Hard drive needs later OS?

M

mm

Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
days ago.

Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
needed winxp.

A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
can see the whole disk. Is this true?


I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.

But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
got now, and have room for more.

Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
because I have win98SE?

Thanks.


If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
M

mm

I appreciate all the answers, and I think you answered the one I most
neeeded, but I'm slow, so please let me be sure.

I don't need to use the whole hard drive. I have a 75gig UltraADA
drive in there now, but I can only see 48gig, and that's fine because
this is far more than I can use. But that drive's instructions didn't
say it wouldn't run with win98SE. It didn't mention any operating
system at all.)

Can I still do that? Can I buy a new EIDE drive, such as from Western
Digital, that says I need win2000 SP3, or winXP, and just use it for
48gig or less now, with win98SE??

If I later move it to a newer OS, it will probably have the whole
drive visible, but certainly the part I used will be??


I would not make the partition, or the sum of all the partitions more
than 48gig, or less if 48 was a problem.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:11 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
>days ago.
>
>Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
>needed winxp.
>
>A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
>can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>
>
>I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
>my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>
>But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
>store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
>something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
>got now, and have room for more.
>
>Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
>because I have win98SE?
>
>Thanks.

If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
I

Ingeborg

mm wrote:

> Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> days ago.
>
> Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> needed winxp.
>
> A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>
>
> I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>
> But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> got now, and have room for more.
>
> Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> because I have win98SE?

That is a nice question, and the answer is no.

But there can be a reason because of your motherboard. There are serveral
limits which are BIOS related.
Sometimes it causes the BIOS to truncate the size of the disk,
sometimes it shows the right size, but when addressed beyond the limit, it
will swap around and restart on address 0,
sometimes it just won't recognize the disk, or fail to POST.

The last is the only real reason to look for a smaller drive. The second is
to be worked around *if* you know the limit. Just be careful when
partitioning the disk not to go beyond the limit. The first one is no
problem at all.
In all cases a BIOS update might help.


Win98SE doesn't support LBA48 addressing, which means that (without 3th
party drivers) you shouldn't try to access the disk beyond the 128 GiB
limit (which is ~137 GB). It would swap around. So be careful with
partitioning. Futher there is a limit in scandisk and defrag, why you
shouldn't use partitions bigger than 124 GiB (~133 GB).

There are patches available for both W98 problems. For the LBA48 issue:
<http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html>
For scandisk and defrag you could use the ME version.

More info on limits:
<http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm>
 
A

AlmostBob

a very inelegant solution may be available from the drive manufacturer
Drive Overlay programs allow the bios restrictions to be bypassed, but the
disk is often not readable without the overlay installed

--
-- -- -- -- --
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://www.safer-networking.org
AVG free antivirus http://free.grisoft.com/
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Super Antispyware http://www.superantispyware.com/
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.activescan.com
Panda online AntiSpyware Scan
http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/spyware/test/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387
Trouble Shooting guide to Windows http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before
use
Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters
_
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:rbesg3p9ukjo2r4tgnb5ebuqv4lq6gkghm@4ax.com...
> Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> days ago.
>
> Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> needed winxp.
>
> A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>
>
> I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>
> But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> got now, and have room for more.
>
> Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> because I have win98SE?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
D

Don Phillipson

> mm wrote:
>
> > Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> > days ago.
> > Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> > needed winxp.
> > A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> > can see the whole disk. Is this true?

"Ingeborg" <a@b.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99C789D73B696abinvalid@194.109.133.133...

> That is a nice question, and the answer is no.
.. . .
> Win98SE doesn't support LBA48 addressing, which means that (without 3th
> party drivers) you shouldn't try to access the disk beyond the 128 GiB
> limit (which is ~137 GB). It would swap around. So be careful with
> partitioning. Futher there is a limit in scandisk and defrag, why you
> shouldn't use partitions bigger than 124 GiB (~133 GB).

Win98SE users who need large drive space may find
external USB-connected drives solve their problem.
Most seem to be sold preformatted (FAT32) typically 200 to 500 Gb.
But connecting via USB avoids BIOS limitations of maximum
drive size (and utilities seem to work OK, e.g. the VCom
PowerDesk and Fix It Utilities drive scanner I prefer to
EXPLORER and MS Win98 utilities.) So does Linux.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
 
R

Roxana

To use a large Hard Drive to it's full capacity in W98, the following
minimum requirements must be met:

Motherboard and Chipset must be suitable.
Bios must be able to handle the drive in question. Must be able to use
LBA-48bit (Logical Block Addressing)

Fdisk.exe - should be an updated version (but might not be necessary,
depending on if and how the limitations - if any -are overcome)
Scandisk - needs updated version from the standard W98/se version.
Defrag - needs updated version from the standard W98/se version.

For instance, with an Intel Chipset (and only Intel Chipsets), you can try
this tool to see if Chipset and Mobo are suitable. However, you should
*first look in Windows* and see what basic Chipset you have:
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/inf/sb/CS-021273.htm

For Windows 98, Windows 98 SE:
<paste>

Click the Start button » click Settings » click Control Panel » double-click
the System applet » select the Device Manager tab » expand the System
devices listing.

After Device Manager is launched, see if the device name of the chipset is
listed. The device name may appear in a string similar to the following:
"Intel® 955X Processor to I/O Controller - 2774" In this example, the
chipset is an Intel® 955X Express Chipset.
</paste>

If it is an Intel Chipset, then:
Identify your Intel® Chipset by using Intel® Chipset Identification Utility.
The Intel Chipset Identification Utility provides an easy way to identify
the specific Intel chipset that is located on your motherboard.
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/inf/sb/CS-009266.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To check if the BIOS is Large Hard-Drive / 48-LBA capable, one can use this
:
(re-iteration of the final note below: a large hard drive - the one in
question, or a borrowed one which is large enough - must be present and
"connected" to employ this utility.)

Intel® Application Accelerator
48-bit LBA Test Program for Windows* Me/98 SE/98
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm

The MS-DOS*-based 48-bit LBA test program can be used on systems running
Windows* Millennium Edition (Me), Windows* 98 SE, or Windows* 98 to
determine if the BIOS is capable of supporting hard drives larger than 137GB
(48-bit LBA). The program will provide one of the following results:

PASSED - BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable. No additional steps required.
FAILED - BIOS is currently not 48-bit LBA capable. BIOS update needed.
UNDETERMINED - Test program is not able to determine if BIOS is 48-bit LBA
capable.

The 48-bit LBA test program was designed to run in a true MS-DOS
environment - not an MS-DOS prompt window. (Instructions for running the
program in true MS-DOS can be found at the bottom of this page). Running
this test program from an MS-DOS prompt from within Windows Me, Windows 98
SE or Windows 98 may work but you may see some irregularities and formatting
issues.

*Note*: Due to the current BIOS architecture, you will need to have a hard
drive larger than 137GB installed on your system before running this test
program. Otherwise, the following error message will appear: "We cannot
determine whether your BIOS is 48-bit LBA capable, because you currently do
not have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed."

Caution: Running this test program on systems using non-supported operating
systems such as Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Windows NT* 4.0 will produce a
'NTVDM.EXE' error.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then... if the basic hardware is up to snuff and meets the above
requirements, you'll probably need a 3rd-party tool/utility to
access/format/and partition the large Hard-Drive of choice. Depending on the
mfg of the hard-drive, you might be best off using *their* 'proprietary
utility' to accomplish that.
i.e - Western Digital would use the Data Lifeguard Tool 11.2, for example.
(I have successfully used the DOS Floppy version myself)
Seagate would have it's own tool. Maxxtor would have its own. Perhaps
Hitachi has it's own as well.

There are other 3rd-party Software utilities which might also be able to
accomplish this.

HTH
Roxana


"mm" wrote in message news:rbesg3p9ukjo2r4tgnb5ebuqv4lq6gkghm@4ax.com...
> Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> days ago.
>
> Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> needed winxp.
>
> A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>
>
> I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>
> But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> got now, and have room for more.
>
> Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> because I have win98SE?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
B

Bob Harris

As other replies have mentioned, you probably have a BIOS limitation, not a
win98 limitation, and certainly not a FAT32 limitation.

If this is a desktop PC, a potentially cheap solution is to get a PCI-to-ATA
adapter card, install it, then attach the new hard drive to that card
instead of to the motherboard. I did this some years ago to a 1998 vintage
Gateway (Pentium II, 450 MHz) to allow it to "see" larger disks. As a bonus
I found that disk operations were faster, since I was replacing an ATA/33
hard drive and ATA/33 disk controller (on motherboard) with ATA/100 hard
derive and ATA/100 controller (on the add-in card).

Any modern PCI controller card will have its own BIOS that supports very
large hard drives.

I suggest that you avoid trying "overlay" software from the hard drive
maker, since that is usually specific to one class of operating systems.
For example, what works for 98 may not work for XP. If instead, you stick
to native software (e.g., DOS, win98) then the hard drive will be readable
in most PCs. For example, when your current PC finally dies, if the hard
drive is still OK, it could be placed in a USB 2.0 enclosure and read by a
PC running XP or Vista or LINUX or even by a MAC.

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:rbesg3p9ukjo2r4tgnb5ebuqv4lq6gkghm@4ax.com...
> Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> days ago.
>
> Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> needed winxp.
>
> A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>
>
> I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>
> But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> got now, and have room for more.
>
> Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> because I have win98SE?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
R

Roxana

As Bob Harris pointed out, it is best to avoid the "overlay" (dynamic disk
overlay - DDO) feature of a HD-D manufacturers proprietary
format/partitioning tool. However, the proprietary software will only employ
the DDO if your system 'requires' it. If the system does not, that feature
will not even be presented / come into play. It should also be noted that
DDO can be undone in many cases.

The second thing that Bob Harris said, eg - a EIDE PCI Host Controller Card,
is the "easiest" method, as it has it's own BIOS management and overides any
computer BIOS limitation which may exist. The only issue that may arise is
whether your computer's BIOS will allow for boot-up from a PCI Host
Controller card itself. Some BIOS' only have limited flexibilty, allowing
for only a few predetermined choices, such as Floppy/CD/or Hard-Drive from
the Mobo IDE itself. Some BIOS' are more flexible and have no problem to
manage booting from a Controller card.

HTH
Roxana

"Bob Harris" wrote in message news:ercy94QDIHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> As other replies have mentioned, you probably have a BIOS limitation, not
a
> win98 limitation, and certainly not a FAT32 limitation.
>
> If this is a desktop PC, a potentially cheap solution is to get a
PCI-to-ATA
> adapter card, install it, then attach the new hard drive to that card
> instead of to the motherboard. I did this some years ago to a 1998
vintage
> Gateway (Pentium II, 450 MHz) to allow it to "see" larger disks. As a
bonus
> I found that disk operations were faster, since I was replacing an ATA/33
> hard drive and ATA/33 disk controller (on motherboard) with ATA/100 hard
> derive and ATA/100 controller (on the add-in card).
>
> Any modern PCI controller card will have its own BIOS that supports very
> large hard drives.
>
> I suggest that you avoid trying "overlay" software from the hard drive
> maker, since that is usually specific to one class of operating systems.
> For example, what works for 98 may not work for XP. If instead, you stick
> to native software (e.g., DOS, win98) then the hard drive will be readable
> in most PCs. For example, when your current PC finally dies, if the hard
> drive is still OK, it could be placed in a USB 2.0 enclosure and read by a
> PC running XP or Vista or LINUX or even by a MAC.
>
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:rbesg3p9ukjo2r4tgnb5ebuqv4lq6gkghm@4ax.com...
> > Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> > days ago.
> >
> > Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> > needed winxp.
> >
> > A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> > can see the whole disk. Is this true?
> >
> >
> > I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> > my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
> >
> > But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> > store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> > something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> > got now, and have room for more.
> >
> > Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> > because I have win98SE?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > If you are inclined to email me
> > for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
>
>
 
R

Roxana

<in-line responses>
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:s5fug3d5len7e8f4r31bk1tmt8ukrov1k9@4ax.com...
> I appreciate all the answers, and I think you answered the one I most
> neeeded, but I'm slow, so please let me be sure.

Who answered ? With which answer ?
>
> I don't need to use the whole hard drive.

Path of least resistance, but kind of ridiculous to go along with the idea,
unless the PC hardware is so ancient, so antique, that there's no choice in
the matter

I have a 75gig UltraADA
> drive in there now,

Surely, Ultra ATA is what you mean ? (EIDE, or IDE type. More accurately
ATA -as you 'implied', or P-ATA/PATA. Same thing)

> but I can only see 48gig, and that's fine because
> this is far more than I can use.

You would know, but.... one (ultimately) always practically uses as much
space as one actually has at one's disposal.

But that drive's instructions didn't
> say it wouldn't run with win98SE. It didn't mention any operating
> system at all.)

I've never run into any instance where that was stipulated. (However, that
doesn't mean there might not be one. I just never ran into such an instance.
I thank heavens for that.)
>
> Can I still do that?

My experience has been *yes*.
> Can I buy a new EIDE drive, such as from Western
> Digital,

Yes. Or Seagate, or Hitachi, or whomever.....

> that says I need win2000 SP3, or winXP,

Once again, I've never seen such a thing as that which you cite, so I cannot
comment on this aspect. I've only bought OEM drives (not "retail") and
there's never been any *instructions* or boxes with such a specified remark.

> and just use it for
> 48gig or less now, with win98SE??

Yes. But unless there was some huge limitation within your system as a
whole, I'd not set the bar so low.
>
> If I later move it to a newer OS, it will probably have the whole
> drive visible, but certainly the part I used will be??

No version of Windows natively supports HUGE hard-drives without some
prodding/workarounds. However, a 80 GB drive (decimal) is not considered
huge. With any newer computer and OS, it should recognize the entire -say 80
GB - drive.
>
>
> I would not make the partition, or the sum of all the partitions more
> than 48gig, or less if 48 was a problem.

Again, I'm not sure what sort of "antique" box you're working with. (not
intended as an insult My own PC and OS would be seen as antique to many of
today's users)

As far as "barriers" to large drives and so-forth are concerned, there have
been many. Most have been overcome as time marched along.It depends on just
where your machine "got off the line".

Some reading:
My computer doesn't recognize my new larger hard drive
http://www.md4pc.com/questions/58.htm

48-bit LBA and Windows 98, 98 SE, Me
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm

Working With Large Hard Drives - The issues and the Limits
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mosaddique/Working with Large Hard Drives.html

Hard Drive Size Limitations and Barriers - The Basics
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/drive_size_barrier_limitations.htm

Hard Drive Size Limitations and Barriers - In Depth
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm

Mandatory Requirements to Enable Ultra-ATA
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/mandatory_req_ata.htm

Large Hard Drive Support (48 bit LBA) - 137 GB plus for Windows 98 & 98 SE
http://www.largeharddrivesupport.windowsreinstall.com/win98.htm

Operating System and BIOS limitations - 137GB, 32GB, 8.4GB
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc...faqid=936&p_created=1049500809&p_sp=undefined

This should be enough for now. It takes a lot of reading to become less
"slow". I'm still very "slow" myself. :))

Good luck.
Roxana
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:56:11 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
> >days ago.
> >
> >Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
> >needed winxp.
> >
> >A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
> >can see the whole disk. Is this true?
> >
> >
> >I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
> >my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
> >
> >But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
> >store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
> >something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
> >got now, and have room for more.
> >
> >Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
> >because I have win98SE?
> >
> >Thanks.
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
M

mm

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:32:12 -0600, "Roxana"
<somewherefaraway@3rdStone.net> wrote:

>
>Some reading:
>My computer doesn't recognize my new larger hard drive
>http://www.md4pc.com/questions/58.htm
>
>48-bit LBA and Windows 98, 98 SE, Me
>http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm
>
>Working With Large Hard Drives - The issues and the Limits
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mosaddique/Working with Large Hard Drives.html
>
>Hard Drive Size Limitations and Barriers - The Basics
>http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/drive_size_barrier_limitations.htm
>
>Hard Drive Size Limitations and Barriers - In Depth
>http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm
>
>Mandatory Requirements to Enable Ultra-ATA
>http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/mandatory_req_ata.htm
>
>Large Hard Drive Support (48 bit LBA) - 137 GB plus for Windows 98 & 98 SE
>http://www.largeharddrivesupport.windowsreinstall.com/win98.htm
>
>Operating System and BIOS limitations - 137GB, 32GB, 8.4GB
>http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc...faqid=936&p_created=1049500809&p_sp=undefined
>
>This should be enough for now. It takes a lot of reading to become less
>"slow". I'm still very "slow" myself. :))

Thanks a lot. I'm reading this stuff, but it's taking a while.


>Good luck.
>Roxana


If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
R

Roxana

"mm" wrote in message news:eek:h58h39hpa69cfbmiqhau7alvvtn4hfpl3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:32:12 -0600, "Roxana" wrote:
>
> >
> >Some reading:
> >
<snipped links>
>
> Thanks a lot. I'm reading this stuff, but it's taking a while.
>
>
> If you are inclined to email me
> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)

Yes they do, and you're welcome. :)

I should have added one thing to one part of a question you asked:
mm inquired:
<paste>
"If I later move it to a newer OS, it will probably have the whole drive
visible, but certainly the part I used will be??
</paste>

As far as the visibility is concerned: The unused part / unaccessed
partition may simply appear as "unallocated space", if at some later date
you upgrade your computer.

Cheers,
Roxana
 
M

mm

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:26:26 -0600, "Roxana"
<somewherefaraway@3rdStone.net> wrote:

>
>"mm" wrote in message news:eek:h58h39hpa69cfbmiqhau7alvvtn4hfpl3@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:32:12 -0600, "Roxana" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Some reading:
>> >
><snipped links>
>>
>> Thanks a lot. I'm reading this stuff, but it's taking a while.
>>
>>
>> If you are inclined to email me
>> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
>
>Yes they do, and you're welcome. :)
>
>I should have added one thing to one part of a question you asked:
>mm inquired:
><paste>
>"If I later move it to a newer OS, it will probably have the whole drive
>visible, but certainly the part I used will be??
></paste>
>
>As far as the visibility is concerned: The unused part / unaccessed
>partition may simply appear as "unallocated space", if at some later date
>you upgrade your computer.

That would be fine. Thanks.
>
>Cheers,
>Roxana
>


If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
 
M

mm

Thanks for all the good info that came after I had to go out of town
and I stopped reading usenet and this thread for a while. I'll have
time to try all these things in the late winter or spring, and I'm
sure from what you all said that I have neough info to make it all
work. Thanks.


On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:19:55 -0600, "Roxana"
<somewherefaraway@3rdStone.net> wrote:

>As Bob Harris pointed out, it is best to avoid the "overlay" (dynamic disk
>overlay - DDO) feature of a HD-D manufacturers proprietary
>format/partitioning tool. However, the proprietary software will only employ
>the DDO if your system 'requires' it. If the system does not, that feature
>will not even be presented / come into play. It should also be noted that
>DDO can be undone in many cases.
>
>The second thing that Bob Harris said, eg - a EIDE PCI Host Controller Card,
>is the "easiest" method, as it has it's own BIOS management and overides any
>computer BIOS limitation which may exist. The only issue that may arise is
>whether your computer's BIOS will allow for boot-up from a PCI Host
>Controller card itself. Some BIOS' only have limited flexibilty, allowing
>for only a few predetermined choices, such as Floppy/CD/or Hard-Drive from
>the Mobo IDE itself. Some BIOS' are more flexible and have no problem to
>manage booting from a Controller card.
>
>HTH
>Roxana
>
>"Bob Harris" wrote in message news:ercy94QDIHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> As other replies have mentioned, you probably have a BIOS limitation, not
>a
>> win98 limitation, and certainly not a FAT32 limitation.
>>
>> If this is a desktop PC, a potentially cheap solution is to get a
>PCI-to-ATA
>> adapter card, install it, then attach the new hard drive to that card
>> instead of to the motherboard. I did this some years ago to a 1998
>vintage
>> Gateway (Pentium II, 450 MHz) to allow it to "see" larger disks. As a
>bonus
>> I found that disk operations were faster, since I was replacing an ATA/33
>> hard drive and ATA/33 disk controller (on motherboard) with ATA/100 hard
>> derive and ATA/100 controller (on the add-in card).
>>
>> Any modern PCI controller card will have its own BIOS that supports very
>> large hard drives.
>>
>> I suggest that you avoid trying "overlay" software from the hard drive
>> maker, since that is usually specific to one class of operating systems.
>> For example, what works for 98 may not work for XP. If instead, you stick
>> to native software (e.g., DOS, win98) then the hard drive will be readable
>> in most PCs. For example, when your current PC finally dies, if the hard
>> drive is still OK, it could be placed in a USB 2.0 enclosure and read by a
>> PC running XP or Vista or LINUX or even by a MAC.
>>
>> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:rbesg3p9ukjo2r4tgnb5ebuqv4lq6gkghm@4ax.com...
>> > Hi, I have win98SE and went shopping for a new hard drive a couple
>> > days ago.
>> >
>> > Some said on the box that they needed Win2000 SP3 and some said they
>> > needed winxp.
>> >
>> > A friend says this isn't quite true. They only need these so that I
>> > can see the whole disk. Is this true?
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it might be because right now I think I have a 75Gig disk in
>> > my computer and using FAT 32, I think I can only see 48.8gig of it.
>> >
>> > But that's fine if I can only see 48.8 of some hard disk. I don't
>> > store videos or many picture files, and when I finally get XP or
>> > something, I can put the same HD in that system, see everythign I've
>> > got now, and have room for more.
>> >
>> > Is there a good reason to look for older but new in box HDs just
>> > because I have win98SE?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you are inclined to email me
>> > for some reason, remove NOPSAM :)
>>
>>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
How to Fix Flash drive after format NTFS
Replies
0
Views
63
abdul rahman jahari
A
M
Hard drive not visible and accessible anymore
Replies
0
Views
43
MichaëlM
M
P
My Hard-Drive partitions are gone and not accessible
Replies
0
Views
53
P3adeep123
P
M
My m.2 won't boot after removing a secondary internal hard drive
Replies
0
Views
76
Muhammad saqer 7799
M
1
Shrinking a exciting partition on hard drive safety check
Replies
0
Views
77
1OleNoobe
1
Back
Top Bottom