PDA

View Full Version : Can I use a 160 GB hard disk on a Gigabyte Titan 8IEXP with Win98SE?


Peltio
September 30th 04, 06:47 PM
Hi,

I own a Gigabyte P4 Titan 8IEXP mobo, with 845E Intel chipset and onboard
Promise 20276 raid controller.
Pentium4 1.6A, 256 MB ram, 80GB harddisk, DVD, CD burner.

I know that the onboard Promise raid controller (20276) allows for hard
disks greater than 127 MB, but I wanted to use the 160 GB disk (Hitachi or
Samsung) as the primary hard disk attaching it to the IDE connector.
(my 80 GB IBM Deskstar hd has recently died, after 2 yrs and 4 months of
duty : ((( )
The Intel Application Accelerator drivers that came with the mainboard,
later updated to version 2.30, allows for disks bigger tha 127 GB too, but I
was wondering if I could experience problems when writing data to disk while
in DOS, for example. (or in a different operating system not accessing to
the IAA drivers)

Moreover, will the bios recognize the disk as a 160 GB hd, or will it see
only a part of it?
Do I need a Windows partitioning software to partition the disk correctly (I
take it that FDISK won't go beyon the 127 GB limit, even if I am going to
slice it in chuncks no bigger than 30 GB).

If, during formatting, I let the extra space exceeding 127 GB *unused*, can
I avoid all of the problems associated with the 127 GB barrier and
forgetting about drivers and controllers, just like having a 120 GB hard
disk?

?

Please. anyone who has some experience with 160 GB hard disk on old
motherboards with win98s, step formwand and speak out! : )

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Peltio

willbill
September 30th 04, 09:32 PM
Peltio wrote:

> Re: Can I use a 160 GB hard disk on a Gigabyte Titan 8IEXP with Win98SE?

vcom's system commander 8.1 sez 98SE can only use
the 1st 64GB of a disk (even if your h/w sees the
whole disk)

fwiw, i used the included (free if you get the CD)
partition commander to define about 75GB in
5 fat32 partitions on a 160GB drive, the last of
which was 30GB. i was able to use that last partition,
but my hunch is that that was coz i only put less
than 1GB of data on it

i then used their partition commander to resize
all 5 partitions to 63GB

it was the single most amazing thing i've yet
done on partitioning. :)

see: www.v-com.com and get the CD (don't download)

bill

ps: imho, vcom is what norton was 10 or 15
years ago, before getting sucked into symantec

willbill
October 1st 04, 07:11 PM
willbill wrote:
> Peltio wrote:
>
>> Re: Can I use a 160 GB hard disk on a Gigabyte Titan 8IEXP with Win98SE?
>
>
> vcom's system commander 8.1 sez 98SE can only use
> the 1st 64GB of a disk (even if your h/w sees the
> whole disk)
>
> fwiw, i used the included (free if you get the CD)
> partition commander to define about 75GB in
> 5 fat32 partitions on a 160GB drive, the last of
> which was 30GB. i was able to use that last partition,
> but my hunch is that that was coz i only put less
> than 1GB of data on it
>
> i then used their partition commander to resize
> all 5 partitions to 63GB
>
> it was the single most amazing thing i've yet
> done on partitioning. :)
>
> see: www.v-com.com and get the CD (don't download)
>
> bill
>
> ps: imho, vcom is what norton was 10 or 15
> years ago, before getting sucked into symantec


oh, one other thing with 98SE is it (mostly the apps)
doesn't work well with > 512MB of memory. seems to be
mainly (but not only) a antivirus program problem

bill

Peltio
October 2nd 04, 12:08 AM
"willbill" wrote


>>> Re: Can I use a 160 GB hard disk on a Gigabyte Titan 8IEXP with Win98SE?

>> vcom's system commander 8.1 sez 98SE can only use
>> the 1st 64GB of a disk (even if your h/w sees the
>> whole disk)

This seems to be a limitation of the old FDISK program, later overcome with
the WinME version.

>> fwiw, i used the included (free if you get the CD)
>> partition commander to define about 75GB in
>> 5 fat32 partitions on a 160GB drive, the last of
>> which was 30GB. i was able to use that last partition,
>> but my hunch is that that was coz i only put less
>> than 1GB of data on it
>>
>> i then used their partition commander to resize
>> all 5 partitions to 63GB

So you are using only 63 GB of a 160 GB HD?
Seems a lot of wasted space
My old 80 GB hard disk was far from full but I had data in the last
partition, well over the 64 GB limit.
Ther 137 GB limit I am talking about is a limitation of Win98 and WinMe.
The Intel Application Acceleration driver should allow me to use the whole
disk, but I wanted to hear from someone who actually did it and strored for
sure more than 137.4 GB of stuff on the disk. I would not want to find out
it was not feasible at the 138th GB when my last snapshot would overwrite
the MBR : )))))

I am pretty confident that your system could use up to 127 GB (at least, but
prolly even 137 GB) of space.
But please do not try to use it before a full backup of your data : )))
I am willing to reach the 137 GB and maybe letting the remaning space at
Linux disposal.

cheers,
Peltio
invalid addres in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.

willbill
October 3rd 04, 01:32 AM
Peltio wrote:

> "willbill" wrote

>>>> Re: Can I use a 160 GB hard disk on a Gigabyte Titan 8IEXP with Win98SE?

>>> vcom's system commander 8.1 sez 98SE can only use
>>> the 1st 64GB of a disk (even if your h/w sees the
>>> whole disk)

> This seems to be a limitation of the old FDISK program, later overcome with
> the WinME version.


fwiw, i finally ran WinMe recently for about
5 weeks total. what a POS! if you think Win 9x
still has merit (and imo it does), 98SE is still
THE one

you'd be best to avoid using the fdisk and format
that come with 98SE with these new very large
hard drives, which is one reason why i gave reference
to vcom's System Commander and Partition Commander


>>>fwiw, i used the included (free if you get the CD)
>>>partition commander to define about 75GB in
>>>5 fat32 partitions on a 160GB drive, the last of
>>>which was 30GB. i was able to use that last partition,
>>>but my hunch is that that was coz i only put less
>>>than 1GB of data on it
>>>
>>>i then used their partition commander to resize
>>>all 5 partitions to 63GB

> So you are using only 63 GB of a 160 GB HD?
> Seems a lot of wasted space


i'm mid-way with a quad boot setup with
DOS (98!), Win 98SE, Win2000, and eventually Linux

my plan is to get started with DVD under
Win2000 coz that's were the best software is
likely to be, and while you can get around the
4GB file limit (using a 9x OS), i rather like Win2000
and want to get more experience with it, especially
now that it's at patch level 4 <grin>


> My old 80 GB hard disk was far from full but I had data in the last
> partition, well over the 64 GB limit.
> Ther 137 GB limit I am talking about is a limitation of Win98 and WinMe.


that "137" is likely a hardware limit (with
older hardware); if it's also specific to
software (specifically 98SE and WinMe vs.
the 64 that vcom mentioned) i'll
certainly be interested

other than my quote of what vcom has to say in their
very current System Commander manual (i got it 4 weeks ago,
re the 9x OSes (95a, 98SE and WinMe) best used within
the 1st 64GB of new/large hard drives), i'm leary of
trying to pin it down from trial and error coz
it just takes too long and is not worth it

if you wanna define > 64 GB on a large
hard drive for use with 98SE (and the
"cooperative" multi-tasking 98SE apps!),
good luck coz i think you're gonna need it



> The Intel Application Acceleration driver should allow me to use the whole
> disk, but I wanted to hear from someone who actually did it



me too

but i trust vcom enough that i decided
to only define fat32 partitions within
the 1st 63GB of the disk and be done with it

btw, since i don't know what the limits of the
original Win2000 fdisk app is, i plan to initially
use Partition Commander to define a NTFS
partitions on this 1st disk from
63GB-to-136GB (talk about getting gun
shy over the screwy things that happen
when you use old software with new disks
that go beyond what they were designed for...)

once i get it upgraded to SP4 i'll use
Partition Commander to extend the NTFS
partition to 160GB

fwiw, i plan to add a 2nd 160GB later, primarily
as a work area


> I would not want to find out
> it was not feasible at the 138th GB when my last snapshot would overwrite
> the MBR : )))))
>
> I am pretty confident that your system could use up to 127 GB (at least, but
> prolly even 137 GB) of space.
> But please do not try to use it before a full backup of your data : )))


tell me about it. :\

i used the 98SE format command
(at the ">" after a hard boot from a
98SE floppy), to reset the D:\ partition

it wiped out the C:\ partition

jeez louise! :'-(

but it was 3:00AM and i wasn't sure
i was thinking sharp, so i called
it a night figuring that i'd
mistyped the command

but i'd used DOS Ghost to backup the
entire 160GB disk (to another 160GB disk),
so next morning i backed up again from that
and retried the same format command

this time i made sure it was: "format d:\"
from the "a:\>" prompt, and sure enough it once
again wiped out the c:\ partition. :(

since i'd suspected that that might happen,
i'd copied the C:\ partition files and
was back up and running with c:\ within 10 minutes
(using DOS Ghost took about than an hour)

since i only keep files with short names on c:\,
any long names i lost from my simple 10 minute
copy were likely specific to my earier install
of 98SE (to D:\W98)

bill


> I am willing to reach the 137 GB and maybe letting the remaning space at
> Linux disposal.
>
> cheers,
> Peltio
> invalid addres in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.

Peltio
October 3rd 04, 09:40 PM
"willbill" ha scritto

>fwiw, i finally ran WinMe recently for about
>5 weeks total. what a POS! if you think Win 9x
>still has merit (and imo it does), 98SE is still
>THE one

I second that. In fact that's the M$ OS I'm running.
XP is needs too many system resources to convince me to spend the extra
money (even though I've heard it's very stable).

>you'd be best to avoid using the fdisk and format
>that come with 98SE with these new very large
>hard drives,

Yep, I use the updated FDISK and it works fine. Downloaded from M$ site.
I overcames the 64 GB limit of the previous version.
It works fine.


>i'm mid-way with a quad boot setup with
>DOS (98!), Win 98SE, Win2000, and eventually Linux

Are they all on the same physical disk, or did you find a way to boot from
the secondary IDE channel?
I'd like to put a linux on my second hard disk.

>> Ther 137 GB limit I am talking about is a limitation of Win98 and WinMe.
>
>
>that "137" is likely a hardware limit

You're right. It's the 28 bit LBA's limit.
It sets a barrier at 127 GB (127 x 2^30 Bytes) or 137 x 10^9 bytes,
depending on the unit used (1 effective GB = 2^30 B; 1 marketing GB = 10^9
B).
I called it a limitation of Win98 and Me because there are no official
patches to overcome it. There are (I've learned thus far) several
possibilities to make your system able to see the whole disk: the use of a
DDO (every HD manufacturer allows you to download a small program to let you
see the whole disk, and there is a little patch that applies to every system
that costs only 10 bucks), the adoption of Intel's Application Accelerator
(if you happen to have the right Intel chipset), using a suitable integrated
RAID controller, or putting a new controllor board with 48 bit LBA in one of
yours PCI slots.

>other than my quote of what vcom has to say in their
>very current System Commander manual (i got it 4 weeks ago,
>re the 9x OSes (95a, 98SE and WinMe) best used within
>the 1st 64GB of new/large hard drives), i'm leary of
>trying to pin it down from trial and error coz
>it just takes too long and is not worth it

That's perfectly understandable. : )))

>if you wanna define > 64 GB on a large
>hard drive for use with 98SE (and the
>"cooperative" multi-tasking 98SE apps!),
>good luck coz i think you're gonna need it

But I already did it and it worked fine.
Er... okay, the drive died by mechanical failure but that was another
problem... :]
Perhaps the limit shown by VCOM refers to a single partition.
That would make much more sense.
(I have never gone beyond 30 GB per partition)

>this time i made sure it was: "format d:\"
>from the "a:\>" prompt, and sure enough it once
>again wiped out the c:\ partition. :(

I would have gone mad.
Out to seek and destroy BG with a bazooka in less than 30 secs. : )))

cheers,
Peltio
invalid address in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.

willbill
October 4th 04, 12:32 AM
Peltio wrote:

> "willbill" ha scritto

>> i'm mid-way with a quad boot setup with
>> DOS (98!), Win 98SE, Win2000, and eventually Linux


> Are they all on the same physical disk, or did you find a way to
> boot from the secondary IDE channel?


there are two approaches to "multi-boot" PCs:

1. you just swap the primary IDE channel master IDE drive
(and leave everything else the same)

imo, that's gotten a lot easier with these terrific new
round IDE cables, some of which are very robust. i never
liked the slide in tray approach (via a 5.25" front panel
opening on the front of the case) for swaping HD's in/out,
and i liked it less and less especially as IDE moved to
faster transfer rates (100 and 133). it also helps
if you've got a computer case that lends itself to swaping
the primary master hard drive (removable mobo tray and/or
an easily removable HD bracket (many removable brackets
aren't easy to remove once the mobo and components are in),
and which has a light weight door so that you pop off the
door for quick backups (via DOS Ghost) or reasonbly fast
HD swaps (where robust round IDE cables again come in handy)

2. get software that permits a multi-boot setup
without having to do any hard drive swapping.
the one i have long experience with is vcom's
System Commander (see: www.v-com.com), now
at version 8.1

when you use boot manager software is when
you need a *current* book specific to the subject
coz not all OS's will work from other than
the primary channel IDE master drive


> I'd like to put a linux on my second hard disk.


i'm guessing that most (all?) recent Linux packages
will permit that. also see above

also over the last 10 years my occasional visits
with Linux have impressed me, but you do tend
to run into more flakey software problems,
drivers that don't work, and so on, not that
there aren't plenty of those on every
other OS you can name

afaik, when you do go with whichever flavor
of Linux catches your fancy, you are paying
them for their packaging, and UNIX scripts, as well
as their selection of specific kernels and drivers
that are stable and work well together, not to
mention whatever support they offer. be sure
you get a recent version of whatever you go with
(to keep problems with large hard drives away)



>> if you wanna define > 64 GB on a large
>> hard drive for use with 98SE (and the
>> "cooperative" multi-tasking 98SE apps!),
>> good luck coz i think you're gonna need it


> But I already did it and it worked fine.
> Er... okay, the drive died by mechanical failure but that was another
> problem... :]
> Perhaps the limit shown by VCOM refers to a single partition.
> That would make much more sense.
> (I have never gone beyond 30 GB per partition)


good as the manual is that comes with vcom's
System Commander, there are a lot of things
in it where it helps a lot if you already
have a fair amount of knowledge. e.g.
they constantly use the word "DOS" with
a 2 GB partition size limit (which is true
for MS-DOS 6.22 (and immediately prior DOS's))
since they are limited to FAT16

vcom hardly says anthing about DOS95B nor DOS98SE
(and never by those specific names) since they were
not not marketed as separate products; but if you
boot from a 98SE floppy, you'll be able to see FAT32
as well as FAT16 partitions. :)
(and likely FAT12 too)

fwiw, the actual partition size limit for FAT32 is
way beyond 32GB, and the vcom Partition Manager will
let you do it to the limit. but given the number
of files/directory limit with FAT32 i personally
keep mind to under 31GB and tend to put my biggest
files on my one such partition

bill

J. Clarke
October 4th 04, 02:51 AM
willbill wrote:

> Peltio wrote:
>
>> "willbill" ha scritto
>
>>> i'm mid-way with a quad boot setup with
>>> DOS (98!), Win 98SE, Win2000, and eventually Linux
>
>
>> Are they all on the same physical disk, or did you find a way to
>> boot from the secondary IDE channel?
>
>
> there are two approaches to "multi-boot" PCs:
>
> 1. you just swap the primary IDE channel master IDE drive
> (and leave everything else the same)
>
> imo, that's gotten a lot easier with these terrific new
> round IDE cables, some of which are very robust. i never
> liked the slide in tray approach (via a 5.25" front panel
> opening on the front of the case) for swaping HD's in/out,
> and i liked it less and less especially as IDE moved to
> faster transfer rates (100 and 133). it also helps
> if you've got a computer case that lends itself to swaping
> the primary master hard drive (removable mobo tray and/or
> an easily removable HD bracket (many removable brackets
> aren't easy to remove once the mobo and components are in),
> and which has a light weight door so that you pop off the
> door for quick backups (via DOS Ghost) or reasonbly fast
> HD swaps (where robust round IDE cables again come in handy)
>
> 2. get software that permits a multi-boot setup
> without having to do any hard drive swapping.
> the one i have long experience with is vcom's
> System Commander (see: www.v-com.com), now
> at version 8.1

2K/XP does this, LILO does this, GRUB does this. LILO and GRUB are GPL.

> when you use boot manager software is when
> you need a *current* book specific to the subject
> coz not all OS's will work from other than
> the primary channel IDE master drive

All of them that I work with will. 2K/XP want a small partition on whatever
drive the BIOS tries to boot from.

>> I'd like to put a linux on my second hard disk.
>
>
> i'm guessing that most (all?) recent Linux packages
> will permit that. also see above

All will. This has never been a trick. Can be made to boot from CD, ROM,
or server as well. Doesn't even require a local drive.

> also over the last 10 years my occasional visits
> with Linux have impressed me, but you do tend
> to run into more flakey software problems,
> drivers that don't work, and so on, not that
> there aren't plenty of those on every
> other OS you can name

I run into more "flaky software problems" and drivers that don't work with
Windows. Linux drivers generally either work or don't.

> afaik, when you do go with whichever flavor
> of Linux catches your fancy, you are paying
> them for their packaging, and UNIX scripts, as well
> as their selection of specific kernels and drivers
> that are stable and work well together, not to
> mention whatever support they offer. be sure
> you get a recent version of whatever you go with
> (to keep problems with large hard drives away)

PAYING? Just download the Gentoo ISO. Linux is GPL. As for problems with
large disks, Kernel 2.4.16 had the 48-bit patch included, the current
kernel is 2.6.8 IIRC.

>>> if you wanna define > 64 GB on a large
>>> hard drive for use with 98SE (and the
>>> "cooperative" multi-tasking 98SE apps!),
>>> good luck coz i think you're gonna need it
>
>
>> But I already did it and it worked fine.
>> Er... okay, the drive died by mechanical failure but that was another
>> problem... :]
>> Perhaps the limit shown by VCOM refers to a single partition.
>> That would make much more sense.
>> (I have never gone beyond 30 GB per partition)
>
>
> good as the manual is that comes with vcom's
> System Commander, there are a lot of things
> in it where it helps a lot if you already
> have a fair amount of knowledge. e.g.
> they constantly use the word "DOS" with
> a 2 GB partition size limit (which is true
> for MS-DOS 6.22 (and immediately prior DOS's))
> since they are limited to FAT16
>
> vcom hardly says anthing about DOS95B nor DOS98SE
> (and never by those specific names) since they were
> not not marketed as separate products; but if you
> boot from a 98SE floppy, you'll be able to see FAT32
> as well as FAT16 partitions. :)
> (and likely FAT12 too)
>
> fwiw, the actual partition size limit for FAT32 is
> way beyond 32GB, and the vcom Partition Manager will
> let you do it to the limit. but given the number
> of files/directory limit with FAT32 i personally
> keep mind to under 31GB and tend to put my biggest
> files on my one such partition
>
> bill

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Peltio
October 4th 04, 05:02 PM
"J. Clarke"

>> 2. get software that permits a multi-boot setup
[snip]
>
>2K/XP does this, LILO does this, GRUB does this. LILO and GRUB are GPL.

>> when you use boot manager software is when
>> you need a *current* book specific to the subject
>> coz not all OS's will work from other than
>> the primary channel IDE master drive
>
>All of them that I work with will. 2K/XP want a small partition on
>whatever drive the BIOS tries to boot from.

This is interesting. I was also thinking about creating such a small
partition as the first partition on the primary disk and later use it just
to host the smallest software necessary to perform a multiboot (which I've
yet to choose but if there a free or GPL version.. all the better)
How big should said partition be? Or, better yet, how small? Would a FAT32
partition be good to host LILO, or do I need an ext2 partition (I seem to
recall that there are intrinsic limitations in the minimum size of a FAT32
partition, am I wrong?) [1]

For example, Ranish Partition Manager says
" If you want to use "Text 25x80" or "GUI" boot menu you have to
create a small (couple of megs) partition for the Boot Manager
(type 0xF0).
That partition could be located anywhere on the disk and could
be either primary partition or a logical disk inside extended
partition."
But how big should that be to host Win2k/XP loader?
I'd go with a 100 MB FAT32 partition, possibly less.

I'd like to have one linux on disk 1 and one linux on disk 2, plus
Windows98SE (right now it's on the disk that will be on the secondary IDE).
It will ease my future migration, when there would be no more support to the
latest hardware from my last M$ OS but it will save me a gigantic backup and
a new partioning in case I'd be forced to move to XP.


cheers,
Peltio
invalid address in reply-to. crafty demunging required to mail me.

[1] Of course I would need to document myself before doing that, but right
now I have to put the other disk back as soon as it arrives to hold all of
the data I've backed up to get back to work. I'm not currently planning to
install neither Win2k nor WinXP, but I could later be forced to do that to
keep on working.
Having the system already partitioned to host several OSes would be nice.