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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
You can put as large capacity hard drive in the PC it can handle. As long
as your total files seen by 98 do not exceed or approach 128GB, no problem. The number or size of partitions don't matter in this context. An extended partition is simply a container for logical partitions, has no bearing. MS dual boot relies on one partition c: for boot files, the remainder can be placed elsewhere. -- Jonny "Pat" wrote in message ... Hi Ron, I've been trying to help a woman in alt.windows98. She has a Maxtor 160GB drive but doesn't want to update the OS (Win 98 FE) for a drive larger than 137GB. Somehow she was able to partition and format the drive to the full 160GB using Fdisk and the format utility. Now she wants to limit the size of the drive to under 137GB (128GiB). She has a 43GB C: and logical drives D, E, and F inside an extended partition. If she deletes the F: drive she will be under the limit. The question is; will having the extended partition going past the 137GB limit cause problems? I haven't seen anything on the web relating to this. She said it took several hours to do the partition and format and would rather not have to do it again to get the "above 137GB space" out of the extended partition. Also, a secondary question on a related issue, she wants to install W2000 at a later date. I know nothing about W2000. Can it be installed inside the FAT Ext Part on the space left by the F: drive and dual booted? Or will it need a primary partition, as I suspect, outside the FAT ext part. Will it dual boot with W98? Can it be on a drive other than C:? If you like you can read our discussion on alt.windows98. -- Pat |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
"Pat" wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:15:49 -0500, "Jonny" wrote: You can put as large capacity hard drive in the PC it can handle. As long as your total files seen by 98 do not exceed or approach 128GB, no problem. The number or size of partitions don't matter in this context. An extended partition is simply a container for logical partitions, has no bearing. MS dual boot relies on one partition c: for boot files, the remainder can be placed elsewhere. Thanks for the help. She deleted the extra partition and all is running as it should. Umm, at the moment, anyway........ -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+ http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
A source at MS told me that W98 does not support hard drives larger than 137
gb regardless of how they are partitioned and that data loss is possible when a partition starts to approach being full. This site details a work around; however, I cannot vouch for it as I don't have a drive that large. http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm -- 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 "Pat" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:48:09 -0500, "glee" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:15:49 -0500, "Jonny" wrote: You can put as large capacity hard drive in the PC it can handle. As long as your total files seen by 98 do not exceed or approach 128GB, no problem. The number or size of partitions don't matter in this context. An extended partition is simply a container for logical partitions, has no bearing. MS dual boot relies on one partition c: for boot files, the remainder can be placed elsewhere. Thanks for the help. She deleted the extra partition and all is running as it should. Umm, at the moment, anyway........ Would you care to elaborate? -- Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
Yes. I am repeating what I was told by a MS source and I cannot speak to
Seagate's procedures as I do not have a hard drive big enough to experiment. I throw the info out so the person can "error" on the side of caution and keep good back ups or upgrade to XP. -- 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 "Pat" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:16:13 -0600, "Ron Badour" wrote: A source at MS told me that W98 does not support hard drives larger than 137 gb regardless of how they are partitioned and that data loss is possible when a partition starts to approach being full. This site details a work around; however, I cannot vouch for it as I don't have a drive that large. http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm Are you saying that a 160GB drive that has only 130GB partitioned and formatted is at risk, even though the remaining space is not partitioned, not formatted, and is unavailable for use in W98. If this is the case, then Seagate (and probably others) has made a grave error with their partitioning and formatting software since that is what it does when used on a W98 machine. It will not allow use of the drive beyond 137GB. The remaining space is left unused and unavailable. -- Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
Please read the last sentence in the "caution" on the bottom of the weblink
you provided. This is the problem at hand. Not the partitioning or otherwise. My own experiences with same show same results. -- Jonny "Ron Badour" wrote in message ... A source at MS told me that W98 does not support hard drives larger than 137 gb regardless of how they are partitioned and that data loss is possible when a partition starts to approach being full. This site details a work around; however, I cannot vouch for it as I don't have a drive that large. http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm -- 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 "Pat" wrote in message ... On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:48:09 -0500, "glee" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:15:49 -0500, "Jonny" wrote: You can put as large capacity hard drive in the PC it can handle. As long as your total files seen by 98 do not exceed or approach 128GB, no problem. The number or size of partitions don't matter in this context. An extended partition is simply a container for logical partitions, has no bearing. MS dual boot relies on one partition c: for boot files, the remainder can be placed elsewhere. Thanks for the help. She deleted the extra partition and all is running as it should. Umm, at the moment, anyway........ Would you care to elaborate? -- Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
"Pat" wrote in message
... On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:39:32 -0500, "Jonny" wrote: Please read the last sentence in the "caution" on the bottom of the weblink you provided. This is the problem at hand. Not the partitioning or otherwise. My own experiences with same show same results. That is what I thought was the situation. As long as total data is less than 137Gb (128GiB) the problem isn't an issue. As I understand it, even having the drive formatted to over 137GB isn't a problem as long as the total data on the drive is less than 137GB. Obviously, formatting to less than 137GB insures that the total data will be less than this limit. This is a different problem than running ScanDisk and Defrag on large partitions. Per Ron Martell's post of a couple weeks ago, the ScanDisk and Defrag issue has to due with the number of clusters in a partition not the actual size of the partition. Although, as I understand it, there is a 120GB limit on ScanDisk and Defrag regardless of cluster size or cluster count. -- Pat Neither Ron can't really confirm what I'm saying about this. MS has been terribly quiet about it for some reason. This has me baffled as they are usually up front about things like this. Am not expecting a fix, but MS acknowledging the problem would make it easier for people to believe me when I state the problem. Am defragging with Diskeeper. The only hard drive I have that may present the 128GB data problem is 200GB, have repartitioned and formatted NTFS type 3 for XP use. This is the hard drive I found the problem with 98 and ME. Tried all kinds of partition sizes, even two partitions FAT32 totallying120GB, and remainder NTFS type 3, didn't solve it. -- Jonny |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
-- @---}-- Laura..... Liverpool, England "Jonny" wrote in message ... : "Pat" wrote in message : ... : On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:39:32 -0500, "Jonny" : wrote: : : Please read the last sentence in the "caution" on the bottom of the : weblink : you provided. This is the problem at hand. Not the partitioning or : otherwise. : My own experiences with same show same results. : : : That is what I thought was the situation. As long as total data is less : than 137Gb (128GiB) the problem isn't an issue. As I understand it, even : having the drive formatted to over 137GB isn't a problem as long as the : total data on the drive is less than 137GB. Obviously, formatting to : less than 137GB insures that the total data will be less than this : limit. : : This is a different problem than running ScanDisk and Defrag on large : partitions. Per Ron Martell's post of a couple weeks ago, the ScanDisk : and Defrag issue has to due with the number of clusters in a partition : not the actual size of the partition. Although, as I understand it, : there is a 120GB limit on ScanDisk and Defrag regardless of cluster size : or cluster count. : : -- : Pat : : : Neither Ron can't really confirm what I'm saying about this. MS has been : terribly quiet about it for some reason. This has me baffled as they are : usually up front about things like this. Am not expecting a fix, but MS : acknowledging the problem would make it easier for people to believe me when : I state the problem. : : Am defragging with Diskeeper. The only hard drive I have that may present : the 128GB data problem is 200GB, have repartitioned and formatted NTFS type : 3 for XP use. This is the hard drive I found the problem with 98 and ME. : Tried all kinds of partition sizes, even two partitions FAT32 : totallying120GB, and remainder NTFS type 3, didn't solve it. : -- : Jonny : : |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
"Jonny" wrote:
Neither Ron can't really confirm what I'm saying about this. MS has been terribly quiet about it for some reason. This has me baffled as they are usually up front about things like this. Am not expecting a fix, but MS acknowledging the problem would make it easier for people to believe me when I state the problem. Am defragging with Diskeeper. The only hard drive I have that may present the 128GB data problem is 200GB, have repartitioned and formatted NTFS type 3 for XP use. This is the hard drive I found the problem with 98 and ME. Tried all kinds of partition sizes, even two partitions FAT32 totallying120GB, and remainder NTFS type 3, didn't solve it. If you read through the various articles in the Microsoft Knowledge Base regarding Scandisk and Defrag you can put together the picture from the bits and pieces mentioned in the different articles. The origin of the problem seems to be that Scandisk and Defrag were written in such a way that there are limits on the size of internal tables etc. The operations of these utilities requires that they construct a table in memory with one entry for each cluster on the drive, and when there are more than 4.1 million (2^22) total clusters the size of the required table exceeds the capabilities of the program. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Martell, question on 160GB drives and Win 98
"Ron Martell" wrote in message
... "Jonny" wrote: Neither Ron can't really confirm what I'm saying about this. MS has been terribly quiet about it for some reason. This has me baffled as they are usually up front about things like this. Am not expecting a fix, but MS acknowledging the problem would make it easier for people to believe me when I state the problem. Am defragging with Diskeeper. The only hard drive I have that may present the 128GB data problem is 200GB, have repartitioned and formatted NTFS type 3 for XP use. This is the hard drive I found the problem with 98 and ME. Tried all kinds of partition sizes, even two partitions FAT32 totallying120GB, and remainder NTFS type 3, didn't solve it. If you read through the various articles in the Microsoft Knowledge Base regarding Scandisk and Defrag you can put together the picture from the bits and pieces mentioned in the different articles. The origin of the problem seems to be that Scandisk and Defrag were written in such a way that there are limits on the size of internal tables etc. The operations of these utilities requires that they construct a table in memory with one entry for each cluster on the drive, and when there are more than 4.1 million (2^22) total clusters the size of the required table exceeds the capabilities of the program. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca Understood. The problem I'm speaking of occurs without use of defrag or scandisk. And, requires further association with the partition and filesystem capabilities of the OS. Too much assumption. MS needs to do a KB article on this problem specifically. Again, am not expecting a fix, just a MS official explanation. They will probably remain silent as the support time period is soon to expire is my personal estimation. -- Jonny |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|