A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

win 98 size and fat question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 26th 10, 02:02 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
glee
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,458
Default 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  
Old October 26th 10, 02:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default 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  
Old October 26th 10, 03:35 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
glee
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,458
Default 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  
Old October 26th 10, 05:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 12:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
who where[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 92
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 03:40 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 03:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Paul in Houston TX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 04:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 04:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default 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  
Old October 27th 10, 05:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAT32 size issues, _just_ about size? StargateFan General 13 February 21st 08 04:03 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 06:28 PM
Win 98 Question about Icon Size and Fonts Brian K Improving Performance 2 September 21st 04 07:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.