You should be
able to find out which version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after
booting from floppy to a command prompt." Al, I did this and was
surprised to see
"Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222]" I do not understand just what it means.
Would you please explain it to me. TIA, Jim

Al Dunbar said:
I think we are getting a little tied up with terminology, and perhaps
taking the comments of others a bit too personally.

Stefan was not saying that you do not indeed have XP installed on your
machine. But having it installed so that it will boot from the hard
drive, does not mean that you are "using" XP when you boot from a floppy
created by Windows 98. At that point, what you are actually using is a
somewhat limited version of Windows 98. No, this is not DOS 6.22, but
perhaps something like DOS 7.0. You should be able to find out which
version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after booting from floppy to
a command prompt.

But, whatever it is and whatever the VER command says, when you boot this
way you are not actually running XP.

And as for your request to "set you straight", that is the only reason
that Stefan and I are making the comments we are making.


/Al
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You created a boot disk from Windows 98, so the boot disk itself contains a
bootable copy of that very same operating system. Of course, it is a
rudmentary subset lacking all of the fancy GUI stuff, so it looks much like
earlier versions of DOS. But it is still actually Windows 98.

Were you expecting it to tell you you were running windows XP because that
is what has been installed on your hard drive? Assuming that your XP system
drive is formatted NTFS, there is no way that a 9X or DOS boot disk would be
able to make such a connection, as these older o/s's know nothing of NTFS.

/Al

Jim Richards said:
Thanks Al, for your comments and suggestions. You wrote: "You should be
able to find out which version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after
booting from floppy to a command prompt." Al, I did this and was
surprised to see
"Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222]" I do not understand just what it means.
Would you please explain it to me. TIA, Jim

Al Dunbar said:
I think we are getting a little tied up with terminology, and perhaps
taking the comments of others a bit too personally.

Stefan was not saying that you do not indeed have XP installed on your
machine. But having it installed so that it will boot from the hard
drive, does not mean that you are "using" XP when you boot from a floppy
created by Windows 98. At that point, what you are actually using is a
somewhat limited version of Windows 98. No, this is not DOS 6.22, but
perhaps something like DOS 7.0. You should be able to find out which
version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after booting from floppy to
a command prompt.

But, whatever it is and whatever the VER command says, when you boot this
way you are not actually running XP.

And as for your request to "set you straight", that is the only reason
that Stefan and I are making the comments we are making.


/Al
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I am glad to hear that you are taking our comments as they are intended,
sometimes it is hard to tell what others intend, which is why I wanted to
set the record straight. I'll stop worrying about that now... ;-)

/Al

Jim Richards said:
P.S> And I have not been offended by any comments that each of you have
made. On the contrary, I am learning from you guys and I appreciate ALL
those comments a lot. Jim
Jim Richards said:
Thanks Al, for your comments and suggestions. You wrote: "You should be
able to find out which version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after
booting from floppy to a command prompt." Al, I did this and was
surprised to see
"Windows 98 [Version 4.10.2222]" I do not understand just what it means.
Would you please explain it to me. TIA, Jim

Al Dunbar said:
I think we are getting a little tied up with terminology, and perhaps
taking the comments of others a bit too personally.

Stefan was not saying that you do not indeed have XP installed on your
machine. But having it installed so that it will boot from the hard
drive, does not mean that you are "using" XP when you boot from a floppy
created by Windows 98. At that point, what you are actually using is a
somewhat limited version of Windows 98. No, this is not DOS 6.22, but
perhaps something like DOS 7.0. You should be able to find out which
version of "DOS" by typing the "VER" command after booting from floppy
to a command prompt.

But, whatever it is and whatever the VER command says, when you boot
this way you are not actually running XP.

And as for your request to "set you straight", that is the only reason
that Stefan and I are making the comments we are making.


/Al

Thank you Stefan, for your comments BUT I must take exception to your
statement "No, you ain't using XP anything if you boot DOS from a
floppy." Sir, this is my sixth PC which I built from scratch, piece by
piece. The only OS installed is XP Pro and I do boot to DOS using my
System Floppy Disk from Win 98SE. Maybe I am using incorrect
terminology when I say I boot to DOS. What I actually do is boot to A:\
where I run the FDISK program. Maybe this isn't DOS. It certainly is
not DOS 6.22 and I thought it was DOS 7.0 but maybe I am wrong. Anyhow,
if you can set me straight on this I would appreciate it very much. I
used DOS (Versions thru 6.22) for many years before I embraced Windows.
Have a good day, Jim


Using XP Pro w/SP2. When I Boot to A:\ and go into FDISK, it shows
the
maximum capacity of the harddrive as 48935 GB BUT it is a WD 120 GB
HD
formatted NTFS. Is there anyway to get DOS to read the correct
capacity of
the HD? Thanks in advance, Jim.

No, you ain't using XP anything if you boot DOS from a floppy.
BTW: which DOS? Which version, and which FDISK?

Forget about DOS and FDISK, use Mikhail Ranish's Partition Manager
instead. This one comes as it's own OS and runs just using BIOS calls.
Executing PART.EXE from Windows and will create the boot floppy.

If you don't want to fiddle with your BIOS' settings (disable booting
from floppy and/or CD-ROM, both are a security risk!) enhance the
XP boot manager to start any floppy disk using my BOOTSECT.ANY from
http://home.nexgo.de/skanthak/bootsect.html

Stefan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Al Dunbar said:
I am glad to hear that you are taking our comments as they are intended,
sometimes it is hard to tell what others intend, which is why I wanted to
set the record straight. I'll stop worrying about that now... ;-)

/Al
Click to expand...

Please do not respond to top posters with additional top posting.
Likewise, please do not full quote a previous full quote.

Those who have been using newsgroups and know better should advocate good
posting practices and encourage proper netiquette among the neophytes.
 
I do not understand your "Please do not...." statement. What is "top
posters"? Would you please explain. Jim
 
Jim Richards said:
I do not understand your "Please do not...." statement. What is "top
posters"? Would you please explain. Jim
Click to expand...

Top posters are those who only post by adding something to
the "top" of a post without removing the original.

There is a myth on the Usenet that it is always wrong -- which
is itself just wrong too.

Top posting sometimes make since as that is the only sensible
way to respond AND the message really needs to be fully included
for reference.

I would much rather see a "top posting" than a small comment
appended to the BOTTOM of a long message where the entire
message must be scrolled to see the only new material.

But people developed an (artificial?) dislike for this that is so
strong you will occasionally get objections from those who
are unable to decide things in context for themselves OR
if you do it egregiously.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)
 
Thank you Herb Martin for a very excellent explanation. I understand it now.
Notice that my reply IS NOT a top posting. I am learning and I thank ALL of
you for your help. Super Senior Citizen Jim (Age: 79)
 
No Al, I was not expecting that. My HD IS formatted NTFS. I was expecting it
to tell me a much later version of DOS, like 7.0 or something like that.
Jim.
 
I do not understand your "Please do not...." statement. What is
"top posters"? Would you please explain. Jim
Click to expand...

The conventional (and my) preference for "bottom posting" is due to
factors such as...

- People do not necessarily read thread from the very beginning. They
might start at any point. Furthermore, because of the way that messages
propagate through usenet and are stored on local servers, earlier
messages may not be available. Therefore, it's important to give some
context to your comments by including short excerpts.

- We read books from the top down. We converse by replying to others.
It only makes sense for your new comments to follow the old comments
they refer to, just as it's not logical to answer somebody before
they've asked the question.

It's all about communicating clearly and unambiguously. That's why I
try to stick to these guidelines...

- Include relevant portions of the previous message. The quoted bits
are indicated by a marker, usually the ">" character. I try to keep the
quoted text to a minimum, to keep the reader from having to scroll down
too far to find my reply.

- include a blank line between the quoted parts and my reply.

- If I have various points to make about different parts of the
previous message, I'll quote those sections individually and respond to
them, in sequence (in other words, quote, reply, quote, reply, etc.
That's called "in-line" quoting.

- I don't use a signature line, but if I did I'd put it at the very
bottom of the message, separated from the main body by the characters
dash dash blank. That's because many newsreaders hide all text found
below those characters.

Unfortunately, one of the most common newsreaders, Microsoft Outlook
Express is set up by default to have you put your reply at the top,
which makes it easy to create messy and hard-to-read replies. There's
an addon of OE called "Quotefix" (available at
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>) that makes it work
in a more conventional manner.

There are a bunch of essays on the 'net about the advantages of top
posting. Here are a couple:

http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
 
Herb Martin said:
Top posters are those who only post by adding something to
the "top" of a post without removing the original.

There is a myth on the Usenet that it is always wrong -- which
is itself just wrong too.

Top posting sometimes make since as that is the only sensible
way to respond AND the message really needs to be fully included
for reference.

I would much rather see a "top posting" than a small comment
appended to the BOTTOM of a long message where the entire
message must be scrolled to see the only new material.

But people developed an (artificial?) dislike for this that is so
strong you will occasionally get objections from those who
are unable to decide things in context for themselves OR
if you do it egregiously.
Click to expand...

Herb, you may be an MCSE, MVP, but perhaps some people consider you
unqualified to offer sensible posting advise. :-(

Top posting in private email is acceptable because only the two parties
involved are reading. Top posting to newsgroups does not make sense because
thousands of readers have to scroll down then back up to follow the
discussion.

Please educate yourself on posting netiquette. The several links at the
bottom of the following page are all authored independently but follow the
same decorum.

http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/quote.html
 
Back
Top