OS limitation

Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.

The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders. If it
doesn't you can install a ATA card.

Another thing to try is install the XP operating system (SP 1 or
greater is needed) in a smaller partition below the 127 gb, install the
large drive enabler (for Maxtor), and then let XP boot from the
partition, take over from the BIOS, and create the last partition to
house your data. It should at that point see the full capacity of the
drive. Of course, if you drop into DOS for backup, etc, you will have
issues.

Irwin

"Irwin" wrote in message oups.com...
The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders.

Nonsense.

If it doesn't you can install a ATA card.

Obviously didn't even read the question.


Another thing to try is install the XP operating system (SP 1 or greater
is needed) in a smaller partition below the 127 gb, install the large
drive enabler (for Maxtor), and then let XP boot from the partition,
take over from the BIOS, and create the last partition to house your data.

Won't work. Drive management uses BIOS.
This may work for a non-boot drive if the bios is disabled for it and the
OS replaces/installs the BIOS routines with 48-bit compatible ones.

It should at that point see the full capacity of the drive. Of course,
if you drop into DOS for backup, etc, you will have issues.

Irwin

Lil' Dave wrote

Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB.

It isnt as absolute as that.

And, that if exceeded, may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Or that either.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted
FAT32 60GB partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP?
Am referring to this drive as storage drive, not the drive with
the boot or system partition.

Not at all clear what you mean by that. Presumably you
mean you are booting 98/98SE off a physical drive that
is less than 128GB and are considering adding a 200G
drive used just for data partitioned like that.

If that is what you want to do, it should be fine.

Why nonsense? Please elaborate. A partition does not have to fit within
BIOS defined parameters to boot from it?

"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
ink.net...
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB.

http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../cs-009302.htm

Folkert Rienstra wrote
Irwin wrote

The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders.

Nonsense.

He appears to be saying what you say yourself below.

If it doesn't you can install a ATA card.

Obviously didn't even read the question.

The question was silent on that.

Another thing to try is install the XP operating system
(SP 1 or greater is needed) in a smaller partition below
the 127 gb, install the large drive enabler (for Maxtor),
and then let XP boot from the partition, take over from
the BIOS, and create the last partition to house your data.

Won't work.

Wrong, as always.

Drive management uses BIOS.

It aint that black and white, and you dont
have to use drive managment anyway.

This may work for a non-boot drive if the bios is disabled for it and
the OS replaces/installs the BIOS routines with 48-bit compatible ones.

Utterly mangled all over again.

It should at that point see the full capacity of the drive. Of course,
if you drop into DOS for backup, etc, you will have issues.

"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
ink.net...
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this
drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.



Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP is NTFS.
Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2, one
FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned FAT32, extended
partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32 99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled
filenames and loss of that data when around total 64GB was exceeded. The
files lost were on the first partition. It occurred immediately after I
deleted files over 12GB in the second partition. This occurred in 98SE
using windows explorer.

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd
party only.

As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't care
what you know.

Thanks for the other inputs. I read them, and appreciate your help.
The original question still stands.

Lil' Dave wrote:
"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
ink.net...
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if
exceeded, may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32
60GB partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring
to this drive as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or
system partition.



Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP
is NTFS. Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this
hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2,
one FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned
FAT32, extended partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32
99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled filenames and loss of
that data when around total 64GB was exceeded.

It wont have been the 64GB total that matters, it would
have been writing past the 128G point in the second partition.

The files lost were on the first partition. It occurred
immediately after I deleted files over 12GB in the second
partition. This occurred in 98SE using windows explorer.

Why do you need to use 98SE when using that drive ?

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and
I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd party only.

If its an intel chipset motherboard, intel has drivers
that support 48bit LBA for some of their chipsets.
Those will work fine in 98/SE/ME

As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't
care what you know.

Thanks for the other inputs. I read them, and appreciate your help.
The original question still stands.

Should work without problems. XP SP2 is able to read big drive. W98
can't read NTFS. No risk there of writing at the wrong place.


Nick

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:21:39 GMT, "Lil' Dave"
wrote:

"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
link.net...
Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this
drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.



Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP is NTFS.
Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2, one
FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned FAT32, extended
partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32 99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled
filenames and loss of that data when around total 64GB was exceeded. The
files lost were on the first partition. It occurred immediately after I
deleted files over 12GB in the second partition. This occurred in 98SE
using windows explorer.

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd
party only.

As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't care
what you know.

Thanks for the other inputs. I read them, and appreciate your help.
The original question still stands.