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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size?
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why drive Parition size and File size are restricted in Size | tony | General | 13 | June 23rd 06 01:51 PM |
DVD size | b11_ | General | 13 | September 16th 05 02:29 AM |
size#Size on disk | Javad | General | 16 | January 26th 05 04:17 AM |
size of Win Me cd? | Its Me | General | 4 | December 29th 04 08:38 PM |
The right size? | Star E. Avenues | Monitors & Displays | 2 | November 25th 04 08:33 AM |