G
Guest
hi there. does anyone know where i can find out what the maximum hard drive capacity is for windows 2000 and windows 2000 server? thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
F
f/fgeorge
The reason that FAT32 is limited to 32 Gb is not to force a switch to
the NTFS file system (if so, why would they include FAT32 in XP) but
rather another example of Microsofts limited ability to plan ahead.
When the FAT32 system was developed, the primary OS was DOS and the
average HD size was about 5 Mb. So microsoft assumed that nobody would
ever be able to get drives to a size larger than 32 GB when the file
sysetem was still in use. Unforunately, MS was wrong and people wound
up having partition caps on their computers when running an win9.x OS.
Consequently, Microsoft decided to include the NTFS file system in XP
so that mainstream users could create bigger drive partitions or use
the full physical drive as a single designation. But the madness seems
to never end the NTFS file system is capped at 2 terrabytes so it too
will become usless. Microsoft has announced a completely new file
system for Longhorn so we might be finally out of the woods.
Check here for more info
http://www.opentechsupport.net/forums/archive/topic/17007-1.html
the NTFS file system (if so, why would they include FAT32 in XP) but
rather another example of Microsofts limited ability to plan ahead.
When the FAT32 system was developed, the primary OS was DOS and the
average HD size was about 5 Mb. So microsoft assumed that nobody would
ever be able to get drives to a size larger than 32 GB when the file
sysetem was still in use. Unforunately, MS was wrong and people wound
up having partition caps on their computers when running an win9.x OS.
Consequently, Microsoft decided to include the NTFS file system in XP
so that mainstream users could create bigger drive partitions or use
the full physical drive as a single designation. But the madness seems
to never end the NTFS file system is capped at 2 terrabytes so it too
will become usless. Microsoft has announced a completely new file
system for Longhorn so we might be finally out of the woods.
Check here for more info
http://www.opentechsupport.net/forums/archive/topic/17007-1.html
J
John John
NTFS... 256 Terabytes (64k clusters). Volumes must be dynamic.
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27253
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
John
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=27253
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
John
J
John John
Microsoft did not decide to include NTFS file system in XP. NTFS came
out with NT4 and XP is a decendant of NT4, as is Windows 2000, thus they
all inherited the file system although in different versions: ie: NTFS4,
NTFS5... The NTFS file system came out just about the same time or
slightly ahead or later than the FAT32 file system... with the NT4
platform... in nineteen ninety something... in the Windows 95 days.
John
out with NT4 and XP is a decendant of NT4, as is Windows 2000, thus they
all inherited the file system although in different versions: ie: NTFS4,
NTFS5... The NTFS file system came out just about the same time or
slightly ahead or later than the FAT32 file system... with the NT4
platform... in nineteen ninety something... in the Windows 95 days.
John
J
John John
Oh yeah... I think it was NT 3.5 first.. or 3.51... or something like
that...
John
that...
John
R
Ray at
J
John John
Interesting... I thought it was slightly after Win95. I guess it was
before Win95. Which begs the question... why in the hell did they
proceed with Win95 and all the ensuing crap that culminated with WinME?
Oh... I remember now... $$$$$.
John
before Win95. Which begs the question... why in the hell did they
proceed with Win95 and all the ensuing crap that culminated with WinME?
Oh... I remember now... $$$$$.
John
Ray at said:http://www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm
:]
Ray at home
with the NT4
platform... in nineteen ninety something... in the Windows 95 days.
W
William R. Walsh
Hi!
FAT32 is not limited to 32GB. The limit is 2TB as per Microsoft...so long as
your OS (MS or non...) of choosing allows you to format to that high of a
capacity.
Microsoft limited a FAT32's volume in size on Windows 2000 and XP for the
very reason you said they didn't. Microsoft wants you to use NTFS on a large
drive. WinXP and 2000 will not force you to convert an existing FAT32 volume
that is larger than 32GB anyway. I've plugged 60GB hard disks into my
Win2000 system that were formatted as FAT32 and it had no problem at all
reading and writing to them. Neither did an XP session being conducted in
VMware.
No. FAT12 (max partition size of 32MB) and FAT16 (max of 2GB, though tricks
exist to "work around" this on NT up to 4GB IIRC) both came before FAT32. I
don't recall which version of DOS broke the "FAT12/32MB" limitation on
partition size, because I didn't have the luxury of a hard disk in one
computer and the other only had a 30MB drive, but I don't think it took as
long as version 5.0. (I want to say 3.30 addressed it, but that sounds
wrong...)
The primary OS at the time of FAT32's development was Windows 95(B/OSR2). It
had to be that way. Pure DOS (not the "DOS 7, 7.1 or 8" that shipped in
Win9x/Me) never natively supported FAT32.
FAT32 is a file system developed for consumer versions of Windows (staring
with Win95 OSR 2) that allowed people to use hard disks greater than 2GB in
size without having to create quite a few different 2GB partitions. FAT32
also addressed much of the cluster-size inefficiency that FAT16 suffered
from when large disk drives were set up with the largest partions allowed...
NTFS is included in XP, because XP *IS* Windows NT for all intents and
purposes.
(It's NT 5.1, to be precise...)
Had Microsoft not decided to dump the "classic" Win9x "sort of DOS and sort
of Windows" core, I doubt that NTFS support would have made it into the
consumer Windows operating system family. FAT32 is pretty well sufficient
for the home user...and I have seen lots of computers running XP home on
FAT32 formatted drives.
No again.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
So, how many terabytes to an exabyte?
According to Google Calculator there are 1,048,576 terabytes to one exabyte.
That's a lot more than 2 terabytes. Terabyte storage systems obviously do
exist in limited circulation right now. I doubt any 1,048,576 terabyte
standalone storage systems exist now. (Oh, and by the way, 1,048,576
terabytes is about 1,073,741,824 gigabytes...)
William
The reason that FAT32 is limited to 32 Gb is not to force a switch to
the NTFS file system (if so, why would they include FAT32 in XP) but
rather another example of Microsofts limited ability to plan ahead.
FAT32 is not limited to 32GB. The limit is 2TB as per Microsoft...so long as
your OS (MS or non...) of choosing allows you to format to that high of a
capacity.
Microsoft limited a FAT32's volume in size on Windows 2000 and XP for the
very reason you said they didn't. Microsoft wants you to use NTFS on a large
drive. WinXP and 2000 will not force you to convert an existing FAT32 volume
that is larger than 32GB anyway. I've plugged 60GB hard disks into my
Win2000 system that were formatted as FAT32 and it had no problem at all
reading and writing to them. Neither did an XP session being conducted in
VMware.
When the FAT32 system was developed, the primary OS was DOS and the
average HD size was about 5 Mb.
No. FAT12 (max partition size of 32MB) and FAT16 (max of 2GB, though tricks
exist to "work around" this on NT up to 4GB IIRC) both came before FAT32. I
don't recall which version of DOS broke the "FAT12/32MB" limitation on
partition size, because I didn't have the luxury of a hard disk in one
computer and the other only had a 30MB drive, but I don't think it took as
long as version 5.0. (I want to say 3.30 addressed it, but that sounds
wrong...)
The primary OS at the time of FAT32's development was Windows 95(B/OSR2). It
had to be that way. Pure DOS (not the "DOS 7, 7.1 or 8" that shipped in
Win9x/Me) never natively supported FAT32.
FAT32 is a file system developed for consumer versions of Windows (staring
with Win95 OSR 2) that allowed people to use hard disks greater than 2GB in
size without having to create quite a few different 2GB partitions. FAT32
also addressed much of the cluster-size inefficiency that FAT16 suffered
from when large disk drives were set up with the largest partions allowed...
Consequently, Microsoft decided to include the NTFS file system in XP
so that mainstream users could create bigger drive partitions or use
the full physical drive as a single designation.
NTFS is included in XP, because XP *IS* Windows NT for all intents and
purposes.
(It's NT 5.1, to be precise...)
Had Microsoft not decided to dump the "classic" Win9x "sort of DOS and sort
of Windows" core, I doubt that NTFS support would have made it into the
consumer Windows operating system family. FAT32 is pretty well sufficient
for the home user...and I have seen lots of computers running XP home on
FAT32 formatted drives.
But the madness seems
to never end the NTFS file system is capped at 2 terrabytes so it too
will become usless.
No again.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
So, how many terabytes to an exabyte?
According to Google Calculator there are 1,048,576 terabytes to one exabyte.
That's a lot more than 2 terabytes. Terabyte storage systems obviously do
exist in limited circulation right now. I doubt any 1,048,576 terabyte
standalone storage systems exist now. (Oh, and by the way, 1,048,576
terabytes is about 1,073,741,824 gigabytes...)
William
D
dcdon
John John,
You are probably correct about that, but given the business philosiphy of sell it
broke, start fixing, and come out with a better mouse trap wasn't coined by Bill
Gates. He just managed to get the rest of the computer using world to follow the
flute. There are other choices out there now and it's gonna get tougher. I also
have a Jeckle and Hyde outlook, as most. Don't we all wish it was we who hit the
big one. Human nature.
I certainly don't belittle your opinion. In the U.S. as Canada, we have more
opportunity in a day than some have in a life time. I, for one, am grateful for
that.
I went to school with the son of Mary Kay Ash. We were roomates. They now have
850,000 employees. Am I jealous? Not a drop. I am so proud for him, I just told
everyone here. Take that and a buck, you can get a cup of coffee around here. I
hope that all that read this hits a home run.
At any rate there are many that freely give their time to computing, and
absolutely some of the very best people are right here in this NG. Yessir, I thank
them one and all.
thanks,
don
--------------
Interesting... I thought it was slightly after Win95. I guess it was
before Win95. Which begs the question... why in the hell did they
proceed with Win95 and all the ensuing crap that culminated with WinME?
Oh... I remember now... $$$$$.
John
You are probably correct about that, but given the business philosiphy of sell it
broke, start fixing, and come out with a better mouse trap wasn't coined by Bill
Gates. He just managed to get the rest of the computer using world to follow the
flute. There are other choices out there now and it's gonna get tougher. I also
have a Jeckle and Hyde outlook, as most. Don't we all wish it was we who hit the
big one. Human nature.
I certainly don't belittle your opinion. In the U.S. as Canada, we have more
opportunity in a day than some have in a life time. I, for one, am grateful for
that.
I went to school with the son of Mary Kay Ash. We were roomates. They now have
850,000 employees. Am I jealous? Not a drop. I am so proud for him, I just told
everyone here. Take that and a buck, you can get a cup of coffee around here. I
hope that all that read this hits a home run.
At any rate there are many that freely give their time to computing, and
absolutely some of the very best people are right here in this NG. Yessir, I thank
them one and all.
thanks,
don
--------------
Interesting... I thought it was slightly after Win95. I guess it was
before Win95. Which begs the question... why in the hell did they
proceed with Win95 and all the ensuing crap that culminated with WinME?
Oh... I remember now... $$$$$.
John
Ray at said:http://www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm
:]
Ray at home
with the NT4
platform... in nineteen ninety something... in the Windows 95 days.