Hard Drive Size

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
partition, but that actual whole hard drive?
13 answers Last reply
More about hard drive size
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

    >What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    >partition, but that actual whole hard drive?

    Umm..I think it's 32GB, but I'm having a hard time finding a reference
    to back that up.

    --
    Tim Slattery
    MS MVP(DTS)
    Slattery_T@bls.gov
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
    news:supj81lv7khh5edldkcokj49qmo7iojm3t@4ax.com...
    > "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    >>What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    >>partition, but that actual whole hard drive?
    >
    > Umm..I think it's 32GB, but I'm having a hard time finding a reference
    > to back that up.
    >
    > --
    > Tim Slattery
    > MS MVP(DTS)
    > Slattery_T@bls.gov

    <snip>

    The other source of drive size limits has to do with the operating system.
    Windows 95-A or the first version of Win95 could support an 8.4GB hard
    drive. However, because of the size limitations of the FAT16, you had to
    partition the drive in 2GB partitions. That meant five partitions on an
    8.4GB drive. Microsoft does say that this version of Win95 will support
    drives of up to 32GB, providing the partition size is no greater than 2GB!
    The limit of the FAT16 system is due to the maximum number of clusters that
    can be addressed is 65,525 (2 raised to the 16th power or 216). Multiplying
    this number times the maximum cluster size (32,768 bytes) gives the
    partition size limit of 2GB.

    Windows 95B introduced the FAT32 system. In theory, this new file allocation
    table system can address a hard drive that is 2 terabytes
    (2,199,023,255,552) in size. The FAT32 table does not scale well in that as
    its size increases, it takes more time for Windows to find information in
    it. It also takes more time to calculate free space at boot-up. The maximum
    size of the FAT32 table is about 128 megabytes. The maximum size of any one
    file on a FAT32 drive is 4 gigabytes. Win98, WinME and Win2000 all support
    the FAT32 file system.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:emFA8AuWFHA.3320@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
    > news:supj81lv7khh5edldkcokj49qmo7iojm3t@4ax.com...
    >> "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    >>>partition, but that actual whole hard drive?
    >>
    >> Umm..I think it's 32GB, but I'm having a hard time finding a reference
    >> to back that up.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tim Slattery
    >> MS MVP(DTS)
    >> Slattery_T@bls.gov
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > The other source of drive size limits has to do with the operating system.
    > Windows 95-A or the first version of Win95 could support an 8.4GB hard
    > drive. However, because of the size limitations of the FAT16, you had to
    > partition the drive in 2GB partitions. That meant five partitions on an
    > 8.4GB drive. Microsoft does say that this version of Win95 will support
    > drives of up to 32GB, providing the partition size is no greater than 2GB!
    > The limit of the FAT16 system is due to the maximum number of clusters
    > that can be addressed is 65,525 (2 raised to the 16th power or 216).
    > Multiplying this number times the maximum cluster size (32,768 bytes)
    > gives the partition size limit of 2GB.
    >
    > Windows 95B introduced the FAT32 system. In theory, this new file
    > allocation table system can address a hard drive that is 2 terabytes
    > (2,199,023,255,552) in size. The FAT32 table does not scale well in that
    > as its size increases, it takes more time for Windows to find information
    > in it. It also takes more time to calculate free space at boot-up. The
    > maximum size of the FAT32 table is about 128 megabytes. The maximum size
    > of any one file on a FAT32 drive is 4 gigabytes. Win98, WinME and Win2000
    > all support the FAT32 file system.
    >
    >

    here is the link for the whole article if you want it Tim :>

    http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0107.htm
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote:


    >
    >here is the link for the whole article if you want it Tim :>
    >
    >http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0107.htm
    >

    That article has factual errors in it and should be disregarded.


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    http://aumha.org/alex.htm
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:cs6k81hgqimamvfot2n4hie4is0iv7316j@4ax.com...
    > "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>here is the link for the whole article if you want it Tim :>
    >>
    >>http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0107.htm
    >>
    >
    > That article has factual errors in it and should be disregarded.
    >
    >
    > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    > --
    > Microsoft MVP
    > On-Line Help Computer Service
    > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
    >
    > In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
    > http://aumha.org/alex.htm

    Hi Ron,

    although I didn't read very closely <g>, it looked pretty good to me...

    what jumped out at you as being wrong ?

    Dave
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:385662E5-B5B9-4376-88E6-49FDC8216733@microsoft.com...
    > What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    > partition, but that actual whole hard drive?

    In addition to the limits of Win95, if you are refurbishing an old system
    you may need to consider the limits of your BIOS.
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    The maximum physical disk size is going to be dictated by the hardware you
    are using. This is a combination of the controller and the BIOS. AFAIK
    Windows 95 will not work with a 48-bit controller, but I assume this is
    because the manufacturers do not provide W95 drivers for their devices.

    Within this constraint, any other limitation is actually in the file system,
    not the operating system. Windows 95 uses the FAT file system, but version
    B and later can also use the FAT32 file system, so it depends on the version
    you are running.

    What Windows can use within a large disk depends on how you define it. For
    instance, the original FDISK can't cope with a disk larger than 64Gb, but
    it's easy to get third party partitioning tools with no such limitations.

    The maximum partition size and the maximum number of partitions is the
    ultimate limit, so start here and follow the links for a description of
    where the various limitations come from:
    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=118335
    Maximum Partition Size Using FAT16 File System
    --
    Jeff Richards
    MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:385662E5-B5B9-4376-88E6-49FDC8216733@microsoft.com...
    > What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    > partition, but that actual whole hard drive?
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    For instance: "IDE drives larger than 504MB must have more than 1024
    cylinders" Some simple math indicates that it is easy to get more than 504Mb
    out of a disk with less than 1024 cylinders. What he was trying to say was
    that, to get around the 504Mb limit, something (such as number of cylinders)
    had to increase. The limit actually arises because IDE was initially
    restricted to 16 heads. The combined limits of BIOS and IDE meant that the
    biggest accessible disk was 1024 cylinders x 16 heads x 63 sectors per
    track.
    --
    Jeff Richards
    MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:euUbKlwWFHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >
    > snip <
    > Hi Ron,
    >
    > although I didn't read very closely <g>, it looked pretty good to me...
    >
    > what jumped out at you as being wrong ?
    >
    > Dave
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    ahhh...I was not reading the indepth parts too much ...just looking at the
    end results..

    thks :>

    "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
    news:Oeq1Hu2WFHA.1508@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > For instance: "IDE drives larger than 504MB must have more than 1024
    > cylinders" Some simple math indicates that it is easy to get more than
    > 504Mb out of a disk with less than 1024 cylinders. What he was trying to
    > say was that, to get around the 504Mb limit, something (such as number of
    > cylinders) had to increase. The limit actually arises because IDE was
    > initially restricted to 16 heads. The combined limits of BIOS and IDE
    > meant that the biggest accessible disk was 1024 cylinders x 16 heads x 63
    > sectors per track.
    > --
    > Jeff Richards
    > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    > "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:euUbKlwWFHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> snip <
    >> Hi Ron,
    >>
    >> although I didn't read very closely <g>, it looked pretty good to me...
    >>
    >> what jumped out at you as being wrong ?
    >>
    >> Dave
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    As a general summary, covering a big topic in just a few paragraphs, it's
    not too bad. In fact, if he'd left out some of the more technical aspects
    (which is where the errors occur) it would be a reasonable summary.

    It's also worth noting that it's quite old.
    --
    Jeff Richards
    MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:ejlhgiHXFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > ahhh...I was not reading the indepth parts too much ...just looking at the
    > end results..
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
    news:ODk1lOMXFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > As a general summary, covering a big topic in just a few paragraphs, it's
    > not too bad. In fact, if he'd left out some of the more technical aspects
    > (which is where the errors occur) it would be a reasonable summary.
    >
    > It's also worth noting that it's quite old.
    > --
    > Jeff Richards
    > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    > "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:ejlhgiHXFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> ahhh...I was not reading the indepth parts too much ...just looking at
    >> the end results..
    >
    >


    yes , and so is the OP's system....It just happened to be where i landed and
    the drive sizes looked right to me..but yes , a shortened version would have
    been more concise :>
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    The information doesn't age, but the time since last update suggests he's no
    longer correcting the errors.
    --
    Jeff Richards
    MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
    "Haggis" <bingsnapREMOVE@THIShotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%23XQTT2SXFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >
    > snip <
    >
    > yes , and so is the OP's system....It just happened to be where i landed
    > and the drive sizes looked right to me..but yes , a shortened version
    > would have been more concise :>
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

    Depending of version, it would be the FAT16 theoretical limit, or the FAT32
    theoretical limit...


    "DL" <DL@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:385662E5-B5B9-4376-88E6-49FDC8216733@microsoft.com...
    > What is the largest physical size HDD Win95 can take. I don't mean
    > partition, but that actual whole hard drive?
Ask a new question

Read More

Partition Hard Drives Microsoft Windows