OS limitation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1126018043.622173.176460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>

 

[joeP]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB.

http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> 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.

 

[nick]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

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" <spamyourself@virus.net>
wrote:

>"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
>news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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.
>

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Nick wrote:

> 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.
>

ROTFL! Windows can't read it, so it must be safe? That sounds like
a recipe for disaster.
>
> Nick
>
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:21:39 GMT, "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
>>news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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.
>>
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote
> Irwin <ebct@hotmail.com> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
> news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:T8sTe.8168$_84.4071@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.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.

Now that's odd since that isn't specifically part of 98/ME and
therefor not dependent on any inherent problem existing in 98/ME.
That's the actual part being save if you have a 48-bit bios.

> 3rd party only.
>
> As for the snide one line sniglet remarks, I don't need them. Don't care
> what you know.

Gee, Lil' brain Dave, what gives you the gall to think that my comments are
even for your benefit?

Every one here knows you are a regular here and know everything there
is to know about the 128GB limit. You are just a troll stirring up the pot.
I leave it to others to feed the troll. I'm quite sure they will.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1126035989.339974.165550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why nonsense?

Because it was?

> Please elaborate.

On what. You snipped the GD post.

> A partition does not have to fit within
> BIOS defined parameters to boot from it?

I didn't even address that. This has nothing to do with my comments.

Obviously depends on where the relatively small amount of code resides
that is depending on the bios and which block addresses that code accesses.
Some bootcode is even limited to the first 8GB, nomatter what you do.

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> Nick wrote

>> 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.

> ROTFL!

Get off the floor, child.

> Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?

It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.

> That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.


>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote

>>>> 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.

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:

> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>
>>Nick wrote
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>>ROTFL!
>
>
> Get off the floor, child.
>
>
>>Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?
>
>
> It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
> aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.

ROTFLMAO! Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.
>
>
>>That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>
>
> Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.
>
Yes, you should.

>
>
>>>Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>>> Nick wrote

>>>> 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.

>>> ROTFL!

>> Get off the floor, child.

>>> Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?

>> It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
>> aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.

> ROTFLMAO!

Still behaving like a silly little kid.

> Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.

It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.

>>> That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

>> Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.

> Yes, you should.

Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.


>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.

 

[cjt]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Rod Speed wrote:

> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>Nick wrote
>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>
>>>>ROTFL!
>
>
>>>Get off the floor, child.
>
>
>>>>Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?
>
>
>>>It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
>>>aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.
>
>
>>ROTFLMAO!
>
>
> Still behaving like a silly little kid.
>
>
>>Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.
>
>
> It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
> has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.
>

"doesn't support" doesn't mean much in the context of an inconsistency
(e.g. bug) in the OS/hardware combination -- rely on whether or not
something is "supported" to protect you at your peril

>
>>>>That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>
>
>>>Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.
>
>
>>Yes, you should.
>
>
> Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.
>
>
>
>>>>>Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3o8q0bF4otvdU1@individual.net
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> > > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> > > > Nick wrote
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > ROTFL!
>
> > > Get off the floor, child.
>
> > > > Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?
>
> > > It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
> > > aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.
>
> > ROTFLMAO!
>
> Still behaving like a silly little kid.
>
> > Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.
>
> It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
> has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.

It certainly can if it is a primary partitition or starts before the
128GB physical address limit, as little davy was suggesting, numbnut.

>
> > > > That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>
> > > Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the basics.
>
> > Yes, you should.
>
> Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.
>
> > > > > Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
> > >
> > > > > > > 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote

>>>>> Nick wrote

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> ROTFL!

>>>> Get off the floor, child.

>>>>> Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?

>>>> It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
>>>> aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.

>>> ROTFLMAO!

>> Still behaving like a silly little kid.

>>> Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.

>> It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
>> has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive, cretin.

> "doesn't support" doesn't mean much in the context of an inconsistency (e.g.
> bug) in the OS/hardware combination

Wrong when it means that it has no access
the part of the drive it has a problem with.

> -- rely on whether or not something is "supported" to protect you at your
> peril

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff when its the partition format.

>>>>> That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>>
>>
>>>> Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the
>>>> basics.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, you should.
>>
>>
>> Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:431F268E.9080007@prodigy.net...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
> >
> >>Nick wrote
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >
> >
> >>ROTFL!
> >
> >
> > Get off the floor, child.
> >
> >
> >>Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?
> >
> >
> > It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
> > aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.

Clueless. Read first two OPs. Note "Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays."

The problem was with just two FAT32 parts on Win98, not XP.

WRT the OP: The IDE driver in 98 does not do lba-48. Use NTFS past 128GB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3o8q0bF4otvdU1@individual.net
>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>>>>> Nick wrote
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> ROTFL!
>>
>>>> Get off the floor, child.
>>
>>>>> Windows can't read it, so it must be safe?
>>
>>>> It cant overwrite the front of the drive if it
>>>> aint writing to the part past 128GB, stupid.
>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> Still behaving like a silly little kid.
>>
>>> Wait 'til it wraps around, and see the result.
>>
>> It cant wrap around if the OS that doesnt support drives over 128G
>> has no access to the partition thats on that part of the drive,
>> cretin.

> It certainly can if it is a primary partitition or starts before the 128GB
> physical address limit, as little davy was suggesting, numbnut.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
been able to manage a viable troll, or anything else at all, either.

>>
>>>>> That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
>>
>>>> Time to get those ears tested, and to get an education on the
>>>> basics.
>>
>>> Yes, you should.
>>
>> Any 2 year old could do better than that pathetic effort.
>>
>>>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.