Limit on External HD size?

I've been using an old desktop with 98SE on it to store all
the mp3's I've been ripping from all my music cd's and I'm
running out of space. I'm wondering if there's a size
limit to an external HD (connected either through USB or
Firewire). I'm hoping to get a 160gig HD.

FYI: I have access to both ME and XP, so if needed, I can
shrink the partitions of the HD to more managable sizes.

Anything larger than 137 gb is not supported by W98. While you may hear of
people using larger drives than that, according to MS they risk their data
by doing so. You might want to use XP. As far as external drives go, look
at the one you are interested in and see what its requirements are.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Ryan" wrote in message
...
I've been using an old desktop with 98SE on it to store all
the mp3's I've been ripping from all my music cd's and I'm
running out of space. I'm wondering if there's a size
limit to an external HD (connected either through USB or
Firewire). I'm hoping to get a 160gig HD.

FYI: I have access to both ME and XP, so if needed, I can
shrink the partitions of the HD to more managable sizes.

Ron,

Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it.
Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last
leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is
not THAT important, just found a good price on one.

Thanks again,

Ryan

-----Original Message-----
Anything larger than 137 gb is not supported by W98.
While you may hear of people using larger drives than
that, according to MS they risk their data by doing so.
You might want to use XP. As far as external drives go,
look at the one you are interested in and see what its
requirements are.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98

You can probably use a 160Gb disk if you either limit the visible disk size
to 137Gb (some disks have jumpers to allow this), or partition it to use
only the first 137Gb. You need to be sure that the device driver is
compatible with both Windows 98 and your version of USB/Firewire interface.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ryan" wrote in message
...
Ron,

Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it.
Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last
leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is
not THAT important, just found a good price on one.

Hi Jeff,

I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got from the
W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what counts--that
using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan on
buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it myself.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
You can probably use a 160Gb disk if you either limit the visible disk
size
to 137Gb (some disks have jumpers to allow this), or partition it to use
only the first 137Gb. You need to be sure that the device driver is
compatible with both Windows 98 and your version of USB/Firewire
interface.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ryan" wrote in message
...
Ron,

Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it.
Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last
leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is
not THAT important, just found a good price on one.

AFAICT the drive size problem won't arise with the correct controller, but
the partition size will be a problem unless there are updated drivers
available for W98. However, this is far from clear, and it's quite possible
that the drive size is a problem, even with a partition limited to 137Gb,
without the driver update. I believe that a drive that is limited to 137Gb
by jumpers will be OK. This has the advantage of later using the full
capacity when it is upgraded. Also, I don't know what the quality of the new
drivers is.

I can't see the point in installing drives this size. I can't use 40Gb.
Perhaps some people have special requirements.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
Hi Jeff,

I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got from
the
W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what counts--that
using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan on
buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it myself.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
You can probably use a 160Gb disk if you either limit the visible disk
size
to 137Gb (some disks have jumpers to allow this), or partition it to use
only the first 137Gb. You need to be sure that the device driver is
compatible with both Windows 98 and your version of USB/Firewire
interface.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ryan" wrote in message
...
Ron,

Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it.
Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last
leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is
not THAT important, just found a good price on one.

Read all the entire post and responses to date down to yours. Am using a WD
200GB drive on a motherboard ide controller as primary slave to a WD 80GB as
primary master.

Some examples of why one would need over 40GB are A/V rendering, editing,
and saving. I do this along with keeping four different weekly backups of 3
operating system partitions, 5 logical partitions with various install
software, past and current drivers, MS Updates, and personal files in image
format. All these on the first hard drive, and 4 other hard drives
connected to the system via scsi or pci adapter ide interface card.

Am not using any overlay. Onboard bios is 48 bit capable. After trouble
with latest fdisk on the 200GB hard drive, used the WD
partitioning/formatting software that comes with the retail hard drive. One
partition is 99GB formatted, other is 82GB formatted. Both FAT32. No
problems writing or reading to these partitions in Win98SE. Have every
update MS ever put out on this system including MS Update unadvertised stuff
like the USB 2.0 update.

Not using MS scandisk or defrag on either of the noted partitions. Rather
using Diskeeper Home Edition 8.0 to care for those partitions. Files are
very large so defragging is not terribly important anyway.

Am puzzled by USB or Firewire interface hard drives. I have a Firewire
interface box with a 60GB drive that I use with another PC. Does the box
itself contain the "bios" for interpreting the CHS data, or does that occur
from the PC itself? Believe this was the interface the original poster was
speaking of. The answer to this would lead to the possibility of using a HD
160 or bigger capacity hard drive using the appropriate partitioning and
formatting software, and partition/file maintenance tools. Acknowledging
that MS fdisk, either version and accompanying scandisk and defrag are not
suitable for this.
"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
AFAICT the drive size problem won't arise with the correct controller, but
the partition size will be a problem unless there are updated drivers
available for W98. However, this is far from clear, and it's quite
possible
that the drive size is a problem, even with a partition limited to 137Gb,
without the driver update. I believe that a drive that is limited to 137Gb
by jumpers will be OK. This has the advantage of later using the full
capacity when it is upgraded. Also, I don't know what the quality of the
new
drivers is.

I can't see the point in installing drives this size. I can't use 40Gb.
Perhaps some people have special requirements.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
Hi Jeff,

I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got from
the
W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what
counts--that
using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan on
buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it
myself.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
You can probably use a 160Gb disk if you either limit the visible disk
size
to 137Gb (some disks have jumpers to allow this), or partition it to
use
only the first 137Gb. You need to be sure that the device driver is
compatible with both Windows 98 and your version of USB/Firewire
interface.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ryan" wrote in message
...
Ron,

Thanks so much for the quick response, I do appreciate it.
Rather than upgrading a computer to XP that's on its last
leg, it'd just be easier to get a 120 gb HD. The 160 gb is
not THAT important, just found a good price on one.

MS utilities like FDISK and Scandisk and Defrag never contemplated drives of
this size, and are likely to have problems even if the operating system
doesn't. Also, be aware that in the past disk problem with large drives
have been hidden until some specific access (eg, to a particular CHS
combination) occurs. If this caused some other part of the disk to be
overwritten then data loss can occur, and it might not be immediately
obvious. I don't know whether or not this type of failure is what Ron's
contact was referring to, but it's possible. The file system would appear
OK, but 'random' sectors in the middle of a file would be overwritten with
data from another file - it's a nasty type of error.

If I was running this system I would be taking several precautions. For
instance, I would be concerned about accessing any partition other than the
primary partition from a DOS boot. Also, I would be careful that no part of
the Windows boot process accessed anything other than the primary partition.
For instance, I would not want the swap file anywhere but C, because I don't
know if swap file access could occur before a required driver was installed
This may be over-cautious, but the warnings are there and they must have
some basis.

My comment about not using this much space was based on the idea that if I
ran any process that could use it (such as AV) then I would want to be
running a very fast machine, and if I was running a machine that fast I
would be running W2K or XP with NTFS, and the question would become a
non-issue.

A firewire or similar interface will have its own routines equivalent to the
BIOS procedures in a standard IDE-enabled PC. Note that the BIOS only
enters into the problem at all because W9x chooses to use BIOS routines for
disk access. Other operating systems do not use the BIOS in this way, and
don't have the BIOS problems that Windows 9x does. SCSI drives used the
standard BIOS extension procedure to 'enhance' the BIOS functionality of a
standard PC. This means that DOS and Windows 9x can boot to and use SCSI
drives without knowing anything about SCSI (although Windows 9x can use SCSI
drivers if installed). I think that firewire does not operate like this,
although it could, in theory, if the manufacturer wanted. That's an
interesting topic to research. But since the built-in PC BIOS is becoming
irrelevant for advanced operating systems, manufacturers are not too
interested in implementing the product in this way. Therefore, the usable
capacity in this type of drive is dependant on the functionality in the
device drivers, as affected by any inherent problems in Windows 9x.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
...
Read all the entire post and responses to date down to yours. Am using a
WD
200GB drive on a motherboard ide controller as primary slave to a WD 80GB
as
primary master.

Some examples of why one would need over 40GB are A/V rendering, editing,
and saving. I do this along with keeping four different weekly backups of
3
operating system partitions, 5 logical partitions with various install
software, past and current drivers, MS Updates, and personal files in
image
format. All these on the first hard drive, and 4 other hard drives
connected to the system via scsi or pci adapter ide interface card.

Am not using any overlay. Onboard bios is 48 bit capable. After trouble
with latest fdisk on the 200GB hard drive, used the WD
partitioning/formatting software that comes with the retail hard drive.
One
partition is 99GB formatted, other is 82GB formatted. Both FAT32. No
problems writing or reading to these partitions in Win98SE. Have every
update MS ever put out on this system including MS Update unadvertised
stuff
like the USB 2.0 update.

Not using MS scandisk or defrag on either of the noted partitions. Rather
using Diskeeper Home Edition 8.0 to care for those partitions. Files are
very large so defragging is not terribly important anyway.

Am puzzled by USB or Firewire interface hard drives. I have a Firewire
interface box with a 60GB drive that I use with another PC. Does the box
itself contain the "bios" for interpreting the CHS data, or does that
occur
from the PC itself? Believe this was the interface the original poster
was
speaking of. The answer to this would lead to the possibility of using a
HD
160 or bigger capacity hard drive using the appropriate partitioning and
formatting software, and partition/file maintenance tools. Acknowledging
that MS fdisk, either version and accompanying scandisk and defrag are not
suitable for this.
"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
AFAICT the drive size problem won't arise with the correct controller,
but
the partition size will be a problem unless there are updated drivers
available for W98. However, this is far from clear, and it's quite
possible
that the drive size is a problem, even with a partition limited to 137Gb,
without the driver update. I believe that a drive that is limited to
137Gb
by jumpers will be OK. This has the advantage of later using the full
capacity when it is upgraded. Also, I don't know what the quality of the
new
drivers is.

I can't see the point in installing drives this size. I can't use 40Gb.
Perhaps some people have special requirements.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
Hi Jeff,

I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got from
the
W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what
counts--that
using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan
on
buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it
myself.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98

That is a very smart strategy. Going off the end of a disk and wrapping to
a lower address is indeed a very nasty error.

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
MS utilities like FDISK and Scandisk and Defrag never contemplated drives
of
this size, and are likely to have problems even if the operating system
doesn't. Also, be aware that in the past disk problem with large drives
have been hidden until some specific access (eg, to a particular CHS
combination) occurs. If this caused some other part of the disk to be
overwritten then data loss can occur, and it might not be immediately
obvious. I don't know whether or not this type of failure is what Ron's
contact was referring to, but it's possible. The file system would appear
OK, but 'random' sectors in the middle of a file would be overwritten with
data from another file - it's a nasty type of error.

If I was running this system I would be taking several precautions. For
instance, I would be concerned about accessing any partition other than
the
primary partition from a DOS boot. Also, I would be careful that no part
of
the Windows boot process accessed anything other than the primary
partition.
For instance, I would not want the swap file anywhere but C, because I
don't
know if swap file access could occur before a required driver was
installed
This may be over-cautious, but the warnings are there and they must have
some basis.

My comment about not using this much space was based on the idea that if I
ran any process that could use it (such as AV) then I would want to be
running a very fast machine, and if I was running a machine that fast I
would be running W2K or XP with NTFS, and the question would become a
non-issue.

A firewire or similar interface will have its own routines equivalent to
the
BIOS procedures in a standard IDE-enabled PC. Note that the BIOS only
enters into the problem at all because W9x chooses to use BIOS routines
for
disk access. Other operating systems do not use the BIOS in this way, and
don't have the BIOS problems that Windows 9x does. SCSI drives used the
standard BIOS extension procedure to 'enhance' the BIOS functionality of a
standard PC. This means that DOS and Windows 9x can boot to and use SCSI
drives without knowing anything about SCSI (although Windows 9x can use
SCSI
drivers if installed). I think that firewire does not operate like this,
although it could, in theory, if the manufacturer wanted. That's an
interesting topic to research. But since the built-in PC BIOS is becoming
irrelevant for advanced operating systems, manufacturers are not too
interested in implementing the product in this way. Therefore, the usable
capacity in this type of drive is dependant on the functionality in the
device drivers, as affected by any inherent problems in Windows 9x.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
...
Read all the entire post and responses to date down to yours. Am using
a
WD
200GB drive on a motherboard ide controller as primary slave to a WD
80GB
as
primary master.

Some examples of why one would need over 40GB are A/V rendering,
editing,
and saving. I do this along with keeping four different weekly backups
of
3
operating system partitions, 5 logical partitions with various install
software, past and current drivers, MS Updates, and personal files in
image
format. All these on the first hard drive, and 4 other hard drives
connected to the system via scsi or pci adapter ide interface card.

Am not using any overlay. Onboard bios is 48 bit capable. After
trouble
with latest fdisk on the 200GB hard drive, used the WD
partitioning/formatting software that comes with the retail hard drive.
One
partition is 99GB formatted, other is 82GB formatted. Both FAT32. No
problems writing or reading to these partitions in Win98SE. Have every
update MS ever put out on this system including MS Update unadvertised
stuff
like the USB 2.0 update.

Not using MS scandisk or defrag on either of the noted partitions.
Rather
using Diskeeper Home Edition 8.0 to care for those partitions. Files
are
very large so defragging is not terribly important anyway.

Am puzzled by USB or Firewire interface hard drives. I have a Firewire
interface box with a 60GB drive that I use with another PC. Does the
box
itself contain the "bios" for interpreting the CHS data, or does that
occur
from the PC itself? Believe this was the interface the original poster
was
speaking of. The answer to this would lead to the possibility of using
a
HD
160 or bigger capacity hard drive using the appropriate partitioning and
formatting software, and partition/file maintenance tools.
Acknowledging
that MS fdisk, either version and accompanying scandisk and defrag are
not
suitable for this.
"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
AFAICT the drive size problem won't arise with the correct controller,
but
the partition size will be a problem unless there are updated drivers
available for W98. However, this is far from clear, and it's quite
possible
that the drive size is a problem, even with a partition limited to
137Gb,
without the driver update. I believe that a drive that is limited to
137Gb
by jumpers will be OK. This has the advantage of later using the full
capacity when it is upgraded. Also, I don't know what the quality of
the
new
drivers is.

I can't see the point in installing drives this size. I can't use 40Gb.
Perhaps some people have special requirements.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
Hi Jeff,

I checked with BrianB some time ago about this and the word he got
from
the
W98 people is the disk size, not the partition size, is what
counts--that
using a drive over 137 gb can result in data loss. I don't ever plan
on
buying a drive this big so I guess I will never be able to test it
myself.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98