HDD size limits under Win98?

Hi Guys,

Is there a maximum size of HDD, I can use in Win98se?

If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Thanks!

There are a number of problems using a hard drive larger than 137 gb on a
computer which has W98 installed. You are better off upgrading to WinXP or
sticking with a smaller hard drive. For details:
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm

--
Regards


Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo



"Steve Wade" wrote in message
...
Hi Guys,

Is there a maximum size of HDD, I can use in Win98se?

If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Thanks!

Steve Wade wrote:
If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Simplest thing is to partition it into smaller drives.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:44 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:

Steve Wade wrote:
If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Simplest thing is to partition it into smaller drives.

That won't help if the total IDE/SATA HDD size is larger than 137 GB (decimal
gigabytes; the same as ~125 -- even not 127 -- binary gigabytes): when the
system writes above this boundary (say, to the end of the second logical
drive), you'll lose the partition table, and the whole information on the HDD
because of that: the addresses above 125 GB will be wrapped to the lower
addresses (say, the addressing of the 140 GB of the whole HDD will be
translated to its 15 gigabyte).

So if not to use the specific drivers which are not supported by MS -- you
must limit the used HDD space: 125 GB in total at the single IDE or SATA HDD,
regardless of the individual sizes of the logical drives.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======

Mikhail Zhilin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:44 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Steve Wade wrote:
If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Simplest thing is to partition it into smaller drives.

That won't help if the total IDE/SATA HDD size is larger than 137 GB
(decimal gigabytes; the same as ~125 -- even not 127 -- binary
gigabytes): when the system writes above this boundary (say, to the
end of the second logical drive), you'll lose the partition table,
and the whole information on the HDD because of that: the addresses
above 125 GB will be wrapped to the lower addresses (say, the
addressing of the 140 GB of the whole HDD will be translated to its
15 gigabyte).

So if not to use the specific drivers which are not supported by MS
-- you must limit the used HDD space: 125 GB in total at the single
IDE or SATA HDD, regardless of the individual sizes of the logical
drives.

One of my drives is 160GB (nominal) partitioned into one primary and an
extended partition with two logical drives. All are full (or close to
it), never a problem. Perhaps because it is on a separate PCI drive
card?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:39:33 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:

Mikhail Zhilin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:33:44 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Steve Wade wrote:
If so, if I buy an HDD larger than this, is there a work-around?

Simplest thing is to partition it into smaller drives.

That won't help if the total IDE/SATA HDD size is larger than 137 GB
(decimal gigabytes; the same as ~125 -- even not 127 -- binary
gigabytes): when the system writes above this boundary (say, to the
end of the second logical drive), you'll lose the partition table,
and the whole information on the HDD because of that: the addresses
above 125 GB will be wrapped to the lower addresses (say, the
addressing of the 140 GB of the whole HDD will be translated to its
15 gigabyte).

So if not to use the specific drivers which are not supported by MS
-- you must limit the used HDD space: 125 GB in total at the single
IDE or SATA HDD, regardless of the individual sizes of the logical
drives.

One of my drives is 160GB (nominal) partitioned into one primary and an
extended partition with two logical drives. All are full (or close to
it), never a problem. Perhaps because it is on a separate PCI drive
card?

The separate cards do use their own BIOSes and drivers, the latest (at least 3
last years) versions of which, unlike the standard Win9x drivers, know (and
use if need) 48-bit LBA.

That you for the paying my attention to this fact -- I really missed it.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:16:37 +0400, Mikhail Zhilin
wrote:

..

That you for the paying my attention to this fact -- I really missed it.

Oops, a typo...
Thank you, of course!

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======

One of my drives is 160GB (nominal) partitioned into one primary and an
extended partition with two logical drives. All are full (or close to
it), never a problem. Perhaps because it is on a separate PCI drive
card?

Yep, I think it works because it's on a separate controller card.

You still need to be careful though. I've seen a case where a server trashed
its disk when it reached 137GB of data on a 200GB disk, even though the Disk
Administrator had been quite happy with creating several smaller partitions
that filled the disk.

Basically, OS, BIOS controller and IDE driver all have to be 48-bit
compliant, and the only sure way to find out is to fill the disk to the 137GB
point and see if it nukes itself.

I see this is as being a major problem in the near future, as any engineer
replacing a faulty disk will be faced with a dilemma, namely that even
new-model computers have no written indication on them of whether they can
accept large disks or not. Get it wrong and you have the potential for a
serious data-loss, too.

Other products like RAM are keyed so that they cannot be inserted into
incompatible slots where damage might result. Producing a disk which can be
connected and used in the standard way, but which subsequently results in a
major data-loss is inexcusably bad design.

At least with the earlier size-limits it either worked or didn't, and you
knew straightaway.. Now we have a situation where (Win98 or Vista regardless)
a lenghty data-copying test may be the only way to ensure correct operation.
The customer won't want to pay for hours of testing, and even the new
computers are NOT properly labelled as to the disks they can take, so how are
we supposed to handle this? I reckon the manufacturers really need to go back
to the drawing-board, get their brains into gear this time, and come-up with
a more robust solution.