does size matter

I am thinking of installing 98se on my puter which currently has winxp sp2
to give me dual boot with xp. I have heard that 98se only recognises a
certain size of HD drive is this correct and what is the max size HD I can
use. Was thinking of partitioning my drive to say 20 GB fat32 and the rest
(over 56GB) to be used as a back up drive for XP (NTFS) which will be
installed on a second separate SATA drive of over 100GB.

Anon wrote:
I am thinking of installing 98se on my puter which currently has winxp sp2
to give me dual boot with xp. I have heard that 98se only recognises a
certain size of HD drive is this correct and what is the max size HD I can
use. Was thinking of partitioning my drive to say 20 GB fat32 and the rest
(over 56GB) to be used as a back up drive for XP (NTFS) which will be
installed on a second separate SATA drive of over 100GB.



Anon:

Windows 98SE will see a 40 gig drive with no problems. I seem to
remember a problem with drives bigger than 64 gig though.

This site:

http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/Limits.htm

seems to say you can go as high as 128 Gib if you work a little.

HTH & GL

john

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/3an63f

four drives, 20GB (c:4 g:12) 40GB(d:8 h:32) 80GB(e:8 i:72) 160GB(f:160 1vol)
Windows has no problems seeing the entirety of each drive
windows98 era hardware may have problems seeing the full drive,
computers made for XP generally have 48 bit lba, a volume size limit in the
terabyte range, so that shouldnt be a problem
98 defrag may have problems with large drives, ME defrag doesnt
more likely to be a problem is cluster sizes in large drives wasting a lot
of disk space, hence each of the drives being partitioned to small volume
and other volume, except F:\ which is used for video manipulation, large
files
Windows98SE runs really fast compared to XP, if you can get 98 versions of
the xp software for intensive apps, video or 3d modelling, they will fly.
--
-
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://www.safer-networking.org
AVG free antivirus http://free.grisoft.com/
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Super Antispyware http://www.superantispyware.com/
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.activescan.com
Panda online AntiSpyware Scan
http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/spyware/test/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/n...aspx?CID=40387
Trouble Shooting guide to Windows http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before
use
Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters
_
"Anon" wrote in message
. uk...
I am thinking of installing 98se on my puter which currently has winxp sp2
to give me dual boot with xp. I have heard that 98se only recognises a
certain size of HD drive is this correct and what is the max size HD I can
use. Was thinking of partitioning my drive to say 20 GB fat32 and the rest
(over 56GB) to be used as a back up drive for XP (NTFS) which will be
installed on a second separate SATA drive of over 100GB.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:00:34 -0300, "AlmostBob"
wrote:

four drives, 20GB (c:4 g:12) 40GB(d:8 h:32) 80GB(e:8 i:72) 160GB(f:160 1vol)
Windows has no problems seeing the entirety of each drive

have you actually tested that 98SE can see all the 160G? I suspect that - BIOS
notwithstanding - you WILL have issues once your system tries reading/writing
beyond 128/137G. Many threads here in the past on that very topic/threshold.

windows98 era hardware may have problems seeing the full drive,
computers made for XP generally have 48 bit lba, a volume size limit in the
terabyte range, so that shouldnt be a problem
98 defrag may have problems with large drives, ME defrag doesnt
more likely to be a problem is cluster sizes in large drives wasting a lot
of disk space, hence each of the drives being partitioned to small volume
and other volume, except F:\ which is used for video manipulation, large
files
Windows98SE runs really fast compared to XP, if you can get 98 versions of
the xp software for intensive apps, video or 3d modelling, they will fly.

Anon thought he was cute when he wrote:

Subject: does size matter

But instead it was just lame.

I have heard that 98se only recognises a certain size of HD drive
is this correct and what is the max size HD I can use.

Then you should have made the subject of your post more like "what is
max hard drive size for win-98 ?"

To answer your question:

If the hard drive is connected to a raid controller or a raid
interface (but not necessarily used as part of a raid set) and if the
controller appears in your windows device manager as a SCSI
controller, then Windows 98 can handle drives of larger than 137 gb -
and probably up to and including 500 gb (or 1 terrabyte). In this
scenario, Windows 98 -will not- be using it's native protected-mode
driver (ESDI_506.PDR) to access the drive.

If Windows-98 is (or will be) using it's native protected-mode driver
(ESDI_506.PDR) then you will be limited to 137 gb or smaller. This
happens when you connect any IDE drive to a standard IDE controller
port (non-raid) or if you connect an IDE or SATA drive to a raid
controller but have the drive configured as a re-mapped IDE drive.

There are third-party modified versions of ESDI_506.PDR which have
fixed the 137 gb problem (to some extent) and therefore enable Win-98
to be compatible with pretty much any drive currently in existance
(which is 1 terrabyte if I'm not mistaken).

google search for '48bit lba' or go to www.48bitlba.com and read
hardware is not a problem,
software is not a problem.
Windows is able to address the full drive, which has over 128(137dec)GB on
it and no addressing issues
--
-
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://www.safer-networking.org
AVG free antivirus http://free.grisoft.com/
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Super Antispyware http://www.superantispyware.com/
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.activescan.com
Panda online AntiSpyware Scan
http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/spyware/test/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/n...aspx?CID=40387
Trouble Shooting guide to Windows http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before
use
Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters
_
"budgie" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 May 2007 13:00:34 -0300, "AlmostBob"
wrote:

four drives, 20GB (c:4 g:12) 40GB(d:8 h:32) 80GB(e:8 i:72) 160GB(f:160
1vol)
Windows has no problems seeing the entirety of each drive

have you actually tested that 98SE can see all the 160G? I suspect that -
BIOS
notwithstanding - you WILL have issues once your system tries
reading/writing
beyond 128/137G. Many threads here in the past on that very
topic/threshold.

windows98 era hardware may have problems seeing the full drive,
computers made for XP generally have 48 bit lba, a volume size limit in
the
terabyte range, so that shouldnt be a problem
98 defrag may have problems with large drives, ME defrag doesnt
more likely to be a problem is cluster sizes in large drives wasting a
lot
of disk space, hence each of the drives being partitioned to small volume
and other volume, except F:\ which is used for video manipulation, large
files
Windows98SE runs really fast compared to XP, if you can get 98 versions
of
the xp software for intensive apps, video or 3d modelling, they will fly.