If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
"Paul in Houston TX" wrote in message
... Hot-Text wrote: It have to be FAT32 And 32mb of RAM for 98 run it install! Can be on a FAT16 if you are upgrading From 95 to 98 This is totally incorrect information! Win98 or Win98SE can be installed on either FAT16 or FAT32, it makes absolutely no difference to the operating system. You do NOT have to upgrade from Win95 to use FAT16. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
40 GB Disk @ FAT16 have to be 2GB = 20 FAT16 partition is that totally
correct information for you glee! that is just what you have said! fast FAT32 LBA or a show FAT16 LBA Remember LBA if win98 setup will ask you and if you said yes , win98 will make a FAT32 LBA . I f No setup will go a FAT16 2GB partition for setup no not a FAT16 LBA That totally correct information for you glee! For windows 98 Setup will Setup the way it Setup a partitions it absolutely do make a difference on a operating system. or we be putting if on the faster NTFS MS MVP die here Welcome to the world of the UseNet! "glee" wrote in message ... "Paul in Houston TX" wrote in message ... Hot-Text wrote: It have to be FAT32 And 32mb of RAM for 98 run it install! Can be on a FAT16 if you are upgrading From 95 to 98 This is totally incorrect information! Win98 or Win98SE can be installed on either FAT16 or FAT32, it makes absolutely no difference to the operating system. You do NOT have to upgrade from Win95 to use FAT16. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
I'm not even going to try and decipher the gibberish you just posted.
YOU wrote in your original reply in this thread: quote "It have to be FAT32 And 32mb of RAM for 98 run it install! Can be on a FAT16 if you are upgrading From 95 to 98" /quote That info is totally INCORECT. You do NOT have to use FAT32 to install or to run Win98. You can use FAT16 if you want to...upgrading from Win95 is NOT necessary in order to use FAT16. "Hot-Text" wrote in message ... 40 GB Disk @ FAT16 have to be 2GB = 20 FAT16 partition is that totally correct information for you glee! that is just what you have said! fast FAT32 LBA or a show FAT16 LBA Remember LBA if win98 setup will ask you and if you said yes , win98 will make a FAT32 LBA . I f No setup will go a FAT16 2GB partition for setup no not a FAT16 LBA That totally correct information for you glee! For windows 98 Setup will Setup the way it Setup a partitions it absolutely do make a difference on a operating system. or we be putting if on the faster NTFS MS MVP die here Welcome to the world of the UseNet! "glee" wrote in message ... "Paul in Houston TX" wrote in message ... Hot-Text wrote: It have to be FAT32 And 32mb of RAM for 98 run it install! Can be on a FAT16 if you are upgrading From 95 to 98 This is totally incorrect information! Win98 or Win98SE can be installed on either FAT16 or FAT32, it makes absolutely no difference to the operating system. You do NOT have to upgrade from Win95 to use FAT16. -- Glen Ventura MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 CompTIA A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
True
"glee" wrote in message ... I'm not even going to try and decipher the gibberish you just posted. YOU wrote in your original reply in this thread: quote "It have to be FAT32 And 32mb of RAM for 98 run it install! Can be on a FAT16 if you are upgrading From 95 to 98" /quote That info is totally INCORECT. You do NOT have to use FAT32 to install or to run Win98. You can use FAT16 if you want to...upgrading from Win95 is NOT necessary in order to use FAT16. Win95B can be Fat32 or a fat16 LBA too if it on that install that way But Win95A is just FAT16. or FAT12 why? Look we have 3.0, up to 3.? all fat we have 95A we have 95B we have 95B-PLUS we have 98FE we have 98SE we have 98SE-PLUS we have ME we have 2000 ? why all the OS can't see all the FAT's for? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:17:39 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote: (snip) It's funny, but when I click on Properties, it shows the following info: Used space: 12,578,045,952 bytes (followed by 11.7 GB). Go figure! I don't know how it rounds that figure off to 11. 7GB. And the C: drive partition capacity is shown as: Capacity: 19,994,050,560 bytes (followed by 18.6 GB) (Again, I don't get it). In computer storage notation: 1KB = 1024 bytes 1MB = 1024*1024 bytes 1GB = 1024*1024*1024 bytes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
Bill in Co wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: Paul in Houston TX wrote: HI, Its been a while since I ran win 98 and I want to install on a small partition. What is _typical_ hdd space needed for the o/s? From my old dusty memory, I think about 2 GB. But I'd sure go higher than that, especially if you plan on installing ANY programs. So maybe 10 GB, or better yet, 20 GB. (As for installing programs on another partition, that seems to be of little value - in fact, it's a bit disadvantageous). FWIW, I've been running XP (and adding software) here, and it's only got to 11G after over a year. (Mind you, that's just the OS, the software, and the data from the few prog.s that insist on keeping their data with them; the partition I keep my data on is much fuller.) I've been running XP on a 40 GB partition which is about half full now (about 20 GB), and that includes the software and some data. (My audio and video files are on two other partitions, since they are so large). My old '98 machine is a long way off filling 10G, after many years, even including the data (I don't store much video on it though). My old Win98SE machine (which I just upgraded to 1 GHz, the max speed P3 CPU for this oldie) has a 20 GB C: partition, which has about 12 GB used now. It's funny, but when I click on Properties, it shows the following info: Used space: 12,578,045,952 bytes (followed by 11.7 GB). Go figure! I don't know how it rounds that figure off to 11. 7GB. And the C: drive partition capacity is shown as: Capacity: 19,994,050,560 bytes (followed by 18.6 GB) (Again, I don't get it). Can win 98 run on fat 16? Can win 98 se run on fat 16? Probably, but why would you want to limit yourself that way? That's a pretty severe limitation. (I was wondering that, too.) Well, if it's of any help, he was also talking about Win95, so it looks like he wants to stick with the old basic file system. Maybe he's got some old utilities that only work on FAT16. Otherwise I can't see any reason to use FAT16. Yup! I have old games that will only run on dos, win 31, win95, and / or win 98. I've been getting the urge to play them again. I have my doubts if I will be able to get them to work on this comp though: X58A-UD3R mb, GTX470 vid. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
Paul in Houston TX wrote:
HI, Its been a while since I ran win 98 and I want to install on a small partition. What is _typical_ hdd space needed for the o/s? Can win 98 run on fat 16? Can win 98 se run on fat 16? tia Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I'll use an old 40g hdd and multi partition to dos 61, fat 16 win95, and fat 16 win98. It sure would be tempting to put dos61 on a 2g partition on one of the 500g hdd's though. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: Paul in Houston TX wrote: HI, Its been a while since I ran win 98 and I want to install on a small partition. What is _typical_ hdd space needed for the o/s? From my old dusty memory, I think about 2 GB. But I'd sure go higher than that, especially if you plan on installing ANY programs. So maybe 10 GB, or better yet, 20 GB. (As for installing programs on another partition, that seems to be of little value - in fact, it's a bit disadvantageous). FWIW, I've been running XP (and adding software) here, and it's only got to 11G after over a year. (Mind you, that's just the OS, the software, and the data from the few prog.s that insist on keeping their data with them; the partition I keep my data on is much fuller.) I've been running XP on a 40 GB partition which is about half full now (about 20 GB), and that includes the software and some data. (My audio and video files are on two other partitions, since they are so large). My old '98 machine is a long way off filling 10G, after many years, even including the data (I don't store much video on it though). My old Win98SE machine (which I just upgraded to 1 GHz, the max speed P3 CPU for this oldie) has a 20 GB C: partition, which has about 12 GB used now. It's funny, but when I click on Properties, it shows the following info: Used space: 12,578,045,952 bytes (followed by 11.7 GB). Go figure! I don't know how it rounds that figure off to 11. 7GB. And the C: drive partition capacity is shown as: Capacity: 19,994,050,560 bytes (followed by 18.6 GB) (Again, I don't get it). Can win 98 run on fat 16? Can win 98 se run on fat 16? Probably, but why would you want to limit yourself that way? That's a pretty severe limitation. (I was wondering that, too.) Well, if it's of any help, he was also talking about Win95, so it looks like he wants to stick with the old basic file system. Maybe he's got some old utilities that only work on FAT16. Otherwise I can't see any reason to use FAT16. Yup! I have old games that will only run on dos, win 31, win95, and / or win 98. I've been getting the urge to play them again. But many of those games might work with FAT32. I think it's more the old utilities that have some problems. I have my doubts if I will be able to get them to work on this comp though: X58A-UD3R mb, GTX470 vid. Yeah, really. One of the biggest problems I encountered with running some really old programs was the speed - waaaaay too fast on today's computers. There are some utilities that can slow (at least some) of those old games down, but good (and reliable) ones are hard to find, and can be a bit quirky, themselves. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
who where wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:17:39 -0600, "Bill in Co" wrote: (snip) It's funny, but when I click on Properties, it shows the following info: Used space: 12,578,045,952 bytes (followed by 11.7 GB). Go figure! I don't know how it rounds that figure off to 11. 7GB. And the C: drive partition capacity is shown as: Capacity: 19,994,050,560 bytes (followed by 18.6 GB) (Again, I don't get it). In computer storage notation: 1KB = 1024 bytes 1MB = 1024*1024 bytes 1GB = 1024*1024*1024 bytes Indeed. So we have to take the decimal based value of 18.6 GB and multiply it by 1.024 X 1.024 x 1.204 to get pretty close to that figure above. It's too bad they couldn't just standardize using the "binary based values" for suffixes K, M, and G for all computer related stuff, *including* disk drives! Or maybe that would have been illogical, and give problems elsewhere (I'm only talking about computers here - not physics, or the rest of the world's stuff, where K means 1000, and not 1024). I think someone once proposed KiB for 1024 (etc), but that never took off. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
win 98 size and fat question
Paul
I run a windows 98 with a Elo Touchscreen make the old Game more fun! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size? | StargateFan | General | 13 | February 21st 08 03:03 PM |
Size of hard disk question | Adrian | General | 35 | September 15th 07 03:00 AM |
Why drive Parition size and File size are restricted in Size | tony | General | 13 | June 23rd 06 01:51 PM |
Folder-Size Question | caroloyl | General | 9 | March 9th 05 05:28 PM |
Win 98 Question about Icon Size and Fonts | Brian K | Improving Performance | 2 | September 21st 04 07:45 PM |