FDisk

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Anyone:

I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my question
is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?

Gerry Wolf
27 answers Last reply
More about fdisk
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Gerry Wolf" <gwolf@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:GfO0d.25981$6h7.24950@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    > Anyone:
    >
    > I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my
    > question
    > is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
    > will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >
    > Gerry Wolf
    >
    You can Fdisk the drive and say yes to large option at front of the program.
    Then format it. OR, you can just install the XP disk and it will format the
    drive. I think the format will be NTSF though if you have some reason not
    to format to NTSF.

    Alan in Boise
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Gerry Wolf wrote:
    > Anyone:
    >
    > I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my
    > question is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a
    > 200 GB drive will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >
    > Gerry Wolf


    Boot from the Windows XP Pro CD. It will prompt you to create partitions.
    Create one of 10GB, larger if you will store large or numerous files on C:.
    Format the partition NTFS(full, not quick) unless you have a compelling
    reason to use FAT32.
    The only good reason to choose FAT32 is for the purpose of multi-booting two
    or more operating systems.

    You can create up to four primary partitions or three primary and one
    extended partition containing logical drives, or two primary....
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    FAT 32 will only recognize up to 137GB, I believe. Why in the world aren't
    you going to use the much more stable NTSF???

    --
    DaveW


    "Gerry Wolf" <gwolf@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:GfO0d.25981$6h7.24950@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
    > Anyone:
    >
    > I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my
    > question
    > is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
    > will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >
    > Gerry Wolf
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:27:05 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org>
    wrote:

    >FAT 32 will only recognize up to 137GB, I believe. Why in the world aren't
    >you going to use the much more stable NTSF???

    Nope, FAT32 is supposed to support up to 8 TB.
    It is only Microsoft's "steering" of the industry that
    limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.

    One reason not to use NTFS, is that it is not properly
    supported by MS. In other words, there are no freely
    available tools for working with NTFS outside of the
    pathetically limited Windows offerings. Where is a basic
    DOS boot disk with NTFS support? What makes MS think users
    shouldn't be able to determine what they want to do with
    their files without running windows or anything from MS? MS
    does not own OUR files, but they seem to have reserved the
    right to limit how we can access our files unless a heck of
    a lot of extra effort is taken with prior knowledge of the
    situation. If we were given a free PC when we bought
    windows it'd be a different story, except that the data IS
    still ours.

    IMHO, the "more stable" is nonsense, if FAT32 seems unstable
    the problem is not the filesystem at all but another
    subsystem failing that needs be fixed. NTFS does have
    advantages though, but "stable" isn't one of them.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:27:05 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>FAT 32 will only recognize up to 137GB, I believe. Why in the world aren't
    >>you going to use the much more stable NTSF???
    >
    >
    > Nope, FAT32 is supposed to support up to 8 TB.


    > It is only Microsoft's "steering" of the industry that

    A uniquely bizarre delusion.

    > limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.

    Rather simple, actually. It's old and still contains 16 bit code, which is
    where the 64 gig limit comes from. No 'industry steering' (whatever the
    hell THAT fantasy means) needed.

    There's a downloadable replacement to fix the 64 gig limit. But, being an
    end of life product, MS has no plans to 'support' >137 gig on it.


    <snip of paranoid ranting>
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    news:d1q1d.186621$Fg5.96545@attbi_s53...
    > FAT 32 will only recognize up to 137GB, I believe. Why in the world
    > aren't
    > you going to use the much more stable NTSF???
    >
    > --
    > DaveW


    NTFS ;)

    Not to mention file size limits etc.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "kony" wrote:
    ]> One reason not to use NTFS, is that it is not properly
    > supported by MS. In other words, there are no freely
    > available tools for working with NTFS outside of the
    > pathetically limited Windows offerings. Where is a basic
    > DOS boot disk with NTFS support?

    I tried to work with one of my NTFS partitions with the crippled "command prompt"
    interface of the recovery console on my Windows CD. It was a complete joke, with many
    functions horribly limited compared to a good old DOS bootdisk. I couldn't even use
    wildcards with several of the functions!

    Jon
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:31:40 -0500, David Maynard
    <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:


    >> limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.
    >
    >Rather simple, actually. It's old and still contains 16 bit code, which is
    >where the 64 gig limit comes from. No 'industry steering' (whatever the
    >hell THAT fantasy means) needed.


    This explains WinXP's 32GB limit then?

    >> It is only Microsoft's "steering" of the industry that

    >A uniquely bizarre delusion.

    Oh? A lot of people feel they do try to steer, it's not
    unique or bizarre even if it were a delusion... but then
    something you personally don't see, doesn't make for a
    delusion to someone else.

    Would your systems be running NTFS otherwise?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:31:40 -0500, David Maynard
    > <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.
    >>
    >>Rather simple, actually. It's old and still contains 16 bit code, which is
    >>where the 64 gig limit comes from. No 'industry steering' (whatever the
    >>hell THAT fantasy means) needed.
    >
    > This explains WinXP's 32GB limit then?

    XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.


    >>>It is only Microsoft's "steering" of the industry that
    >
    >
    >>A uniquely bizarre delusion.
    >
    >
    > Oh?

    Yeah.

    > A lot of people feel they do try to steer,

    All companies try to influence standards because they're going to be
    influenced by the standards. That, however, has nothing to do with what
    file system Microsoft designs for their own O.S.

    > it's not
    > unique or bizarre even if it were a delusion... but then
    > something you personally don't see, doesn't make for a
    > delusion to someone else.

    You're right, it doesn't. What makes it a delusion is you seeing things
    that don't exist; unless you can show me the great burning desire other
    O.S.s had to use FAT32 that Microsoft 'steered' them away from so now
    they've all been 'steered' into using NTFS.

    > Would your systems be running NTFS otherwise?

    My system would, by definition, be running the file system the O.S.
    requires. With XP that would be either FAT32, for compatibility reasons, or
    NTFS, the one MS intends for Windows XP (and for good reason).

    And when running a MAC you'd use it's file system. And with Linux you'd be
    using their file system. And if you were working on a mainframe you'd be
    using their file system, and so on and so on. (so much for 'industry steering')
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:35:24 -0500, David Maynard
    <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >kony wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:31:40 -0500, David Maynard
    >> <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.
    >>>
    >>>Rather simple, actually. It's old and still contains 16 bit code, which is
    >>>where the 64 gig limit comes from. No 'industry steering' (whatever the
    >>>hell THAT fantasy means) needed.
    >>
    >> This explains WinXP's 32GB limit then?
    >
    >XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.


    WinXP is not "old" and should not have this 32GB limit.

    It was a decision MS made, which along with several others,
    adds up to a whole larger than the sum of the parts. Sure,
    you can try to aruge each point individually, and make many
    if not all seem too insignificant for the steering effect,
    but it doesn't change the whole. Since this is an FDISK
    thread, not a MS steering thread, I'm not about to argue
    back and forth on this here, even this much was pointless
    winthin context of thread.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:35:24 -0500, David Maynard
    > <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>kony wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:31:40 -0500, David Maynard
    >>><dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>limits their OS to fdisk smaller sizes, artificial limits.
    >>>>
    >>>>Rather simple, actually. It's old and still contains 16 bit code, which is
    >>>>where the 64 gig limit comes from. No 'industry steering' (whatever the
    >>>>hell THAT fantasy means) needed.
    >>>
    >>>This explains WinXP's 32GB limit then?
    >>
    >>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >
    >
    >
    > WinXP is not "old"

    No one said it was.

    > and should not have this 32GB limit.

    FAT32 is what's old and inferior to NTFS, plus it doesn't support a whole
    host of features that are integral to XP security. Supporting FAT32 is for
    compatibility; not for XP per see.

    But there is no '32gig limit' with XP accessing FAT32 drives.


    > It was a decision MS made,

    Of course it was. It's their product; not "the industry's."

    > which along with several others,
    > adds up to a whole larger than the sum of the parts. Sure,
    > you can try to aruge each point individually, and make many
    > if not all seem too insignificant for the steering effect,

    'The steering effect' is a meaningless term the way you're using it because
    ALL companies decide what their products will be and what features they'll
    have so, according to your current usage, everyone is 'steering the
    industry' by the very act of doing business and making their products how
    they see fit.

    > but it doesn't change the whole. Since this is an FDISK
    > thread, not a MS steering thread, I'm not about to argue
    > back and forth on this here, even this much was pointless
    > winthin context of thread.

    You're the one who decided to 'expand' the topic into 'industry steering'
    simply because Microsoft makes product decisions about their own product
    that you apparently don't agree with.

    But since you're back to FDISK, FDISK has no '32gig limit' either. It's the
    format routine in XP setup that won't format FAT32 over 32 gig.

    But you CAN install to a FAT32 partition larger than 32 gig if you just
    HAVE to use a near obsolete file system. You simply have to make it with a
    separate utility before you invoke setup and then pick it for the install.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...

    > XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    > creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >

    Err, yes it does.

    --
    Conor

    Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Conor wrote:

    > In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    >
    >
    >>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Err, yes it does.
    >

    OK. When did they change it?
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    > Conor wrote:
    >
    >> In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    >>
    >>
    >>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> Err, yes it does.
    >>
    >
    > OK. When did they change it?
    >

    They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    FAT32
    Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    Does not support domains.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    John E. Carty wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Conor wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >>>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Err, yes it does.
    >>>
    >>
    >>OK. When did they change it?
    >>
    >
    >
    > They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    > FAT32
    > Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    > In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    > Does not support domains.

    So explain to me, then, how you're going to create a FAT32 volume larger
    than 32 gig with XP setup when it can't be formatted by XP.

    What I said is entirely consistent with what you quoted.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <8pOdneRinIX2KdrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    >
    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    > > Conor wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    > >>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Err, yes it does.
    > >>
    > >
    > > OK. When did they change it?
    > >
    >
    > They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    > FAT32
    > Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    > In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.

    Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.

    --
    Conor

    Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 02:11:50 GMT, "Gerry Wolf"
    <gwolf@wi.rr.com> wrote:

    >Anyone:
    >
    >I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my question
    >is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
    >will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >
    >Gerry Wolf
    >

    If you want a FAT32 filesystem, boot to a DOS bootdisk with
    FDISK on it. If/when FDISK doesn't recognize the 200GB (or
    whatever size you want) partition(s), specify the size in
    percentage instead. You could probably use the HDD
    manufacturer's software instead if you like, it's often
    included in retail packaged drives or available for download
    from manufacturer's website.

    For support of 200GB, you need a motherboard with bios
    supporting it (or alternative like a PCI IDE card) and
    Service Pack 1 for WinXP.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    Two years ago I had a hardware RAID0 setup running in Win98SE with two 100gb
    drives. The total was 200gb and both the bios and OS recognized it.

    "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
    news:d1q1d.186621$Fg5.96545@attbi_s53...

    > FAT 32 will only recognize up to 137GB, I believe. Why in the world
    > aren't you going to use the much more stable NTSF???
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1bb2325a1a4356b0989798@news.giganews.com...
    > In article <8pOdneRinIX2KdrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    >>
    >> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >> news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    >> > Conor wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >> >>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >> >>>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Err, yes it does.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > OK. When did they change it?
    >> >
    >>
    >> They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    >> FAT32
    >> Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    >> In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    >
    > Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    > was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    > question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.

    What I responded to was XP creating a partition larger then 32GB's and XP
    does not use fdisk :-)

    >
    > --
    > Conor
    >
    > Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "John E. Carty" <faz576@NOPSPAM.comcast.com> wrote in message
    news:KZGdnRmXVIJ0n9TcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bb2325a1a4356b0989798@news.giganews.com...
    >> In article <8pOdneRinIX2KdrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    >>>
    >>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    >>> > Conor wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> >> In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard
    >>> >> says...
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow
    >>> >>>is
    >>> >>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>> >>>
    >>> >>
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Err, yes it does.
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> > OK. When did they change it?
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>> They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    >>> FAT32
    >>> Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    >>> In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    >>
    >> Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    >> was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    >> question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.
    >
    > What I responded to was XP creating a partition larger then 32GB's and XP
    > does not use fdisk :-)

    Also, XP will not FORMAT a volume larger then 32 GB :-)

    >
    >>
    >> --
    >> Conor
    >>
    >> Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    <Snip>
    > Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    > was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    > question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.
    ></Snip>

    Besides, I've always looked like an idiot, even before posting :-)
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    John E. Carty wrote:

    > "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1bb2325a1a4356b0989798@news.giganews.com...
    >
    >>In article <8pOdneRinIX2KdrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    >>
    >>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>
    >>>>Conor wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow is
    >>>>>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Err, yes it does.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>OK. When did they change it?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    >>>FAT32
    >>>Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    >>>In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    >>
    >>Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    >>was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    >>question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.
    >
    >
    > What I responded to was XP creating a partition larger then 32GB's and XP
    > does not use fdisk :-)

    Pardon me, but I am who you responded to and the issue was not "XP creating
    a partition larger than 32BGs." It was XP creating a FAT32 volume larger
    than 32GBs during setup.

    And XP won't do it for the very reason you quoted from 'Help & Support', so
    why you disputed it is a mystery.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <KZGdnRmXVIJ0n9TcRVn-og@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...

    > What I responded to was XP creating a partition larger then 32GB's and XP
    > does not use fdisk :-)
    >
    So you're telling me that FORMAT creates the partition? Yeah OK.


    --
    Conor

    Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <c6OdnZH-qqiVmdTcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    > <Snip>
    > > Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    > > was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    > > question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.
    > ></Snip>
    >
    > Besides, I've always looked like an idiot, even before posting :-)
    >
    <aol>
    Me too.
    </aol>


    --
    Conor

    Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:08:14 -0400, "John E. Carty"
    <faz576@NOPSPAM.comcast.com> wrote:

    >
    >"John E. Carty" <faz576@NOPSPAM.comcast.com> wrote in message
    >news:KZGdnRmXVIJ0n9TcRVn-og@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:MPG.1bb2325a1a4356b0989798@news.giganews.com...
    >>> In article <8pOdneRinIX2KdrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>, John E. Carty says...
    >>>>
    >>>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:10kdu2ihui5t04d@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>> > Conor wrote:
    >>>> >
    >>>> >> In article <10kd4c87omnehde@corp.supernews.com>, David Maynard
    >>>> >> says...
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>>XP works with FAT32 sizes larger than 32 gig. What it doesn't allow
    >>>> >>>is
    >>>> >>>creating one larger than 32 gig during setup.
    >>>> >>>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Err, yes it does.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >
    >>>> > OK. When did they change it?
    >>>> >
    >>>>
    >>>> They didn't. Right from XP's Help & Support:
    >>>> FAT32
    >>>> Volumes from 512 MB to 2 TB.
    >>>> In Windows XP, you can format a FAT32 volume up to 32 GB only.
    >>>
    >>> Just read what you've posted, look at the title of the thread and what
    >>> was being discussed then tell me now why you look an idiot. The word in
    >>> question is "format". We're discussing FDISK. FDISK is NOT format.
    >>
    >> What I responded to was XP creating a partition larger then 32GB's and XP
    >> does not use fdisk :-)
    >
    >Also, XP will not FORMAT a volume larger then 32 GB :-)

    I've got a 40gig HD formatted by XP setup to one FAT32 partition of
    37.2gb.

    -
    ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere!Thekeytoanysecurity
    systemishowit'sdesigned!Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
    Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
    (Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)

    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Gerry Wolf" <gwolf@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<GfO0d.25981$6h7.24950@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
    > Anyone:
    >
    > I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my question
    > is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
    > will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >
    > Gerry Wolf

    If you are going to use XP pro then first use the utility that came
    with your manufac. Hard Drive. It should be a bootable CD. You can
    then use this utility to partition and format the drive. Then restart
    and boot to the WinXP CD and install the OS. FDISK will only use
    about 32GB for a PRIMARY PARTITION. The extended drives can be much
    bigger(8TB). So, if you want to use more than 32GB for your bootable
    partition, then you have to use the utility that came with your hard
    drive.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Gerry Wolf" <gwolf@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:<GfO0d.25981$6h7.24950@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
    >
    >>Anyone:
    >>
    >>I am about to build a new system which will feature Win XP Pro, my question
    >>is, do I need to partition the HD with Fdisk? How much of a 200 GB drive
    >>will it recognize? Want to go with Fat 32..suggestions?
    >>
    >>Gerry Wolf
    >

    If you use an install CD with SP2, you should be able to use the entire
    200 GB, if that's what you want. I have read posts from several people
    saying they have installed to 160 GB and 200 GB drives. There were
    limitations prior to SP2.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Fdisk Systems