Understand the storage limit of 98/98SE is 128GB. And, that if exceeded,
may have problems with garbled filenames, FAT etc.

Is there any problem if a 200GB capacity drive is formatted FAT32 60GB
partition, and the remaining space NTFS for XP? Am referring to this drive
as storage drive, not the drive with the boot or system partition.

The bios still has to support the full number of cylinders. If it
doesn't you can install a ATA card.

Another thing to try is install the XP operating system (SP 1 or
greater is needed) in a smaller partition below the 127 gb, install the
large drive enabler (for Maxtor), and then let XP boot from the
partition, take over from the BIOS, and create the last partition to
house your data. It should at that point see the full capacity of the
drive. Of course, if you drop into DOS for backup, etc, you will have
issues.

Irwin

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

Obviously didn't even read the question.

Won't work. Drive management uses BIOS.
This may work for a non-boot drive if the bios is disabled for it and the
OS replaces/installs the BIOS routines with 48-bit compatible ones.

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote

It isnt as absolute as that.

Or that either.

Not at all clear what you mean by that. Presumably you
mean you are booting 98/98SE off a physical drive that
is less than 128GB and are considering adding a 200G
drive used just for data partitioned like that.

If that is what you want to do, it should be fine.

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

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../cs-009302.htm

Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote
He appears to be saying what you say yourself below.

The question was silent on that.

Wrong, as always.

It aint that black and white, and you dont
have to use drive managment anyway.

Utterly mangled all over again.

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:UFhTe.8347$FW1.3571@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
Okay, I'll be more specific.

1- 80 GB w/98SE/ME/XP SP2 partitions, and a few logical drives. XP is NTFS.
Remaining is all FAT 32. Question is ***NOT*** about this hard drive.

2- 200 GB used for storage. Extended partition. Logical drives - 2, one
FAT32 62GB, remainder is NTFS XP style.

3. Have experienced problems with the 200GB partitioned FAT32, extended
partition w/2 logical drives, both FAT32 99GB and 86GB. Namely, garbled
filenames and loss of that data when around total 64GB was exceeded. The
files lost were on the first partition. It occurred immediately after I
deleted files over 12GB in the second partition. This occurred in 98SE
using windows explorer.

4. Bios is 48 bit type. No overlays.

I understand the disk tool concerns, and I don't use them in 98/ME. 3rd
party only.

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

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

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:
It wont have been the 64GB total that matters, it would
have been writing past the 128G point in the second partition.

Why do you need to use 98SE when using that drive ?

If its an intel chipset motherboard, intel has drivers
that support 48bit LBA for some of their chipsets.
Those will work fine in 98/SE/ME

Should work without problems. XP SP2 is able to read big drive. W98
can't read NTFS. No risk there of writing at the wrong place.


Nick

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 02:21:39 GMT, "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net>
wrote:

Nick wrote:

ROTFL! Windows can't read it, so it must be safe? That sounds like
a recipe for disaster.

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

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
Get off the floor, child.

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

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

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:T8sTe.8168$_84.4071@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net
Now that's odd since that isn't specifically part of 98/ME and
therefor not dependent on any inherent problem existing in 98/ME.
That's the actual part being save if you have a 48-bit bios.

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

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

"Irwin" <ebct@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1126035989.339974.165550@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Because it was?

On what. You snipped the GD post.

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

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

Rod Speed wrote:

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


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

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
Still behaving like a silly little kid.

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

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

Rod Speed wrote:

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


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

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
Wrong when it means that it has no access
the part of the drive it has a problem with.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff when its the partition format.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3o8q0bF4otvdU1@individual.net
It certainly can if it is a primary partitition or starts before the
128GB physical address limit, as little davy was suggesting, numbnut.

Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
been able to manage a viable troll, or anything else at all, either.