Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Loading win98 on large drive

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
September 21, 2003 9:12:49 AM

Hi.
I am trying to copy a working version of Win98 SE to a 100 GB partition on a 200 GB hard drive. The other 100 GB has XP using NTFS. My problem is Win98 does not see the drive correctly - in particular, the 100 GB partition. My mb is an ASUS P4P800 Deluxe so uses the 865PE chipset. I could not load the 48-bit LBA enhancing program by Intel (the Accelerator program) as my chipset is not supported.

I used XP to create the 100 GB partition, but did not have it choose a file structure and is not formatted. Fdisk reports the partition incorrectly at 30 GB (half of what it thinks is the drive's 60 GB). I believe this is due to the 137 GB limit inherit in FAT32 and is merely 200-140. But if the partition is less than 137 GB, why can't Win98 see it correctly?

Incidentally, if I use Windows properties to check the hard drive size, it says 0 bytes total. I do not mind redoing this drive if necessary, but I really don't want to re-install win98. XP can be reinstalled without any headaches as it is a fresh install. Also, I need some way to mark the Windows partition as active. XP seemed to have a problem with having two partitions be active on the same drive.

My goal is to have a dual-boot system with XP and WIN98 each getting 1/2 of the 200 GB drive. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
September 21, 2003 1:26:18 PM

i dont understand when you say
Quote:
I used XP to create the 100 GB partition, but did not have it choose a file structure and is not formatted. Fdisk reports the partition incorrectly at 30 GB (half of what it thinks is the drive's 60 GB). I believe this is due to the 137 GB limit inherit in FAT32 and is merely 200-140. But if the partition is less than 137 GB, why can't Win98 see it correctly?

Fat32 limit is in fact 32gb. thats most probably your problem. make the partition smaller

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
September 21, 2003 7:41:26 PM

Hi.
Ok, I may have misunderstood some of what I have read regarding FAT32. Here is what I based my thinking on: Seagate says that Win98 SE has a "native limitation of 137 GB"( <http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/faq/137_win98.ht...;).
In addition, Microsoft has an updated Fdisk.exe that is supposed to see up to 137 GB (<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;263044>). Also, Microsoft article 263045 says format will give incorrect size when formatting a partition larger than 64 GB, but that it will finish the operation correctly and is just a 16-bit internal value issue. However, I also read in various places that FAT32 has a limit of 32 GB. So what's going on? How can Win98 see a 137 GB drive correctly (or format a 64 GB drive) and not be able to handle more than 32 GB?

I downloaded the Fdisk fix and it did show my partitions somewhat correctly. The two 100 GB partitions I had created in XP did show right, but the total disk space given by Fdisk showed only about 20 GB. Also, it would not allow me to format the non-NTFS partition and only allowed me to create an extended partition of 50 GB! Fdisk reported the extended partition as 8100% of the drive's capacity. Obviously Fdisk was having problems, but I hoped it would work out when done.

Instead, it "added" a 50 GB partition to the two 100 GB partitions already on the drive. Now I can't load XP anymore. It must have been overwritten. Worse, I cannot seem to delete the logical drive that was created (the 50 GB one) as it is always returns with an error saying the volume label is not correct. The label name is "8UNKNOWN" and nothing I type seems to work when trying to delete it. I don't know how to get rid of this partition unless I boot off the NT cd and delete it or something. If that doesn't work, do hard drives today still use low-level formatting utilities?

If I really am limited to 32 GB for Win98, I guess I have no choice. It just seems lame that I read Win98SE will work with partitions up to 127 or 137 GB and yet I cannot seem to get past this 32 GB barrier. What a mess! I am just a little frustrated, but am thankful to those who offer any help.
Related resources
September 21, 2003 11:18:48 PM

<b><font color=red>You'll need to use a WinME floppy bootdisks FDISK and FORMAT,

to handle that size drive, Get the Bootdisk here.
<A HREF="http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm" target="_new">
http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm&lt;/A>

Or get the FDISK update from the

same site at the bottom of the page and replace the Win98

FDISK with the fixed one.</font color=red></b>



<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 22, 2003 12:10:31 AM

i've been reading a little bit about this subject because it does puzzles me. although i found another like in microsoft saying FAT32 limit is 32gb [urlhttp://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006[/url] . But ive been reading in forums and some people say its a bios thing. If you still havent fixed it yet, try updating your bios. Its really none of my business, but if you have a nice hard drive, i suppose you have a nice rig, and since you got a nice rig, why would you need win98? but i guess if you want it, then i wish u luck.

keep postin

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
September 23, 2003 2:47:27 AM

I've had single 80GB partitions using Fat32 and Windows 98SE, and used fdisk and format directly from the 98SE CD. So I know partitions greater than 32GB are supported.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 23, 2003 2:48:58 AM

What's wrong with 98SE?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 23, 2003 2:59:24 AM

OK, the primary DOS partition has to be FAT32 to run 9x. That means, if you want XP on a different partition, it would have to be the second partition.

I use Fdisk (98SE CD) to creat 2 Fat32 partitions, format them, then install 98SE, then use XP settup to reformat the second partiton as NTFS and put XP on that.

Theoretically you could do things in a somewhat reversed order (install XP on the second partition, then 98SE on the first) as long as the first partition was FAT32 and you put 98SE on it. But I've seen problems putting 98SE on FAT32 partitons created by XP, and I don't know the cause of that.



<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 23, 2003 7:37:18 AM

Hi, again. Many thanks to those who posted, especially 4ryan6. The updated Win98 Fdisk did not work right (maybe it was really the fomat.com's fault?), but the Win ME boot disk did the trick. Win ME's format still gave me the wrong amount when it was formatting, but it turned out ok. I now have two 100 GB partitions on a 200 GB drive. Unfortunately, I had to wipe the drive multiple times to do it. Crashman is right - XP-created partitions for FAT32 still give Win98 a problem.

So now I have XP on the second partition and that's cool with me. Also, I noticed that much of the information given in the updated Fdisk programs was actually correct. The problem was not enough placeholders in the display for the numbers so they would "wrap" to the next available spot. This had the effect of a 200 GB drive looking like a 20 GB drive and other weird display problems. I am actually starting to like XP a bit more. My original reason for loading it was to get the max use out of my drive. Anyhow, thanks again for the help. This problem was taking up all of my time. Next time, I'll post earlier.
September 23, 2003 3:04:22 PM

there is nothing wrong with win98se. but i like to help people beyond of what they are asking. Im not only gonna help him on figure out what the fat32 problem is, i was tryin to get deeper into the problem and figure out why he needed win98se. It´s like me asking "how do i delete windows folder to get more space out of my hard drive?" It´s a valid question and you guys could just tell me "just press delete", but in our minds, we think "why would he choose to erase the windows folder to get more space, there are other better options" and thats what i do. since he seems to have a nice computer, he didnt seem to need it, so i asked him to make sure if it was worth using win98se. Now that he said
Quote:
I am actually starting to like XP a bit more. My original reason for loading it was to get the max use out of my drive

it seems to me that he wanted to load 98 for the wrong reason. So now i would tell him that its not worth loading win98se and having to bother with 2 different OS just so you dont "waste" a few gig´s by completely formatting the drive with NTFS. 200 gig´s is a lot anyways, few gigs more or less, not a big deal.
I got nothing agains win98se, but if you can go for something easier that will bring you less hassle later on, why not use it. Again, if someone´s got an older comp, then sure, go for win98se.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
September 23, 2003 3:29:11 PM

Quote:
The updated Win98 Fdisk did not work right (maybe it was really the fomat.com's fault?), but the Win ME boot disk did the trick. Win ME's format still gave me the wrong amount when it was formatting, but it turned out ok.


Thats an interesting discovery on your part, thanks for passing it on.


Quote:
Crashman is right - XP-created partitions for FAT32 still give Win98 a problem.


He is rarely wrong!!!LOL I've also noticed some kinky habits XP is surfacing with which may turn out to be a serious flaw with the OP/SYS if its not addressed when SP2 comes out, and thats XP seems to have a problem with differing programs doing multiple tasks, like printing a high res pic, 1 pic no problem, 5 of the same pics trouble, I've noticed the exact same thing burning CDs, 1 burn OK, a 2nd copy trouble, thats why myself I'm still dual booting Win98SE, no problems with what I mentioned at all. I really hope Microsoft puts a serious effort into addressing these issues with XP rather than shelving them like they've done in the past with their other OP/SYS, to go on to what they think are bigger and better things, and not solving the problems they've left behind.


And You're welcome! I'm glad I could be of assistance.




<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 23, 2003 5:12:50 PM

I agree with you in principle - normally I would not suggest loading two operating systems just so one can get a little more out of a drive. But 60 GB (assuming Win98 can't deal with a partition bigger than 137 GB) is more than a "little." In addition, while I did not mind reloading XP, my Win98 load had many, many programs that I did not wish to load again. Finally, though I like Win98 better and it is more compatible with old games, the move to XP is continuing and I had better learn it well enough to keep up with the rest of the world. I am reading XP Annoyances now, by David Karp, which is helping me get around some of the frustrating problems I have encountered with XP (like how to go into the Recovery Console and manipulate Windows like you could in Dos mode on Win98).

I don't mind going back and forth between Win98 and XP and it makes for a nice test for programs anyway. One cool thing I have noticed is XP seems to have a lot faster Internet download speed. Maybe TCP/IP is improved? Anyhow, thanks for your concern.
September 24, 2003 12:27:08 PM

lol, now im all jumbled up in your problem. Here is what i got from your case:
- you have a 200 gig drive
- you want 100 gig for xp and 100 gig for win98
- the reason you want win98 is since fat32 doesnt waste any space when partitioning, you wanted to be able to use most of your hd.
- not sure where those 60 gb came from...

anyways... since it seems you have resolved your problem, thats all that matters.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
September 24, 2003 10:38:03 PM

Sorry I was not clear. Originally, the only reason I was loading XP was to get the full use of my 200 GB drive. It was my understanding (and still is) that Win98 could not create a partition that big nor use that much space reliably. So I settled on 100 GB partitions and would learn to like XP.

The 60 GB comes from 200-140. That is, I have read that Win98 and programs in it like Scandisk and such do not work well with partitions over 137 GB(or 127 GB, in some cases). At that time, I did not want to have two Win98 partitions (one up to 127 GB or so and one 60-70 GB), but since this whole process began I have accepted the use of two partitions. Now I am glad I have XP as I am having ATI video driver problems with my Radeon 9700 in Win98. But that's another problem for another thread. Anyhow, everything's running pretty well now and I am happy (except for the stupid video lock-ups).
!