FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?

Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

The size of one directory has never been a significant issue. Perhaps you
meant to say the size of a partition.

You can run W98 on a machine with a 200Gb disk if you limit the size of the
partition to about 137Gb. You could use the whole disk by creating multiple
partitions provided the machine supports 48-bit LBA and the appropriate
drivers are used. However, some of the standard system tools will not
work properly.

See, for instance:
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
The size of one directory has never been a significant issue. Perhaps you
meant to say the size of a partition.

You can run W98 on a machine with a 200Gb disk if you limit the size of
the
partition to about 137Gb. You could use the whole disk by creating
multiple
partitions provided the machine supports 48-bit LBA and the appropriate
drivers are used. However, some of the standard system tools will not
work properly.

See, for instance:
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm



That's completely correct of course...
I just wanted to add that Fat32 has a file size limitation of 4 gigs...
so if the drive would be used for storing large files, such as videos...
they could not exceed 4 gigs.

Additionally, a fat32 drive over 32 gigs would have a fair amount of wasted
space
due to large cluster size.

"philo" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
snip
I just wanted to add that Fat32 has a file size limitation of 4 gigs...
so if the drive would be used for storing large files, such as videos...
they could not exceed 4 gigs.


and many W98 applications don't work with files larger than 2Gb.

Additionally, a fat32 drive over 32 gigs would have a fair amount of
wasted
space
due to large cluster size.

and will perform quite poorly for file changes due to the large size of the
FAT.

StargateFan wrote:

Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also
an issue of the size of the entire hdd.

The 32-bit protected-mode driver (esdi_506.pdr) that windows-98 uses
has a flaw, or design oversight, that prevents it from correctly
accessing hard drives larger than 128 gb (or 137 giga-bytes, depending
on how you define a giga-byte).

This issue has been discussed at length several times within at least
the past year here in this newsgroup, and if you really want to
understand the issue then you should use the google-groups usenet
search interface and look for those past threads. Look for any thread
containing "edsi_506.pdr".

My reason for concern is, other hardware issues aside first,
could we run Win9x on a large 200gig computer if it were
partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size actually
is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

If the drive in question is an ordinary IDE (aka PATA) drive then most
likely it will be accessed via ESDI_506.PDR and it will suffer data
corruption when a read or write is performed across the 128 gb point
on the drive. It does not matter how the drive is partitioned. If a
200 gig drive is partitioned such that nothing beyond the first 127 gb
are allocated to any partitions or logical drives then in theory there
will never be any drive access beyond the 128 gb point and you should
not encounter any problems.

There are remedies that will allow the use of hard drives larger than
128 gb for windows 98:

1) obtain an alternate (modified) version of ESDI_506.PDR.
2) obtain a PCI-based hard drive controller card that comes with it's
own replacement for ESDI_506.PDR (this can be either a PATA or SATA
controller card).
3) Obtain something called the "Intel Application Accelerator" (this
only applies for system motherboards with certain Intel-based
chipsets).
4) The use of SATA hard drives (if so supported by the motherboard)
will allow the use of large hard drives (larger than 128 gb) as long
as certain settings in the system bios are used.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:24:35 -0500, StargateFan
wrote:

Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

Thanks for everyone's replies. Yes, I meant "partitions" rather than
"directories". I do that all the time, use the wrong word, sorry.

I'll look at the google group archives. Thanks for the specifications
if the PDR issue. I don't know any of the terms involved, so it will
be good to learn.

So the issue with FAT32 generally is one of the size of the entire HDD
and not just of individual partitions. A colleague quote 30+ gigs yet
here 4 gigs was used as maximum. Interesting discrepancy, but thanks
for setting me straight (perhaps he, too, was referring to overall HDD
drive and _not_ individual partitions).

Thanks for potential workarounds, too. Will look into those as well.
Again, it's all greek to me so I have a lot to research and learn.

Cheers.

StargateFan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:24:35 -0500, StargateFan
wrote:

Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

Thanks for everyone's replies. Yes, I meant "partitions" rather than
"directories". I do that all the time, use the wrong word, sorry.

I'll look at the google group archives. Thanks for the specifications
if the PDR issue. I don't know any of the terms involved, so it will
be good to learn.

So the issue with FAT32 generally is one of the size of the entire HDD
and not just of individual partitions. A colleague quote 30+ gigs yet
here 4 gigs was used as maximum.

The largest FILE (i.e. filesize) you can create using FAT32 is 4 GB.
File Directory Partition. They're all different.

Interesting discrepancy, but thanks
for setting me straight (perhaps he, too, was referring to overall HDD
drive and _not_ individual partitions).

Thanks for potential workarounds, too. Will look into those as well.
Again, it's all greek to me so I have a lot to research and learn.

Cheers.

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:24:35 -0500, StargateFan
wrote:

Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

Thanks for everyone's replies. Yes, I meant "partitions" rather than
"directories". I do that all the time, use the wrong word, sorry.

I'll look at the google group archives. Thanks for the specifications
if the PDR issue. I don't know any of the terms involved, so it will
be good to learn.

So the issue with FAT32 generally is one of the size of the entire HDD
and not just of individual partitions. A colleague quote 30+ gigs yet
here 4 gigs was used as maximum. Interesting discrepancy, but thanks
for setting me straight (perhaps he, too, was referring to overall HDD
drive and _not_ individual partitions).

Thanks for potential workarounds, too. Will look into those as well.
Again, it's all greek to me so I have a lot to research and learn.

Cheers.

In my experience, the actual issue I ran into is total data in terms of
files exceeding 128GB on a given hard drive (ide) with no ide driver mods in
98SE. Didn't matter if had multiple FAT32 partitions, FAT32 partition(s)
not and NTFS partition(s). When the total file data exceeded 128GB amongst
a single or multiple FAT32 partitions combined, file corruption followed....
And, yes. Total file data size on the NTFS partitions is also a factor in
the equation. (Even though 98/98SE can't "see" NTFS).
Dave

While you might seem to get 98 to work on this drive, sooner or later
something will not work as you expect, and then you may lose some valuable
data.

If you really want to use a very large hard drive, switch to XP or LINUX.
If XP, you might also want to choose NTFS instead of FAT32. NTFS permits
single files larger than 4 Gig.

As for WHY you want to upgrade to 200 Gig, that is clearly not just to run
98. I therefore assume that it is for storage of many and/or large personal
files. An alternative would be to leave 98 and installed programs on a
smaller drive, but move personal files to one or more USB drives, each under
127 Gig. Or, if a desktop, you might be able to mount up to 4 internal hard
drives, again, each under 127 Gig.

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.

And once again, was the problem with the entire hard disk size being 200 GB?
(I know that 128 GB is the critical point)

That is, unless the BIOS supports the 48 bit LBA thing, he wouldn't even be
able to put the HD into the system and try to repartition it to a smaller
size (less than 128 GB) in the first place?

So that it's the TOTAL HD capacity that counts here, and not just the
partition size (which could be adjusted down later IF it could be installed
in the first place)??


Bob Harris wrote:
While you might seem to get 98 to work on this drive, sooner or later
something will not work as you expect, and then you may lose some valuable
data.

If you really want to use a very large hard drive, switch to XP or LINUX.
If XP, you might also want to choose NTFS instead of FAT32. NTFS permits
single files larger than 4 Gig.

As for WHY you want to upgrade to 200 Gig, that is clearly not just to run
98. I therefore assume that it is for storage of many and/or large
personal
files. An alternative would be to leave 98 and installed programs on a
smaller drive, but move personal files to one or more USB drives, each
under
127 Gig. Or, if a desktop, you might be able to mount up to 4 internal
hard
drives, again, each under 127 Gig.

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
Is the issue with FAT32 and Win9x, if I've understood the problem
correctly, simply about the size of one directory, or is it also an
issue of the size of the entire hdd. My reason for concern is, other
hardware issues aside first, could we run Win9x on a large 200gig
computer if it were partitioned into the 32gig (or whatever max size
actually is) pieces? Or is the 200gig an issue right off the bat?
Thanks.