Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

48 bit LBA, does it ever really work?

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 22, 2004 10:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

I have an Albatron PX875P board with a Samsung 160GB HDD and I dual boot
Win98 and Win2K both with all the lastest updates. The drive is correctly
recognized in the BIOS and it appeared to be correctly recognized in
windows, I have it partitioned into (2) 80GB drives. Windows 98 reports the
capacity of both partitions as 74.5GB and Win2Ks Disk Manager shows the same
with a total disk capacity of 149GB. Everything seemed to be working fine
until recently when the total used space on the 2 partitions reached 128GB.

My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't even
recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and formatted and
tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill either partition but
when the next partition reaches about half it's capacity the other partition
becomes corrupt again. I also noticed that a file recovery program I tried
(in both win98 and win2k) is reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but
each partition is still reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and
Samsungs HDD Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what
can be going wrong and how do I fix it???

More about : bit lba work

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 22, 2004 10:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:39:47 GMT, "Wooducoodu" <wooducoodu@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have an Albatron PX875P board with a Samsung 160GB HDD and I dual boot
>Win98 and Win2K both with all the lastest updates. The drive is correctly
>recognized in the BIOS and it appeared to be correctly recognized in
>windows, I have it partitioned into (2) 80GB drives. Windows 98 reports the
>capacity of both partitions as 74.5GB and Win2Ks Disk Manager shows the same
>with a total disk capacity of 149GB. Everything seemed to be working fine
>until recently when the total used space on the 2 partitions reached 128GB.
>
>My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't even
>recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and formatted and
>tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill either partition but
>when the next partition reaches about half it's capacity the other partition
>becomes corrupt again. I also noticed that a file recovery program I tried
>(in both win98 and win2k) is reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but
>each partition is still reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and
>Samsungs HDD Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what
>can be going wrong and how do I fix it???
>

I had drive corruption once on a large drive. It had FAT32 format and
I had tried to copy a file which exceeded the 4GB file limit.

Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).


--
94 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 3:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

"Wooducoodu" <wooducoodu@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:TFj4d.6424$oS3.2809@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:

> I have an Albatron PX875P board with a Samsung 160GB HDD and I dual
> boot Win98 and Win2K both with all the lastest updates. The drive is
> correctly recognized in the BIOS and it appeared to be correctly
> recognized in windows, I have it partitioned into (2) 80GB drives.
> Windows 98 reports the capacity of both partitions as 74.5GB and
> Win2Ks Disk Manager shows the same with a total disk capacity of
> 149GB. Everything seemed to be working fine until recently when the
> total used space on the 2 partitions reached 128GB.
>
> My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't
> even recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and
> formatted and tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill
> either partition but when the next partition reaches about half it's
> capacity the other partition becomes corrupt again. I also noticed
> that a file recovery program I tried (in both win98 and win2k) is
> reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but each partition is still
> reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and Samsungs HDD
> Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what can be
> going wrong and how do I fix it???
>
>

The difference between 149GB and 160GB is decimal and 'binairy' gigs.
149 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 = 160 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000

W2000 have to have SP3 to support LBA 48, and it must be enabled in
registry.
<support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;305098>

About 98:
<www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 8:40:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

In article <TFj4d.6424$oS3.2809@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, Wooducoodu
says...

> My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't even
> recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and formatted and
> tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill either partition but
> when the next partition reaches about half it's capacity the other partition
> becomes corrupt again. I also noticed that a file recovery program I tried
> (in both win98 and win2k) is reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but
> each partition is still reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and
> Samsungs HDD Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what
> can be going wrong and how do I fix it???
>
You've not enabled 48bit LBA support.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 10:27:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:

> Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
> than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
> update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>

Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
them just fine.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 10:27:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>
>> Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>> than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>> update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>
>
>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>them just fine.

Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?

--
93 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 10:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>
>>
>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>them just fine.
>
>
> Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
> on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>

Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 10:27:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>them just fine.
>>
>>
>> Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>> on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>
>
>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.

OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".

It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.

--
93 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 23, 2004 10:27:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>them just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>
>>
>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>
>
> OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
> why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>
> It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
> doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>

Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.

At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.

http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...

(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
the article)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 12:11:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:24:41 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>
>>
>> OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>> why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>
>> It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>> doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>
>
>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>
>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>
>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>
>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>the article)

For some reason, that article says there's a limit of 32GB, then
contradicts itself.

That DOESN'T make it look very reliable.

--
93 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 3:29:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:24:41 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>
>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>
>>
>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>
>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>
>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>
>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>the article)
>
>
> For some reason, that article says there's a limit of 32GB, then
> contradicts itself.

No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT the dern
thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with something else and then
install to the partition you made.

> That DOESN'T make it look very reliable.

Then use NTFS.

>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 12:08:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

A 160gig drive in disk manufacturer gigabytes is only 149gig in real gigabytes.
That stems from the fact that disk manufacturers consider a gigabyte
1,000,000,000 bytes, while the rest of the world consider a gigabyte 1024 * 1024
* 1024, which comes to 1,073,741,824. Do the math, you get 149.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:39:47 GMT, "Wooducoodu" <wooducoodu@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have an Albatron PX875P board with a Samsung 160GB HDD and I dual boot
>Win98 and Win2K both with all the lastest updates. The drive is correctly
>recognized in the BIOS and it appeared to be correctly recognized in
>windows, I have it partitioned into (2) 80GB drives. Windows 98 reports the
>capacity of both partitions as 74.5GB and Win2Ks Disk Manager shows the same
>with a total disk capacity of 149GB. Everything seemed to be working fine
>until recently when the total used space on the 2 partitions reached 128GB.
>
>My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't even
>recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and formatted and
>tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill either partition but
>when the next partition reaches about half it's capacity the other partition
>becomes corrupt again. I also noticed that a file recovery program I tried
>(in both win98 and win2k) is reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but
>each partition is still reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and
>Samsungs HDD Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what
>can be going wrong and how do I fix it???
>
September 24, 2004 12:46:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

don't post somebody's opinion site

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496


"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
> Gary wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gary wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
larger
> >>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
> >>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
read
> >>>>them just fine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
> >>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
FAT32
> >>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
> >>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
> >
> >
> > OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
> > why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
> >
> > It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
> > doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
> >
>
> Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
> it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>
> At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>
> http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>
> (The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
> the article)
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 2:07:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:24:41 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>
>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>
>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>
>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>
>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>the article)
>>
>>
>> For some reason, that article says there's a limit of 32GB, then
>> contradicts itself.
>
>No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT the dern
>thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with something else and then
>install to the partition you made.
>

Here is the entire quote of the paragraph that says there's a limit: "
Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003 support FAT32 partitions
(Windows NT 4.0 did not) but there is a maximum size limit of 32GB."

Sorry, I don't read invisible text (where the word "format" must be).

>> That DOESN'T make it look very reliable.
>
>Then use NTFS.
>

Makes no sense here. My comment was on the reliability of that
article.

>>

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 4:58:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:46:40 -0700, "JAD"
<hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:

>don't post somebody's opinion site
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>
>

Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
know right here, but messes up anyway.)

It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.

I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).

There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS. Also,
it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
limit.

What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
ignoring that word.

The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
file system.

>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Gary wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>larger
>> >>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>> >>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>read
>> >>>>them just fine.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>> >>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>FAT32
>> >>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>> >>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>> >
>> >
>> > OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>> > why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>> >
>> > It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>> > doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>> >
>>
>> Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>> it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>
>> At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>
>> http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>
>> (The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>> the article)
>>
>

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
September 24, 2004 5:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

> No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT
> the dern thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with
> something else and then install to the partition you made.

Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 5:58:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0200, Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT
>> the dern thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with
>> something else and then install to the partition you made.
>
>Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
>even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.

There IS a 137GB (actually 128GB, 137 comes from using 1000 instead of
1024) limit. It's in the HD hardware. More recent systems have a
higher limit (and should be able to handle up to 128 EB (1024*128 TB,
or 1024*1024*128 GB). Drives aren't nearly that big yet, but 400GB
drives do exist (I have a 250GB).

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
September 24, 2004 5:58:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:40:20 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > My C: drive became completely corrupt and after I restarted it wasn't even
> > recognized as being formated. I've since repartitioned and formatted and
> > tried restoring from backups and found that I can fill either partition but
> > when the next partition reaches about half it's capacity the other partition
> > becomes corrupt again. I also noticed that a file recovery program I tried
> > (in both win98 and win2k) is reporting the total disk capacity as 128GB but
> > each partition is still reported as 74.5GB. I've run thorough scan disks and
> > Samsungs HDD Utility and neither find any problems with the drive so what
> > can be going wrong and how do I fix it???
> >
> You've not enabled 48bit LBA support.


http://www.48bitlba.com/
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 6:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary H wrote in news:nta6l0p8200qkecls261fnoh761ncehspg@4ax.com:

> Are you sure you checked that?

Yes. Windows 2000 can use any size FAT32 drive, it just won't format one
that large.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 6:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:39:36 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>Gary H wrote in news:nta6l0p8200qkecls261fnoh761ncehspg@4ax.com:
>
>> Are you sure you checked that?
>
>Yes. Windows 2000 can use any size FAT32 drive, it just won't format one
>that large.

Did you mean to leave out the word "system"? Words do have meanings,
and what I said referred to a system drive (one that the OS is booted
from) NOT a data drive. I already know that w2k can support data
drives larger than FAT32. I had a 250GB/FAT32 data drive a few months
ago when people were saying it was impossible (and MS didn't say
THAT).

I was going to try that, but ran into some uncooperative hardware.
Maybe tomorrow.

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 6:40:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in news:9r28l097cvvbd9sjuv300jc79i3f2h6dpm@
4ax.com:

> Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
> even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.

Windows 2000 will not format a 32+ Gig drive with a FAT32 filesystem. It
will only format things that large as NTFS, which is the point of this part
of the discussion.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 6:40:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:40:40 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>Ken <___ken3@telia.com> wrote in news:9r28l097cvvbd9sjuv300jc79i3f2h6dpm@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
>> even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.
>
>Windows 2000 will not format a 32+ Gig drive with a FAT32 filesystem. It
>will only format things that large as NTFS, which is the point of this part
>of the discussion.

The problem was that, the article I objected to leaves out the word
"format" and claims that w2k is limited to 32GB FAT32 drives. THAT
claim is not true, as the article later contradicts itself.

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 9:41:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Ken wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT
>>the dern thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with
>>something else and then install to the partition you made.
>
>
> Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
> even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.
>

We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 9:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:24:41 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>
>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>
>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>
>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>the article)
>>>
>>>
>>>For some reason, that article says there's a limit of 32GB, then
>>>contradicts itself.
>>
>>No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT the dern
>>thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with something else and then
>>install to the partition you made.
>>
>
>
> Here is the entire quote of the paragraph that says there's a limit: "
> Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003 support FAT32 partitions
> (Windows NT 4.0 did not) but there is a maximum size limit of 32GB."
>
> Sorry, I don't read invisible text (where the word "format" must be).

You're quibbling with semantics. It also says "Windows 2000, XP and Windows
Server 2003 can use larger than 32GB partitions..." and gives you the
procedure for how to make one and then install to it.

I thought the idea was to figure out how to use a FAT32 partition larger
than 32GB; not to hold an English class on the web page's construction.


>>>That DOESN'T make it look very reliable.
>>
>>Then use NTFS.
>>
>
>
> Makes no sense here. My comment was on the reliability of that
> article.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 9:51:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

JAD wrote:

> don't post somebody's opinion site
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496

And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?


> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>
> larger
>
>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>
> read
>
>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>
> FAT32
>
>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>
>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>
>>
>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>
>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>
>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>
>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>the article)
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 9:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:46:40 -0700, "JAD"
> <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>
>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>
>>
>
>
> Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
> referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
> know right here, but messes up anyway.)

No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.

Windows 2000

File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
--------------------------------------------------
FAT 2^32 2^32
NTFS 2^64 2^64
FAT32 32 GB 2^32

FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.

>
> It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.
>
> I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
> installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).
>
> There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS.

Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.

> Also,
> it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
> limit.
>
> What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
> ignoring that word.
>
> The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
> file system.
>
>
>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>
>>larger
>>
>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>
>>read
>>
>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>
>>FAT32
>>
>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>
>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>
>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>
>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>
>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>the article)
>>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 10:29:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:50:16 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:29:47 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:24:41 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive larger
>>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can read
>>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large FAT32
>>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>>
>>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>>
>>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>>the article)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For some reason, that article says there's a limit of 32GB, then
>>>>contradicts itself.
>>>
>>>No it doesn't. The limit is that Windows 2000/XP won't FORMAT the dern
>>>thing larger than 32 gig so you format it with something else and then
>>>install to the partition you made.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the entire quote of the paragraph that says there's a limit: "
>> Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003 support FAT32 partitions
>> (Windows NT 4.0 did not) but there is a maximum size limit of 32GB."
>>
>> Sorry, I don't read invisible text (where the word "format" must be).
>
>You're quibbling with semantics.

I was going to reply, but the nonsense level of the post became
excessive before I could.

>It also says "Windows 2000, XP and Windows
>Server 2003 can use larger than 32GB partitions..." and gives you the
>procedure for how to make one and then install to it.
>
>I thought the idea was to figure out how to use a FAT32 partition larger
>than 32GB; not to hold an English class on the web page's construction.
>
>
>>>>That DOESN'T make it look very reliable.
>>>
>>>Then use NTFS.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Makes no sense here. My comment was on the reliability of that
>> article.
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 24, 2004 11:04:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:58:20 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:46:40 -0700, "JAD"
>> <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
>> referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
>> know right here, but messes up anyway.)
>
>No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.
>

Which would make sense if there was a FAT larger than 32.

>Windows 2000
>
> File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
> --------------------------------------------------
> FAT 2^32 2^32
> NTFS 2^64 2^64
> FAT32 32 GB 2^32
>
>FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.
>

That's confusing. FAT without a number is obviously a generic term
(FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, FATx). That's the way English works (like
"block" does not automatically mean "blue block", even if the first
block you ever saw was blue).

I made a mistake when I said that 2^32 was for FAT32, and am now
admitting it. It's correct for FAT16 (32 = 16 {the FAT entry size} +
16 {the power of 2 for 64K, the max. cluster size}).

FAT32 (actually FAT28, according to MS) itself has a limit of 16TB,
although w2k will limit it to 2TB (as I explained in another post).

The 32GB limit does not exist (as an OS limit). I am testing this for
system drives, and it is working (the earlier failures seem to be
because of a drive that went bad, and failed BEFORE w2k was
installed).

>>
>> It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.
>>
>> I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
>> installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).
>>
>> There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS.
>
>Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.
>

It's relevant here ONLY because it's NOT present in w2k, and so could
be the cause of your confusion. It may seem to bea w2k limit if your
hardware is limited to 32GB. This has nothing to do with w2k.

You could always try the instructions on that "opinion site". That is,
if you're not afraid of the truth.

>> Also,
>> it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
>> limit.
>>
>> What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
>> ignoring that word.
>>
>> The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
>> file system.
>>
>>
>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>
>>>larger
>>>
>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>
>>>read
>>>
>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>
>>>FAT32
>>>
>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>
>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>
>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>
>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>the article)
>>>>
>>>
>>

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
September 24, 2004 11:06:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:57 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>JAD wrote:
>
>> don't post somebody's opinion site
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>
>And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?
>

Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
truth.

I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
word "believe" has LIE in it.

>
>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>
>> larger
>>
>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>
>> read
>>
>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>
>> FAT32
>>
>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>
>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>
>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>
>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>
>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>the article)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 12:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary H wrote in news:gsd8l09o00ir2bkljshcn13egh3jm0ajus@4ax.com:

> The problem was that, the article I objected to leaves out the word
> "format" and claims that w2k is limited to 32GB FAT32 drives. THAT
> claim is not true, as the article later contradicts itself.

Correct, I entirely agree that 2000 can use FAT32 partitions of any size
(up to the limits of the filesystem), it just won't format one larger than
32GB.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 12:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:13:28 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>Gary H wrote in news:gsd8l09o00ir2bkljshcn13egh3jm0ajus@4ax.com:
>
>> The problem was that, the article I objected to leaves out the word
>> "format" and claims that w2k is limited to 32GB FAT32 drives. THAT
>> claim is not true, as the article later contradicts itself.
>
>Correct, I entirely agree that 2000 can use FAT32 partitions of any size
>(up to the limits of the filesystem), it just won't format one larger than
>32GB.

The filesystem limit seems to be 2TB. That's because of the use of
sector pointers to identify a sector on disk. The sector pointers are
32 bits long. The limit in bytes is 2^(9+32). The 9 comes from the 512
byte sector size. 2^(9+32)=2TB.

FAT32 (which is actually FAT28) allows 2^28 clusters which can be up
to 64KB (32KB for DOS-based Windows) in size, giving a limit of
2^(28+16). The 16 comes from 64K=2^16. That's 16TB.

FILE size is limited by file pointers, which address individual bytes.
Therefore, the file size limit with 32 bit pointers is 2^32=4GB. w2k
can use 64 bits (which allows larger files), but for some strange
reason, only with NTFS.

With 64 bits (as in NTFS), disk size can be up to 2^(64+9) bytes, 8ZB
(Zettabytes = Giga-Terabytes). File size can be up to 2^64 bytes
(16EB, Exabytes = Giga-Gigabytes). However, you're effectively limited
by the hardware interface (that LBA48), so you can't have more than
2^(48+9) bytes. That's 128PB (Petabytes = Mega-Gigabytes). Someday,
these really big numbers may seem ordinary.

BTW, for these large metric prefixes, I looked at
http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/dictunit.htm#SI The large prefixes:

Kilo- 10^3 (approx 1024)
Mega- 10^6 (approx 1024^2)
Giga- 10^9 (approx 1024^3)
Tera- 10^12 (approx 1024^4)
Peta- 10^15 (approx 1024^5)
Exa- 10^18 (approx 1024^6)
Zetta- 10^21 (approx 1024^7)
Yotta- 10^24 (approx 1024^8)

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 12:26:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Gary wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:58:20 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:46:40 -0700, "JAD"
>>><hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>>
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
>>>referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
>>>know right here, but messes up anyway.)
>>
>>No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.
>>
>
>
> Which would make sense if there was a FAT larger than 32.

That makes no sense at all.

FAT32 is differentiated from FAT(16) because there are significant differences.


>>Windows 2000
>>
>> File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> FAT 2^32 2^32
>> NTFS 2^64 2^64
>> FAT32 32 GB 2^32
>>
>>FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.
>>
>
>
> That's confusing. FAT without a number is obviously a generic term
> (FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, FATx). That's the way English works (like
> "block" does not automatically mean "blue block", even if the first
> block you ever saw was blue).

You seem to be more interested in bitching about language than figuring out
how anything works.

The only thing FAT12 has been used for in ages is formatting floppy drives
and that has no bearing on hard drive partitions.

When you see "FAT" in context with Windows 2000 and hard drive partitions
it means FAT16. Bitch all you want about 'the way English works' but if you
ever plan on understanding MS knowledge base articles you need to learn
their lingo.

>
> I made a mistake when I said that 2^32 was for FAT32, and am now
> admitting it. It's correct for FAT16 (32 = 16 {the FAT entry size} +
> 16 {the power of 2 for 64K, the max. cluster size}).
>
> FAT32 (actually FAT28, according to MS) itself has a limit of 16TB,
> although w2k will limit it to 2TB (as I explained in another post).
>
> The 32GB limit does not exist (as an OS limit). I am testing this for
> system drives, and it is working (the earlier failures seem to be
> because of a drive that went bad, and failed BEFORE w2k was
> installed).

Good. Told ya so.

>>>It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.
>>>
>>>I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
>>>installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).
>>>
>>>There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS.
>>
>>Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.
>>
>
> It's relevant here ONLY because it's NOT present in w2k, and so could
> be the cause of your confusion. It may seem to bea w2k limit if your
> hardware is limited to 32GB. This has nothing to do with w2k.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006

"You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file
system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and
support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject
to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This
behavior is by design."

>
> You could always try the instructions on that "opinion site". That is,
> if you're not afraid of the truth.

Considering I GAVE you that 'opinion site' that has got to be one of the
silliest things you've said to date.


>>>Also,
>>>it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
>>>limit.
>>>
>>>What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
>>>ignoring that word.
>>>
>>>The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
>>>file system.
>>>
>>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>>
>>>>larger
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>>
>>>>read
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>>
>>>>FAT32
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>>
>>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>>
>>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>>the article)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 12:30:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Luke wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:57 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>JAD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>
>>And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?
>>
>
>
> Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
> truth.

And what do you think 'the truth' is?


> I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
> word "believe" has LIE in it.

You were right when you said it doesn't mean anything.


>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>
>>>larger
>>>
>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>
>>>read
>>>
>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>
>>>FAT32
>>>
>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>
>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>
>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>
>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>
>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>the article)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 12:51:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

This message is going like all the others, too much nonsense to need
any further replies.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:26:54 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Gary wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:58:20 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:46:40 -0700, "JAD"
>>>><hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>>>
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Under "Windows 2000", it lists 2 lines for "FAT" (which seems to be
>>>>referring to FAT32, so why the seperate lines here? Perhaps MS does
>>>>know right here, but messes up anyway.)
>>>
>>>No, it has one line for FAT and one line for FAT32.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which would make sense if there was a FAT larger than 32.
>
>That makes no sense at all.
>
>FAT32 is differentiated from FAT(16) because there are significant differences.
>
>
>>>Windows 2000
>>>
>>> File System Max. Partition Size Max. File Size
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> FAT 2^32 2^32
>>> NTFS 2^64 2^64
>>> FAT32 32 GB 2^32
>>>
>>>FAT is what people sometimes call FAT16, since FAT32 came out.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's confusing. FAT without a number is obviously a generic term
>> (FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, FATx). That's the way English works (like
>> "block" does not automatically mean "blue block", even if the first
>> block you ever saw was blue).
>
>You seem to be more interested in bitching about language than figuring out
>how anything works.
>
>The only thing FAT12 has been used for in ages is formatting floppy drives
>and that has no bearing on hard drive partitions.
>
>When you see "FAT" in context with Windows 2000 and hard drive partitions
>it means FAT16. Bitch all you want about 'the way English works' but if you
>ever plan on understanding MS knowledge base articles you need to learn
>their lingo.
>
>>
>> I made a mistake when I said that 2^32 was for FAT32, and am now
>> admitting it. It's correct for FAT16 (32 = 16 {the FAT entry size} +
>> 16 {the power of 2 for 64K, the max. cluster size}).
>>
>> FAT32 (actually FAT28, according to MS) itself has a limit of 16TB,
>> although w2k will limit it to 2TB (as I explained in another post).
>>
>> The 32GB limit does not exist (as an OS limit). I am testing this for
>> system drives, and it is working (the earlier failures seem to be
>> because of a drive that went bad, and failed BEFORE w2k was
>> installed).
>
>Good. Told ya so.
>
>>>>It's also 2^32 SECTORS (512-byte units). The limit for bytes is 2^41.
>>>>
>>>>I KNOW the 32GB limit does not exist. I had a 250GB FAT32 drive
>>>>installed (it's now NTFS because of the file size limit).
>>>>
>>>>There used to be a 32GB limit imposed by HARDWARE, not the OS.
>>>
>>>Which is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with the table.
>>>
>>
>> It's relevant here ONLY because it's NOT present in w2k, and so could
>> be the cause of your confusion. It may seem to bea w2k limit if your
>> hardware is limited to 32GB. This has nothing to do with w2k.
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;184006
>
>"You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file
>system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and
>support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject
>to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This
>behavior is by design."
>
>>
>> You could always try the instructions on that "opinion site". That is,
>> if you're not afraid of the truth.
>
>Considering I GAVE you that 'opinion site' that has got to be one of the
>silliest things you've said to date.
>
>
>>>>Also,
>>>>it doesn't apply to modern systems. The same is true about the 128GB
>>>>limit.
>>>>
>>>>What I don't KNOW, is the limit for FAT32 SYSTEM drives. People keep
>>>>ignoring that word.
>>>>
>>>>The stated file size limits are being imposed by the OS, not by the
>>>>file system.
>>>>
>>>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>>>
>>>>>larger
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>>>
>>>>>read
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>>>
>>>>>FAT32
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>>>the article)
>

--
92 days until the winter solstice celebration

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to
hang a question mark on the things you have long taken
for granted." -- Bertrand Russell
September 25, 2004 12:53:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

DANGER!!! UNSAFE BS LEVELS DETECTED. REPLY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:30:12 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Luke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:57 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JAD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>>
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>>
>>>And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
>> truth.
>
>And what do you think 'the truth' is?
>
>
>> I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
>> word "believe" has LIE in it.
>
>You were right when you said it doesn't mean anything.
>
>
>>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>>
>>>>larger
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>>
>>>>read
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>>
>>>>FAT32
>>>>
>>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>>
>>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>>
>>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>>the article)
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 2:28:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Luke wrote:

> DANGER!!! UNSAFE BS LEVELS DETECTED. REPLY AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!

LOL

'The truth' can be a scary thing, eh?


> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:30:12 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Luke wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:57 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>JAD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>don't post somebody's opinion site
>>>>>
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;93496
>>>>
>>>>And what 'interpretation' do you derive from that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks like we have a "believer" here, who doesn't care about the
>>>truth.
>>
>>And what do you think 'the truth' is?
>>
>>
>>
>>>I know it doesn't really MEAN anything, but it's interesting that the
>>>word "believe" has LIE in it.
>>
>>You were right when you said it doesn't mean anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:10l6mpupk4jg237@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:24:45 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:27:19 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Gary H wrote in news:ldi3l0d3p6qukuqdrlscfh99lehevpddmu@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Also, Win2k is supposed to not be able to access a system drive
>>>>>
>>>>>larger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>than 32GB unless you use NTFS (looks like some old code MS failed to
>>>>>>>>>>>update. Maybe they just want you to switch to NTFS).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. It just won't format a 32+ gig partition as FAT32. It can
>>>>>
>>>>>read
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>them just fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Note that my statement was about a SYSTEM DRIVE (the drive with win2k
>>>>>>>>>on it), not just a data drive. Are you sure you checked that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Microsoft explains that if you just really really want to use a large
>>>>>
>>>>>FAT32
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>partition as the system drive then format it with a win98 startup disk
>>>>>>>>(within those limits) or a third party utility and install to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK. I had not had experience with this, but read a MS article. That's
>>>>>>>why I said "SUPPOSED to not allow" rather than "does not allow".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It looks like some parts of MS don't know what the other parts are
>>>>>>>doing. Such inconsistancies are to be expected in a big corporation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, Microsoft doesn't make it as clear all in one swoop as I presented
>>>>>>it. You have to survey a couple of their articles to put it all together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At any rate, here's a site with the procedure laid out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_xp_on_large_fat3...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(The title says XP but it applies to Windows 2000 too, as they explain in
>>>>>>the article)
>>
>
September 25, 2004 6:46:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:40:40 +0000, Jim Berwick <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>> Windows 2000 formats my 120 GB drives without any problems,
>> even at installation process. The limit is 137 GB.
>
> Windows 2000 will not format a 32+ Gig drive with a FAT32 filesystem.
> It will only format things that large as NTFS,

OK, but FAT filesystems is to obsolete.


> which is the point of this part of the discussion.

I can't se that. Could be missing in the news server.
September 25, 2004 6:50:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:41:19 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

> We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.

Did not know that. Did not know people use FAT today
in Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 25, 2004 8:55:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:41:19 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.
>
>
> Did not know that. Did not know people use FAT today
> in Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
>

That's why the previous postings were quoted in the message you replied to.
They gave the context of it rather than just the last sentence you read.
September 26, 2004 5:25:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:55:28 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

> >>We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.
> >
> >
> > Did not know that. Did not know people use FAT today
> > in Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
>
>
> That's why the previous postings were quoted in the message you replied to.
> They gave the context of it rather than just the last sentence you read.

I don't have that here, and therefore can't read it.
Sorry about that.
Something must be missing in the server or my database.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 26, 2004 5:25:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Ken wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:55:28 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>We're talking about a FAT32 partition, not NTFS.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did not know that. Did not know people use FAT today
>>>in Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
>>
>>
>>
>>That's why the previous postings were quoted in the message you replied to.
>> They gave the context of it rather than just the last sentence you read.
>
>
> I don't have that here, and therefore can't read it.
> Sorry about that.
> Something must be missing in the server or my database.

They were in the message you read; not separate. Quoted, as are the
previous messages (after the ones you had snipped out) in this one.

Odds are you simply scrolled to the bottom, read the last entry, and
replied to that.
September 26, 2004 4:22:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:38:03 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

> > I don't have that here, and therefore can't read it.
> > Sorry about that.
> > Something must be missing in the server or my database.
>
> They were in the message you read; not separate. Quoted, as are the
> previous messages (after the ones you had snipped out) in this one.

No.


> Odds are you simply scrolled to the bottom, read the last entry,
> and replied to that.

No.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
September 26, 2004 11:41:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.os.windows2000 (More info?)

Ken wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:38:03 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't have that here, and therefore can't read it.
>>>Sorry about that.
>>>Something must be missing in the server or my database.
>>
>>They were in the message you read; not separate. Quoted, as are the
>>previous messages (after the ones you had snipped out) in this one.
>
>
> No.

I know for a fact they were because *I* posted the message you replied to.


>>Odds are you simply scrolled to the bottom, read the last entry,
>>and replied to that.
>
>
> No.

I could repaste it for you but I suppose you'd somehow not see that either.
!