OS limitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lil' Dave
  • Start date Start date
L

Lil' Dave

Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.
 
The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders. If it
doesn't you can install a ATA card.

Another thing to try is install the XP operating system (SP 1 or
greater is needed) in a smaller partition below the 127 gb, install the
large drive enabler (for Maxtor), and then let XP boot from the
partition, take over from the BIOS, and create the last partition to
house your data. It should at that point see the full capacity of the
drive. Of course, if you drop into DOS for backup, etc, you will have
issues.

Irwin
 
Irwin said:
The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders.
Nonsense.

If it doesn't you can install a ATA card.
Click to expand...

Obviously didn't even read the question.
Another thing to try is install the XP operating system (SP 1 or greater
is needed) in a smaller partition below the 127 gb, install the large
drive enabler (for Maxtor), and then let XP boot from the partition,
take over from the BIOS, and create the last partition to house your data.
Click to expand...

Won't work. Drive management uses BIOS.
This may work for a non-boot drive if the bios is disabled for it and the
OS replaces/installs the BIOS routines with 48-bit compatible ones.
 
Lil' Dave said:
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB.
Click to expand...

It isnt as absolute as that.
And, that if exceeded, may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.
Click to expand...

Or that either.
Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted
FAT32 60GB partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP?
Am referring to this drive as storage drive, not the drive with
the boot or system partition.
Click to expand...

Not at all clear what you mean by that. Presumably you
mean you are booting 98/98SE off a physical drive that
is less than 128GB and are considering adding a 200G
drive used just for data partitioned like that.

If that is what you want to do, it should be fine.
 
Why nonsense? Please elaborate. A partition does not have to fit within
BIOS defined parameters to boot from it?
 
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

He appears to be saying what you say yourself below.
Obviously didn't even read the question.
Click to expand...

The question was silent on that.
Won't work.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as always.
Drive management uses BIOS.
Click to expand...

It aint that black and white, and you dont
have to use drive managment anyway.
This may work for a non-boot drive if the bios is disabled for it and
the OS replaces/installs the BIOS routines with 48-bit compatible ones.
Click to expand...

Utterly mangled all over again.
 
Lil' Dave said:
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP is NTFS.
Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2, one
FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned FAT32, extended
partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32 99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled
filenames and loss of that data when around total 64GB was exceeded. The
files lost were on the first partition. It occurred immediately after I
deleted files over 12GB in the second partition. This occurred in 98SE
using windows explorer.

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd
party only.

As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't care
what you know.

Thanks for the other inputs. I read them, and appreciate your help.
The original question still stands.
 
Lil' Dave said:
Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP
is NTFS. Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this
hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2,
one FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.
Click to expand...
3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned
FAT32, extended partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32
99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled filenames and loss of
that data when around total 64GB was exceeded.
Click to expand...

It wont have been the 64GB total that matters, it would
have been writing past the 128G point in the second partition.
The files lost were on the first partition. It occurred
immediately after I deleted files over 12GB in the second
partition. This occurred in 98SE using windows explorer.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to use 98SE when using that drive ?
4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.
Click to expand...
I understand the disk tool concerns, and
I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd party only.
Click to expand...

If its an intel chipset motherboard, intel has drivers
that support 48bit LBA for some of their chipsets.
Those will work fine in 98/SE/ME
 
Should work without problems. XP SP2 is able to read big drive. W98
can't read NTFS. No risk there of writing at the wrong place.


Nick
 
Nick said:
Should work without problems. XP SP2 is able to read big drive. W98
can't read NTFS. No risk there of writing at the wrong place.
Click to expand...

ROTFL! Windows can't read it, so it must be safe? That sounds like
a recipe for disaster.
 
Lil' Dave said:
Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP is NTFS.
Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2, one
FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned FAT32, extended
partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32 99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled
filenames and loss of that data when around total 64GB was exceeded.
The files lost were on the first partition. It occurred immediately after
I deleted files over 12GB in the second partition. This occurred in 98SE
using windows explorer.

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and I don't use them in 98/ME.
Click to expand...

Now that's odd since that isn't specifically part of 98/ME and
therefor not dependent on any inherent problem existing in 98/ME.
That's the actual part being save if you have a 48-bit bios.
3rd party only.

As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't care
what you know.
Click to expand...

Gee, Lil' brain Dave, what gives you the gall to think that my comments are
even for your benefit?

Every one here knows you are a regular here and know everything there
is to know about the 128GB limit. You are just a troll stirring up the pot.
I leave it to others to feed the troll. I'm quite sure they will.
 
Irwin said:
Why nonsense?
Click to expand...

Because it was?
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

On what. You snipped the GD post.
A partition does not have to fit within
BIOS defined parameters to boot from it?
Click to expand...

I didn't even address that. This has nothing to do with my comments.

Obviously depends on where the relatively small amount of code resides
that is depending on the bios and which block addresses that code accesses.
Some bootcode is even limited to the first 8GB, nomatter what you do.
 
Rod said:
Get off the floor, child.




It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO! Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.
Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.
Click to expand...
Yes, you should.
 
Rod said:
Still behaving like a silly little kid.




It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.
Click to expand...

"doesn't support" doesn't mean much in the context of an inconsistency
(e.g. bug) in the OS/hardware combination -- rely on whether or not
something is "supported" to protect you at your peril
 
CJT said:
Rod Speed wrote
Click to expand...
"doesn't support" doesn't mean much in the context of an inconsistency (e.g.
bug) in the OS/hardware combination
Click to expand...

Wrong when it means that it has no access
the part of the drive it has a problem with.
-- rely on whether or not something is "supported" to protect you at your
peril
Click to expand...

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff when its the partition format.
 
Rod Speed said:
Still behaving like a silly little kid.


It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.
Click to expand...

It certainly can if it is a primary partitition or starts before the
128GB physical address limit, as little davy was suggesting, numbnut.
 
It certainly can if it is a primary partitition or starts before the 128GB
physical address limit, as little davy was suggesting, numbnut.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
been able to manage a viable troll, or anything else at all, either.
 
Back
Top