Largest HD under 98SE

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:42:22 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

File system limits are imposed by the file system driver.

Which I presume you are referring to ESDI_506.PDR, which given a drive
formatted with 32kb cluster size and 4.177 million clusters results in
a volume size of 137 gb which is identical to the 28-bit sector
addressing limitation of ESDI_506.PDR (2^28 x 512 bytes/sector = 137
gb).

Do you physically remove this driver, or hope that it won't be
invoked? Have you tested in Safe Mode?

It's not clear to me if a FAT entry stores a sector value, or a
cluster value.

Cluster value. There are three levels of addressing:
- physical sectors, at system (partition table) level
- logical sectors, at file system structure level
- clusters, at data space level

IOW, the partition is found via physical sector addressing, then the
OS's logical sector addressing is imposed, with the zeroth sector
being the start of that volume's boot record. This is how the OS
finds FATs and root directory.

Thereafter, directory entries and FAT table entries use the same
cluster addresses. If all the directory entry "start of chain" values
plus all those non-special values in one of the two duplicate FATs
were combined, no address should appear twice - if so, then a
crosslink is present from that address onwards.

Some other file system structures, e.g. reserved sectors, will be
addressed in logical sectors, not clusters.

Some tools and environments may lock down a file and then navigate
that file as a reserved space using different logic. This may apply
to swap file management?

To actually access disk, the drivers have to bump down from file
system adstraction to the physical disk. The drivers in use during a
Windows GUI runtime may not be the ones in use in Safe Mode, or during
the DOS mode phase of GUI boot (e.g. spontaneous Scandisk in Win98xx),
or where DOS mode has been booted instead.

Even within something like Scandisk, what happens may depend on what
Scandisk is trying to do or fix. It's a high-risk YMMV game.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| OK, and thanks for the info here, MEB. So to make a long story short,
it
| looks like if you're using Win98SE and FAT32, you will NOT be able to use
a
| DRIVE (and not just a partition) larger than 127 GB without some special
| "tricks". And, I ain't going that route! (As in, thanks, but no
| thanks. :-)
|
| 120 GB drives are still available, and are MUCH more than I need anyways,
so
| it's no big deal over here! But thanks for the references!

Yeah, that's pretty much the "safe zone" short answer, with one more
consideration though.

Another consideration revolves around the type of application and tools one
uses ON those disks/partitions as they may have their own in-built
limitations. Personally, I think this is likely why there may be some
debatable issues related to the disks/partitioning, and why there is no
actual finite answer.
As was shown in this group [and elsewhere], Win98 itself has various
indications of in-built limitations which we can use as representative of
the issue. Such as: the My Documents folder and files limitations issue; the
Outlook default folder issue; and the shell32/kernel replacement issues and
related dll discussions.
These should cause us to think carefully about and attempt to understand
that other programs/applications MAY have in-built limitations which we need
to take under consideration when discussing failures and limitations, and
any corruption issues shown. Likely, these MAY be the actual issue causing
and/or contributing to/compounding that corruption. But don't let this
mislead you either, only you and your specific configuration can determine
the actual limitations relative to your specific configuration.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

|
| MEB wrote:
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| Can someone pse answer this?? TNX!
|
| Bill in Co. wrote:
| I've missed part of this thread, but can I ask this related question
| here?
|
| IF one gets a drive larger than 137 GB, can one still be able to use
it,
| as
| long as one partitions it so no partition is greater than that size?
| OR
| is it that you can't even put it into your system (to even set it up),
| without some special drivers????
|
|
|
| MalcolmO wrote:
| I *think* the 137 GB limit is for any partition *starting* beyond
that
| boundary on the physical drive.
|
| Correct! In Win98, to use anything beyond the 137GB point on a disk,
| one
| MUST have BIOS support and a 48-bit-capable driver, regardless of the
| number or size of partitions on said disk.
|
|
|
| Sorry, thought you might have picked up John's present [03-19-07], I'll
| not
| get technical:
|
| Look here http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm which provides some
relevant
| information which should answer some of your questions.
|
| Here's another non-Microsoft reference:
|
|
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...imitations.htm
| http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...e_barriers.htm
| which is non-technical discussion, so perhaps providing easier reading
and
| understanding.
| You can also back check this group as SEVERAL discussions have been
done
| in
| the last year or so here.
|
| There are several other/after market drivers available for SATA and/or
| large hard drives, if your hard drive does not come with 98 support.
Some
| are free while others are not.
| Check MSFN for an additional Win98 discussion related to the issue if
you
| need more information, and a free driver posted on MGDX [ 48BITLBA.EXE
| which
| contains a modified version of esdi_506.pdr ].
|
| A primary consideration is always the BIOS and what it supports via its
| translation [such as LBA], and other hardware related issues: such as a
| controller card with a supplied driver which provides large drive
support
| or
| its onboard controller [is it Brian that posts a recommended card?]; or
a
| program such as the Intel Application Accelerator which provided larger
| drive support. Then the issue becomes the partition size [though there
HAS
| been disagreement whether there may still be potential issues].
|
| As for large non-SATA [IDE now called PATA] the limit can also be
| somewhat
| overcome with a drive overlay program [ sometimes the only way, though
NOT
| recommended ] and proper partitioning. Though even then limitations come
| into play, revolving around BIOS/hardware support, and OS and tool
| limitations. The maximum safe partition limit is generally stated as
being
| 127 gig.
|
| One can't really hit that 2.1(2) to 8 terebyte [depending upon who you
| read/believe and the OS] under Fat32. The 98 OS contains its own file
| handling limitations [just as XP and Vista do] which, when compromised,
| causes failures. Too many other things running, too much overhead. To
come
| anywhere near that, one would need [for practical purposes] a file
SERVER
| {specifically designed for that purpose} running Fat32.
|
| If you're being thrown off by the 98Guy segment of this discussion;
that
| revolves around NOT using a driver in Win98, but using DOS Mode
| compatibility and BIOS support "ONLY" [when using SATA drives], so don't
| mistake that separate and distinct issue pursuant THAT discussion.
|
| --
| MEB
| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
| BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
| world"
| http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
| for
| general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world
|
| "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
| Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
| if
| nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
| Or to put it another way:
| Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
| but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
| _______________
|
|

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:23:38 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and extends to
250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?

bart Maybe /bart

Best practice with am 137G HD in an unsafe OS is to jumper the HD to
limit it to 137G, if the physical HD has that feature.

Next-best is to keep all partitions and volumes within the first 137G
of the physical capacity.

I am not sure if the second will always be 100% safe.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Trsut me, I won't make a mistake!
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

MEB wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
OK, and thanks for the info here, MEB. So to make a long story short,
it
looks like if you're using Win98SE and FAT32, you will NOT be able to use
a
DRIVE (and not just a partition) larger than 127 GB without some special
"tricks". And, I ain't going that route! (As in, thanks, but no
thanks. :-)

120 GB drives are still available, and are MUCH more than I need anyways,
so
it's no big deal over here! But thanks for the references!

Yeah, that's pretty much the "safe zone" short answer, with one more
consideration though.

Another consideration revolves around the type of application and tools
one
uses ON those disks/partitions as they may have their own in-built
limitations. Personally, I think this is likely why there may be some
debatable issues related to the disks/partitioning, and why there is no
actual finite answer.

So it seems.

As was shown in this group [and elsewhere], Win98 itself has various
indications of in-built limitations which we can use as representative of
the issue. Such as: the My Documents folder and files limitations issue;
the
Outlook default folder issue; and the shell32/kernel replacement issues
and
related dll discussions.
These should cause us to think carefully about and attempt to understand
that other programs/applications MAY have in-built limitations which we
need
to take under consideration when discussing failures and limitations, and
any corruption issues shown. Likely, these MAY be the actual issue
causing
and/or contributing to/compounding that corruption. But don't let this
mislead you either, only you and your specific configuration can determine
the actual limitations relative to your specific configuration.

OK. And I do use a lot of those tools, too. (I even remember the "loss"
of being able to use some of my old tools when I went from FAT 16 to FAT 32!
:-).

For me, I don't mind living on the edge a bit with SOME things (to wit, I do
play a bit with the registry, and most recently with that damn index.dat TIF
file corruption problem with the Wikipedia site).

But I have never used, and won't use, things like disk overlay managers
(that need to load at bootup), and disk compression - thanks, but no thank!
In that respect, I want my system "clean" and "non-problematic" (under any
circumstances) - well, at least at that level. I've got enough to mess
with without having to deal with that potential fallout. :-)



--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________


MEB wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Can someone pse answer this?? TNX!

Bill in Co. wrote:
I've missed part of this thread, but can I ask this related question
here?

IF one gets a drive larger than 137 GB, can one still be able to use
it,
as long as one partitions it so no partition is greater than that
size? OR
is it that you can't even put it into your system (to even set it up),
without some special drivers????



MalcolmO wrote:
I *think* the 137 GB limit is for any partition *starting* beyond
that
boundary on the physical drive.

Correct! In Win98, to use anything beyond the 137GB point on a disk,
one
MUST have BIOS support and a 48-bit-capable driver, regardless of the
number or size of partitions on said disk.



Sorry, thought you might have picked up John's present [03-19-07], I'll
not
get technical:

Look here http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm which provides some
relevant
information which should answer some of your questions.

Here's another non-Microsoft reference:



http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...imitations.htm
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...e_barriers.htm
which is non-technical discussion, so perhaps providing easier reading
and
understanding.
You can also back check this group as SEVERAL discussions have been
done in
the last year or so here.

There are several other/after market drivers available for SATA and/or
large hard drives, if your hard drive does not come with 98 support.
Some
are free while others are not.
Check MSFN for an additional Win98 discussion related to the issue if
you
need more information, and a free driver posted on MGDX [ 48BITLBA.EXE
which
contains a modified version of esdi_506.pdr ].

A primary consideration is always the BIOS and what it supports via its
translation [such as LBA], and other hardware related issues: such as a
controller card with a supplied driver which provides large drive
support or
its onboard controller [is it Brian that posts a recommended card?]; or
a
program such as the Intel Application Accelerator which provided larger
drive support. Then the issue becomes the partition size [though there
HAS
been disagreement whether there may still be potential issues].

As for large non-SATA [IDE now called PATA] the limit can also be
somewhat
overcome with a drive overlay program [ sometimes the only way, though
NOT
recommended ] and proper partitioning. Though even then limitations come
into play, revolving around BIOS/hardware support, and OS and tool
limitations. The maximum safe partition limit is generally stated as
being
127 gig.

One can't really hit that 2.1(2) to 8 terebyte [depending upon who you
read/believe and the OS] under Fat32. The 98 OS contains its own file
handling limitations [just as XP and Vista do] which, when compromised,
causes failures. Too many other things running, too much overhead. To
come
anywhere near that, one would need [for practical purposes] a file
SERVER
{specifically designed for that purpose} running Fat32.

If you're being thrown off by the 98Guy segment of this discussion;
that
revolves around NOT using a driver in Win98, but using DOS Mode
compatibility and BIOS support "ONLY" [when using SATA drives], so don't
mistake that separate and distinct issue pursuant THAT discussion.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

Thanks for the clarification, Chris.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:23:38 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and extends
to
250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?

bart Maybe /bart

Best practice with am 137G HD in an unsafe OS is to jumper the HD to
limit it to 137G, if the physical HD has that feature.

Next-best is to keep all partitions and volumes within the first 137G
of the physical capacity.

I am not sure if the second will always be 100% safe.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Trsut me, I won't make a mistake!
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

My understanding is that if the system supports 48-bit LBA properly and
everything is correctly installed, the location of the partition won't
matter. The only remaining limitation in that case is the partition size.

Of course, that conclusion is somewhat self fulfilling, as, by definition,
if there is a problem with that configuration then 48-bit LBA wasn't
properly supported after all.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and extends
to 250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?

Ahh, so a rule of thumb we don't really have. Just more "if/thens". Oh well.

Myself, I'm trying to figure out how to make this old AT board recognize
more than 8GB, g. (Well, it doesn't recognize a 60GB drive properly,
anyway.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
My understanding is that if the system supports 48-bit LBA properly and
everything is correctly installed, the location of the partition won't
matter. The only remaining limitation in that case is the partition size.

Of course, that conclusion is somewhat self fulfilling, as, by definition,
if there is a problem with that configuration then 48-bit LBA wasn't
properly supported after all.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and extends
to 250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
| Ahh, so a rule of thumb we don't really have. Just more "if/thens". Oh
well.
|
| Myself, I'm trying to figure out how to make this old AT board recognize
| more than 8GB, g. (Well, it doesn't recognize a 60GB drive properly,
| anyway.)
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com

Well, how about some info on that mother board, BIOS version, and the hard
drive your attempting to use.

PERhaps, someone can help with that situational configuration.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

|
| "Jeff Richards" wrote in message
| ...
| My understanding is that if the system supports 48-bit LBA properly and
| everything is correctly installed, the location of the partition won't
| matter. The only remaining limitation in that case is the partition
size.
|
| Of course, that conclusion is somewhat self fulfilling, as, by
definition,
| if there is a problem with that configuration then 48-bit LBA wasn't
| properly supported after all.
| --
| Jeff Richards
| MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
| "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
| ...
| But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and
extends
| to 250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?
|
|
|
|
|

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| MEB wrote:
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| OK, and thanks for the info here, MEB. So to make a long story
short,
| it
| looks like if you're using Win98SE and FAT32, you will NOT be able to
use
| a
| DRIVE (and not just a partition) larger than 127 GB without some
special
| "tricks". And, I ain't going that route! (As in, thanks, but no
| thanks. :-)

Well, they're not exactly tricks, per se, but attempts to deal with the
limitations of BIOS and/or system.
For instance, the esdi_506 was created because Microsoft SHOULD have
created this during the 98/ME support period, but did not.
There really wasn't any reason for not doing so, OTHER THAN Microsoft's
attempt to move users to OSs which did supply that support. Even then,
Microsoft may have had to make a hotfix to provide that support properly.

|
| 120 GB drives are still available, and are MUCH more than I need
anyways,
| so
| it's no big deal over here! But thanks for the references!
|
| Yeah, that's pretty much the "safe zone" short answer, with one more
| consideration though.
|
| Another consideration revolves around the type of application and tools
| one
| uses ON those disks/partitions as they may have their own in-built
| limitations. Personally, I think this is likely why there may be some
| debatable issues related to the disks/partitioning, and why there is no
| actual finite answer.
|
| So it seems.
|
| As was shown in this group [and elsewhere], Win98 itself has various
| indications of in-built limitations which we can use as representative
of
| the issue. Such as: the My Documents folder and files limitations issue;
| the
| Outlook default folder issue; and the shell32/kernel replacement issues
| and
| related dll discussions.
| These should cause us to think carefully about and attempt to
understand
| that other programs/applications MAY have in-built limitations which we
| need
| to take under consideration when discussing failures and limitations,
and
| any corruption issues shown. Likely, these MAY be the actual issue
| causing
| and/or contributing to/compounding that corruption. But don't let this
| mislead you either, only you and your specific configuration can
determine
| the actual limitations relative to your specific configuration.
|
| OK. And I do use a lot of those tools, too. (I even remember the
"loss"
| of being able to use some of my old tools when I went from FAT 16 to FAT
32!
| :-).
|
| For me, I don't mind living on the edge a bit with SOME things (to wit, I
do
| play a bit with the registry, and most recently with that damn index.dat
TIF
| file corruption problem with the Wikipedia site).
|
| But I have never used, and won't use, things like disk overlay managers
| (that need to load at bootup), and disk compression - thanks, but no
thank!
| In that respect, I want my system "clean" and "non-problematic" (under any
| circumstances) - well, at least at that level. I've got enough to mess
| with without having to deal with that potential fallout. :-)
|

Well, we all have those defunct tools. Gees I have hundreds of floppies
filed with these old tools I tested or used which I should get rid of, or
burn to CDROM. Occasionally I pull one of these old "favorite" programs out
just to test it on something,,, sometimes regretting that I did.

ANYWAY,,, if there is the least question concerning something you might
use, use something else. This 98 OS has hundreds of thousands of
programs/applications that do safely work within it, so there is no real
reason to even attempt to use something that may cause problems.

AND, regardless of the resistance to Linux, should it be necessary to use
it for older systems [and these present XP systems in the future] with no
driver support for 98, yet able to run it in the virtual environment within
Linux without the massive bloat of XP or 2000, 98 may survive for another
dozen years.

|
|
| --
| MEB
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________
|
|
| MEB wrote:
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| Can someone pse answer this?? TNX!
|
| Bill in Co. wrote:
| I've missed part of this thread, but can I ask this related question
| here?
|
| IF one gets a drive larger than 137 GB, can one still be able to use
| it,
| as long as one partitions it so no partition is greater than that
| size? OR
| is it that you can't even put it into your system (to even set it
up),
| without some special drivers????
|
|
|
| MalcolmO wrote:
| I *think* the 137 GB limit is for any partition *starting* beyond
| that
| boundary on the physical drive.
|
| Correct! In Win98, to use anything beyond the 137GB point on a
disk,
| one
| MUST have BIOS support and a 48-bit-capable driver, regardless of
the
| number or size of partitions on said disk.
|
|
|
| Sorry, thought you might have picked up John's present [03-19-07],
I'll
| not
| get technical:
|
| Look here http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm which provides some
| relevant
| information which should answer some of your questions.
|
| Here's another non-Microsoft reference:
|
|
|
|
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...imitations.htm
| http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...e_barriers.htm
| which is non-technical discussion, so perhaps providing easier reading
| and
| understanding.
| You can also back check this group as SEVERAL discussions have been
| done in
| the last year or so here.
|
| There are several other/after market drivers available for SATA
and/or
| large hard drives, if your hard drive does not come with 98 support.
| Some
| are free while others are not.
| Check MSFN for an additional Win98 discussion related to the issue if
| you
| need more information, and a free driver posted on MGDX [ 48BITLBA.EXE
| which
| contains a modified version of esdi_506.pdr ].
|
| A primary consideration is always the BIOS and what it supports via
its
| translation [such as LBA], and other hardware related issues: such as
a
| controller card with a supplied driver which provides large drive
| support or
| its onboard controller [is it Brian that posts a recommended card?];
or
| a
| program such as the Intel Application Accelerator which provided
larger
| drive support. Then the issue becomes the partition size [though there
| HAS
| been disagreement whether there may still be potential issues].
|
| As for large non-SATA [IDE now called PATA] the limit can also be
| somewhat
| overcome with a drive overlay program [ sometimes the only way, though
| NOT
| recommended ] and proper partitioning. Though even then limitations
come
| into play, revolving around BIOS/hardware support, and OS and tool
| limitations. The maximum safe partition limit is generally stated as
| being
| 127 gig.
|
| One can't really hit that 2.1(2) to 8 terebyte [depending upon who
you
| read/believe and the OS] under Fat32. The 98 OS contains its own file
| handling limitations [just as XP and Vista do] which, when
compromised,
| causes failures. Too many other things running, too much overhead. To
| come
| anywhere near that, one would need [for practical purposes] a file
| SERVER
| {specifically designed for that purpose} running Fat32.
|
| If you're being thrown off by the 98Guy segment of this discussion;
| that
| revolves around NOT using a driver in Win98, but using DOS Mode
| compatibility and BIOS support "ONLY" [when using SATA drives], so
don't
| mistake that separate and distinct issue pursuant THAT discussion.
|
| --
| MEB
| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
| BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the
"real
| world"
| http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion
group
| for
| general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world
|
| "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
| Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business
as
| if
| nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
| Or to put it another way:
| Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
| but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue
one.
| _______________
|
|

When I'm less busy, perhaps. No big deal. I've got a couple of drives that
work in the machine, and it's for testing, anyway.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" meb@not wrote in message
...



"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
| Ahh, so a rule of thumb we don't really have. Just more "if/thens". Oh
well.
|
| Myself, I'm trying to figure out how to make this old AT board recognize
| more than 8GB, g. (Well, it doesn't recognize a 60GB drive properly,
| anyway.)
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com

Well, how about some info on that mother board, BIOS version, and the hard
drive your attempting to use.

PERhaps, someone can help with that situational configuration.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/
BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real
world"
http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group
for
general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world

"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as
if
nothing had happen." Winston Churchill
Or to put it another way:
Morpheus can offer you the two pills;
but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one.
_______________

|
| "Jeff Richards" wrote in message
| ...
| My understanding is that if the system supports 48-bit LBA properly
and
| everything is correctly installed, the location of the partition won't
| matter. The only remaining limitation in that case is the partition
size.
|
| Of course, that conclusion is somewhat self fulfilling, as, by
definition,
| if there is a problem with that configuration then 48-bit LBA wasn't
| properly supported after all.
| --
| Jeff Richards
| MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
| "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
| ...
| But say I have a partition that starts at 120GB on the drive, and
extends
| to 250 GB. Does any of the data on that partition become vulnerable?
|
|
|
|
|