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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
John John - MVP wrote:
Other than saying that this behavior was "by design", Microsoft has never said *why* they gave the NT line of OS's the handicap of not being able to create FAT32 volumes larger than 32 gb. Raymond Chen talks about this he Windows Confidential A Brief and Incomplete History of FAT32 ============= For a 32GB FAT32 drive, it takes 4 megabytes of disk I/O to compute the amount of free space. ============ You do realize how trivial a 4 mb data transfer is, today and even 5, 10 years ago - don't you? Chen doesn't mention any other file or drive operation as being impacted by having a large cluster count other than the computation of free space - which I believe is infrequently performed anyways. I formatted a 500 gb drive as a single FAT32 volume using 4kb cluser size just as an excercise to test if Windows 98se could be installed and function on such a volume, and it did - with the exception that it would not create a swap file on such a volume. And as Chen mentions, yes - the *first* directory command on FAT32 volumes with a high cluster-count does take a few minutes (but not successive directory commands). What I found in my testing that either in DOS or under Win-98, that the first dir command (or explorer-view) is instantaneous as long as the number of clusters doesn't exceed 6.3 million. This equates to a FAT size of about 25 mb. I have installed win-98 on FAT32 volumes of various sizes, formatted with a range of cluster sizes from 4kb to 32kb resulting in volumes ranging from 6 to 40 million clusters and have seen no evidence of a performance hit during file manipulations, copying, searching, etc. You on the other hand seem to think that having the FAT as large as possible and then page it to disk is a smart thing to do... Other than the first dir command or first explorer session, I have seen no performance hit under win-9x or even under XP when installed on FAT32 volumes with large FATs. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
For NTFS file system is like a woman instead A Big Hard Drive is better for
my file system! and Windows 98 is like a old man instead more then FAT32, will be to Big and all the oil in the world will not make his file system run right! "Philo Pastry" John John - MVP Win The Debate Hands Down so give up! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
"Philo Pastry" No you concede the debate
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
Philo Pastry wrote:
John John - MVP wrote: Other than saying that this behavior was "by design", Microsoft has never said *why* they gave the NT line of OS's the handicap of not being able to create FAT32 volumes larger than 32 gb. Raymond Chen talks about this he Windows Confidential A Brief and Incomplete History of FAT32 ============= For a 32GB FAT32 drive, it takes 4 megabytes of disk I/O to compute the amount of free space. ============ You do realize how trivial a 4 mb data transfer is, today and even 5, 10 years ago - don't you? Chen doesn't mention any other file or drive operation as being impacted by having a large cluster count other than the computation of free space - which I believe is infrequently performed anyways. I formatted a 500 gb drive as a single FAT32 volume using 4kb cluser size just as an excercise to test if Windows 98se could be installed and function on such a volume, and it did - with the exception that it would not create a swap file on such a volume. Well, that's really nice. No swap file? Great. (Plus the other utilities you said that won't work anymore (like the much faster version of Defrag from WinME). And as Chen mentions, yes - the *first* directory command on FAT32 volumes with a high cluster-count does take a few minutes (but not successive directory commands). A few *minutes*???? Are you kidding me??? THAT is totally unacceptible. I get annoyed when XP takes 5 seconds to initially display something that should be near instantaneous. With all the things you've mentioned it sure seems like there is a price to pay. Oh yeah, not the least of which is you can't *ever* have a file larger than 4 GB (this can be a pit of a PIA for some photo, video, and disk imaging work) (All that being said, I do miss the ability to boot up into DOS, if I ever want to or had to. But that's about the only thing) Well, actually I can still boot into DOS on my thumb drive, but it's not quite the same thing as having the good ole DOS fallback option). What I found in my testing that either in DOS or under Win-98, that the first dir command (or explorer-view) is instantaneous as long as the number of clusters doesn't exceed 6.3 million. This equates to a FAT size of about 25 mb. Which is a LONG ways from the 500 MB mentioned. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
"Philo Pastry" wrote in message ... About 3 years ago I installed XP on a 250 gb FAT-32 partitioned hard drive and installed Adobe Premier CS3. It had no problems creating large video files that spanned the 4 gb file-size limit of FAT32. XP install Hmm that can not be right it have to be a NTFS for a 250 gb to install or you do not partition all the Hard Drive Now I have to see this Make a Screen Capture And post it to http://mynews.ath.cx/doc/phUploader.php Here my Screen Capture http://mynews.ath.cx/doc/uploads/ntfs.jpg |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
"Philo Pastry" wrote in message ... John John - MVP wrote: People working with video editing and multimedia files often run across this 4GB file limitations. Backup/imaging utilities also often run into problems caused by this file size limitation, About 3 years ago I installed XP on a 250 gb FAT-32 partitioned hard drive and installed Adobe Premier CS3. It had no problems creating large video files that spanned the 4 gb file-size limit of FAT32. OK, explain how I get (Using Acronis True Image Backup) "The incremental backup will exceed the 4Gb limit in your backup file location" After I raised a new backup location on a NTFS partion I never get the above warning. Windows XP cannot format partitions larger than 32GB to FAT32 because the increasing size of the FAT for bigger volumes makes these volumes less efficient (bla bla bla) Other than saying that this behavior was "by design", Microsoft has never said *why* they gave the NT line of OS's the handicap of not being able to create FAT32 volumes larger than 32 gb. It's a fallacy that the entire FAT must be loaded into memory by any OS (win-9x/XP, etc) for the OS to access the volume. Go ahead and cite some performance statistics that show that performance of random-size file read/write operations go down as the FAT size (# of clusters) goes up. Remember, we are not talking about cluster size here. FAT32 cluster size (and hence small file storage efficiency) can be exactly the same as NTFS regardless the size of the volume. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:15:49 -0400, Philo is wrong
wrote: What you don't understand about NTFS is that it will silently delete user-data to restore it's own integrity as a way to cope with a failed transaction, while FAT32 will create lost or orphaned clusters that are recoverable but who's existance is not itself a liability to the user or the file system. I'll say this. At first when win98FE crashed, I would find files that were missing, whole mailboxes of my email program iirc. I would do chkdsk and in the chk files I would find much of the data that was missing. At the least I could search it for lost info, and maybe I was able to rename the files to the original names, even if there was garbage (prior data) at the end of the cluster or whatever. I wondered why there was nothing in Windows, afaik, like there is in mainframes. When one copies a 1000 byte file to a 100 byte file in an IBM mainframe with languages like Cobol, it gives a 100 byte result, with the other 900 truncated. That's what I wanted to do here, but I couldn't find a way to do it. The thing some people find convenient about fat32 is that the system can easily be accessed by a win98 boot floppy. Or, if you've installed DOS first on an FAT32 drive, and then install XP as a second OS, you can have a choice at boot-up to run DOS or XP. Why not just put all the dos files in the XP partition, and use a dos boot disk to boot to that? Like with win98. There aren't many DOS files, and none that I know of will used by XP. Nor will DOS have to use any XP files, except when trying to fix things. However an NTFS drive can still be accessed from the repair console... The repair console is garbage and does not compare in any way to the utility and capability of a real DOS-type command environment. I've used it for fixboot and fixmbr, but I thought the set of commands was small, and I read they don't work in the same way dos commands do. But I still haven't read most of this thread or formed any conclusions. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:05:14 -0400, "glee"
wrote: "mm" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:16:58 -0500, philo wrote: On 10/16/2010 12:33 AM, mm wrote: Hi! I"m moving to a new machine that probably won't run win98, so I planned to run it from a Virtual Machine under winxpsp3 Is it okay to have all the harddrive partitions NTFS, even though win98 can't normally read NTFS? It should work just fine. If there are any problems they will not be due to the drive being NTFS at any rate Great, thank you. Now I have all the parts to fix up my friends old 2.4 gig Dell for myself. I think I'll like the increased speed. snip Are you using XPSP3 Home or Pro Edition as the host OS? Pro, it appears. That was what was on this DELL before the HD failed and he gave me the computer and the CD's that came with it. 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...displaylang=en I would rather have newer! Thanks. I read, probably in the wikip entry for this, that it was free for a while after MS bought it, but it also gavem me the impression it wasn't anymore. No time now to go reread it. I'm happy to have the new version. Thanks. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:16:29 -0400, "glee"
wrote: "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 Vista™ Business; Windows Vista™ Enterprise; Windows Vista™ 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. The version I bought, albeit for 3 dollars, Connectix Virtual PC for Windows version 5, says on the box that it allows as a guest system DOS, 3.1, ....up to XP home and pro, Linux, Netware, OS/2 and Solaris 8. It doesn't say anything about supporting them or not, and I figure that's because Connectix was not an MS company and there was no reason to think it could support OSes. But MS has to disclaim support for OSes it no longer supports, or some crank will sue them, they fear. As to Host OSes, it lists 2000, NT 4, ME, 98SE, XP Home and XP Pro. Of course they could have removed functionality, perhaps for very good reason in V. PC 2007. It might be years before I actually try this, since I plan to keep the old win98/xp computer in my basement. Hopefully win98 will work by then. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Virtual Machine and NTFS
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No sounds in Windows 98 on virtual machine | Larry | General | 0 | November 15th 09 06:06 PM |
virtual machine | Joni | General | 4 | March 28th 05 11:14 PM |
Ccleaner - Virtual Machine | Solkeys | General | 10 | February 14th 05 03:12 AM |
problem with my virtual machine | shawnk | General | 0 | June 19th 04 11:35 PM |
MS Virtual Machine | Advice please | General | 3 | June 8th 04 10:04 PM |