Virtual Machine and NTFS

glee wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
We could get into a debate on this, but with someone posing as "Philo
is wrong", one wonders if it would be worth it. Are you "98guy" in
disguise? :-)

I'd say that's quite likely, if not outright obvious. A 500GB SATA
drive as a single 4KB-cluster FAT32 partition, running Win98? Who else
do we know that does this and recommends it? ;-)

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I seem to recall that as the partition
size got bigger, the cluster size also HAD to get larger (up to 32K max) to
keep the maximum allowable number of clusters within the max 16 bit value
(65,536) for FAT32. So how could one possibly have 4 KB clusters on a 500
GB volume with FAT32?

Wrong is Philo wrote:
Bill in Co wrote top-poasted and unnecessarily full-quoted:

We could get into a debate on this, but with someone posing
as "Philo is wrong", one wonders if it would be worth it.

You should have just continued the debate, because of course it's going
to be worth it. Do you actually have any ammunition to counter the
points I raised?

As I said in the other post:
Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I seem to recall that as the partition
size got bigger, the cluster size also HAD to get larger (up to 32K max) to
keep the maximum allowable number of clusters within the max 16 bit value
(65,536) for FAT32. So how could one possibly have 4 KB clusters on a 500
GB volume with FAT32?

Glen Ventura why you debate with the Sons of Linux for.
Do you see they do not have a Window to look out of, just to see if a dog in
the street!

Now on too 500GB SATA you can't Install windows 98 on a partition no
bigger then 32GB.
But you can Xcopy a 32GB partition with a working windows 98 to a 500GB
SATA .with a FAT32 and it will run and same time Error!
to keep it from Erring you have to do it like the old 3.0 or 95 windows by a
2GB partitions..

With 98 you would have to make a 1 partition 32GB C:\ to install on
and 1 partition 76 GB 4 partitions 100GB to keep it from have ERRING all the
time
that give you 6 partitions and it okay to have 1 partition FAT32 and 5
partitions NTFS, win98 can read NTFS just can't run on it!

or
you can make one 1 partition 32GB and make no more partition on it and 98
will run with no Errors!
or
Glen you know you can run windows 98 in a Virtual Machine. on a 500GB SATA
Partition #1 200GB NTFS for C:\Virtual Machine and partition #2 32GB
FAT32 D:\Windows 98
And the 268 Free GB for a rainy Day.

Partition #1 can be 2GB C:\Virtual Machine

Calculator Calculator Calculator
Use it it go a long ways

By the size of the partition like 32Gb drive 4KB-cluster FAT32 partition,
running Win98..
on a 500GB SATA Make it a 32GB partition will give you 468 free GB,
Making that 500GB SATA in to a 32GB SATA if that all you running that all
it is!

In message , glee
writes:
[]
Are you using XPSP3 Home or Pro Edition as the host OS?

If you find the old Connectix version 5 does not do all you want, try
the newer free version, Virtual PC 2007:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/e...d=04D26402-319
9-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en

Thanks for the link.

That page says:

Supported Operating Systems:Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
(32-bit x86);Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition;Windows Vista
Business;Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition;Windows Vista
Enterprise;Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition;Windows Vista
Ultimate;Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition;Windows XP Professional
Edition;Windows XP Professional x64 Edition;Windows XP Tablet PC Edition

....

Virtual PC 2007 runs on: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Business; Windows Vistaâ„¢
Enterprise; Windows Vistaâ„¢ Ultimate; Windows Server 2003, Standard
Edition; Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows XP
Professional; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; or Windows XP Tablet
PC Edition

under "System Requirements". It's not clear to me, but I think the first
list must be the OSs the virtual machine can run, and the second list
the host OSs it'll run under. But anyway, I see no mention of Home in
either list; are you saying it will and they're just not telling us?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

freedom of speech is useless if nobody can hear you.
-- David Harris -- Author, Pegasus Mail Dunedin, May 2002.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , glee
writes:
[]
Are you using XPSP3 Home or Pro Edition as the host OS?

If you find the old Connectix version 5 does not do all you want, try
the newer free version, Virtual PC 2007:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/e...d=04D26402-319
9-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en

Thanks for the link.

That page says:

Supported Operating Systems:Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition
(32-bit x86);Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition;Windows Vista
Business;Windows Vista Business 64-bit edition;Windows Vista
Enterprise;Windows Vista Enterprise 64-bit edition;Windows Vista
Ultimate;Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition;Windows XP Professional
Edition;Windows XP Professional x64 Edition;Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition

...

Virtual PC 2007 runs on: Windows Vistaâ„¢ Business; Windows Vistaâ„¢
Enterprise; Windows Vistaâ„¢ Ultimate; Windows Server 2003, Standard
Edition; Windows Server 2003, Standard x64 Edition; Windows XP
Professional; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition; or Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition

under "System Requirements". It's not clear to me, but I think the
first list must be the OSs the virtual machine can run, and the second
list the host OSs it'll run under. But anyway, I see no mention of
Home in either list; are you saying it will and they're just not
telling us?

The second list are the operating systems you can install it on, as a
host machine. I have read elsewhere that it will install and run on XP
Home as well as Pro, but have never tried.

The first list is what operating systems are "supported" to be run as a
virtual system on the host. Other systems can be run....Win98, Linux,
etc...they are just not "supported" , meaning you won't get any help or
support for issues, there may not be Additions available for everything,
or there may only be partial functionality of the unsupported virtual
system.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

Bill in Co wrote:

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I seem to recall that as the
partition size got bigger, the cluster size also HAD to get larger
(up to 32K max) to keep the maximum allowable number of clusters
within the max 16 bit value (65,536) for FAT32.
So how could one possibly have 4 KB clusters on a 500 GB volume
with FAT32?

You should read the following:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006

It contains a mix of truth and fiction.

True:

-------------------
A FAT32-formatted volume *must* contain a minumum of 65,527 clusters.
That's the minimum value - not the max value.

The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file
system is 268,435,445. That would equate to a volume size of about
1.099 trillion bytes (1024 gb) using 4kb cluster size.
-------------------

False:

--------------------
You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file
system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size.
--------------------

Microsoft claims that the FAT can't exceed 16 mb in size, which equates
to about 4 million clusters given that the FAT uses 4 bytes per cluster.

They say that the FAT can't exceed 16 mb in size because the DOS version
of scandisk is a "16-bit" program that can't read more than 16 mb of
data into memory at once. I showed this was false several years ago by
having DOS scandisk process very large FAT32 volumes of various
configurations, including my 500 gb single-partition FAT32 volume which
had 120 million clusters (4kb cluster size) which would have had a FAT
size of over 450 mb.

Microsoft's statement that you can't end up with a FAT larger than 16 mb
is true - if they mean by using Microsoft's own software tools (like
format.com).

Microsoft's own FAT32 formatting tools are designed to keep the FAT size
at or under 16 mb, which means that a FAT32 volume should max out at 128
gb (32kb cluster size, 4.177 million total clusters). However,
Microsoft's fdisk and format.com will correctly create a FAT32 volume of
up to 512 gb - but not more. This results in about 16 million clusters.

"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
glee wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
We could get into a debate on this, but with someone posing as
"Philo
is wrong", one wonders if it would be worth it. Are you "98guy" in
disguise? :-)

I'd say that's quite likely, if not outright obvious. A 500GB SATA
drive as a single 4KB-cluster FAT32 partition, running Win98? Who
else
do we know that does this and recommends it? ;-)

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I seem to recall that as the
partition size got bigger, the cluster size also HAD to get larger (up
to 32K max) to keep the maximum allowable number of clusters within
the max 16 bit value (65,536) for FAT32. So how could one possibly
have 4 KB clusters on a 500 GB volume with FAT32?

You can force the cluster size....it just means there is a ridiculously
large number of clusters on a drive that size, and among other things,
most drive tools will not work on a drive with that many clusters
(scandisk, defrag, drive diagnostic apps).
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+
http://dts-l.net/

glee wrote:

You can force the cluster size....it just means there is a
ridiculously large number of clusters on a drive that size,
and among other things, most drive tools will not work on a
drive with that many clusters (scandisk, defrag, drive
diagnostic apps).

DOS scandisk has no problems scanning volumes with many millions of
clusters (120 million was the most I've tried and it worked).

Windows ME versions of defrag and scandisk (scandskw + diskmaint.dll)
have a cut-off somewhere around 28 to 32 million clusters. The Windows
ME versions of scandisk and defrag are frequently transplanted into
tweaked Win-98 installations.

MS-DOS version of Fdisk (may 2000 update) has a limit of 512 gb (that's
the largest drive that it can correctly partition). There is something
called "Free Fdisk" that can partition larger drives (at least 750 gb,
and probably up to 1 tb). MS-DOS format.com can format volumes of up to
1024 gb (1 tb).

On 10/18/2010 10:20 AM, glee wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
glee wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
We could get into a debate on this, but with someone posing as "Philo
is wrong", one wonders if it would be worth it. Are you "98guy" in
disguise? :-)

I'd say that's quite likely, if not outright obvious. A 500GB SATA
drive as a single 4KB-cluster FAT32 partition, running Win98? Who else
do we know that does this and recommends it? ;-)

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I seem to recall that as the
partition size got bigger, the cluster size also HAD to get larger (up
to 32K max) to keep the maximum allowable number of clusters within
the max 16 bit value (65,536) for FAT32. So how could one possibly
have 4 KB clusters on a 500 GB volume with FAT32?

You can force the cluster size....it just means there is a ridiculously
large number of clusters on a drive that size, and among other things,
most drive tools will not work on a drive with that many clusters
(scandisk, defrag, drive diagnostic apps).

Not to mention that it will result in a ridiculously big FAT of about
500MB! Anyone who understands how the FAT is read in a linear fashion
understands the folly of such a formatting scheme! This formatting
scheme effectively ensures that much the disk structure will be paged
out, what an incredible hit on disk performance! The disk is already
the single biggest performance bottleneck on any computer and this silly
formatting scheme will make it an even bigger bottleneck. Good thing
98Guy isn't handing out car advice, he would have us fill the bumpers
with lead while claiming that the added ballast makes cars go faster
while consuming less fuel...

John