Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Support (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f33-computer-support.html)
-   -   Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t197026-scandisk32-win98se-balks-at-128gb-partition.html)

A. J. Moss 04-15-2004 03:12 PM

Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not over,
128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough memory"
when told to scan that disk. Why?

Does anyone happen to know the maximum size partition that Scandisk32 for Win98
can cope with?

=?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?= 04-15-2004 03:31 PM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
A. J. Moss wrote:

> When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not over,
> 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough memory"
> when told to scan that disk. Why?


Probably because the software author never thought that anyone in
their right mind would ever have a 127GByte FAT32X partition.
>
> Does anyone happen to know the maximum size partition that Scandisk32 for Win98
> can cope with?


127GBytes.


SgtMinor 04-15-2004 04:21 PM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
"Limitations of FAT32 File System"

http://support.microsoft.com/default...NoWebContent=1

"A. J. Moss" wrote:
>
> When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not over,
> 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough memory"
> when told to scan that disk. Why?
>
> Does anyone happen to know the maximum size partition that Scandisk32 for Win98
> can cope with?


Ralph Wade Phillips 04-16-2004 02:15 AM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
Howdy!

"A. J. Moss" <ajmoss5@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:20040415111253.09984.00000398@mb-m17.aol.com...
> When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not

over,
> 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough

memory"
> when told to scan that disk. Why?


Probably more than 4 million clusters. Or more accurately, the
"almost 4 million" that's left over from 16M when SCANDISK loads and builds
its internal tables ...

>
> Does anyone happen to know the maximum size partition that Scandisk32 for

Win98
> can cope with?


Not quite 4 million clusters, and FAT32 currently has a max cluster
size of 32K in Win98, so that's just under 128G.

Try backing down a small bit at a time.

Or run either Speedisk from Norton, Diskkeeper from Executive
Software, or Raxio's Perfect Disk - all of which are 32bit apps, and don't
have that 16bit software, 24bit address space limit ...

RwP



Mad Ad 04-18-2004 12:39 AM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 

"Ralph Wade Phillips" <ralphp@techie.com> wrote in message
news:c5nk9q$3oe03$2@ID-81734.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Howdy!
>
> "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss5@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:20040415111253.09984.00000398@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not

> over,
> > 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough

> memory"
> > when told to scan that disk. Why?

>
> Probably more than 4 million clusters. Or more accurately, the
> "almost 4 million" that's left over from 16M when SCANDISK loads and

builds
> its internal tables ...


why not just take the 127.53Gb that is on the M$ site as the maximum size
rather than guessing? Close but not over 128 is not 127.53 is it? .46 of a
Gb is quite a lot.

> > Does anyone happen to know the maximum size partition that Scandisk32

for
> Win98
> > can cope with?

>
> Not quite 4 million clusters, and FAT32 currently has a max

cluster
> size of 32K in Win98, so that's just under 128G.
>
> Try backing down a small bit at a time.
>
> Or run either Speedisk from Norton, Diskkeeper from Executive
> Software, or Raxio's Perfect Disk - all of which are 32bit apps, and don't
> have that 16bit software, 24bit address space limit ...
>
> RwP
>
>




Ralph Wade Phillips 04-18-2004 02:53 AM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
Howdy!

"Mad Ad" <admail@NospaM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:v7kgc.241$D84.211@newsfe1-win...
>
> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <ralphp@techie.com> wrote in message
> news:c5nk9q$3oe03$2@ID-81734.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Howdy!
> >
> > "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss5@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:20040415111253.09984.00000398@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > > When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but not

> > over,
> > > 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not enough

> > memory"
> > > when told to scan that disk. Why?

> >
> > Probably more than 4 million clusters. Or more accurately, the
> > "almost 4 million" that's left over from 16M when SCANDISK loads and

> builds
> > its internal tables ...

>
> why not just take the 127.53Gb that is on the M$ site as the maximum size
> rather than guessing? Close but not over 128 is not 127.53 is it? .46 of a
> Gb is quite a lot.


Wasn't guessing. There's a difference between knowing the EXACT
number, and knowing where the number comes from.

And my "probably" was in reply to "Why?" since I'm not there ...

And, since .46G is about .36% .. that's not quite a lot.

RwP



Mad Ad 04-18-2004 03:28 PM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
how can you say .46 of a gig isnt a lot? I can get 3 to 4 full mp3 albums
(at a reasonable bitrate) in that space or a medium size game or several
applications/utilities or a base instal of windows 98 ... I can see youve
learned how to punch a few calculator buttons to arrive at some useless
relativistic percentage but that doesnt help the OP judge how far under
128Gb he has to go to achieve his fat32 maximum huh?


"Ralph Wade Phillips" <ralphp@techie.com> wrote in message
news:c5ssur$5d2ap$1@ID-81734.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Howdy!
>
> "Mad Ad" <admail@NospaM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:v7kgc.241$D84.211@newsfe1-win...
> >
> > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <ralphp@techie.com> wrote in message
> > news:c5nk9q$3oe03$2@ID-81734.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Howdy!
> > >
> > > "A. J. Moss" <ajmoss5@aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:20040415111253.09984.00000398@mb-m17.aol.com...
> > > > When I format a FAT32 partition to be as close as possible to, but

not
> > > over,
> > > > 128Gb (2^37 bytes), Scandisk32 for Win98SE always reports "not

enough
> > > memory"
> > > > when told to scan that disk. Why?
> > >
> > > Probably more than 4 million clusters. Or more accurately,

the
> > > "almost 4 million" that's left over from 16M when SCANDISK loads and

> > builds
> > > its internal tables ...

> >
> > why not just take the 127.53Gb that is on the M$ site as the maximum

size
> > rather than guessing? Close but not over 128 is not 127.53 is it? .46 of

a
> > Gb is quite a lot.

>
> Wasn't guessing. There's a difference between knowing the EXACT
> number, and knowing where the number comes from.
>
> And my "probably" was in reply to "Why?" since I'm not there ...
>
> And, since .46G is about .36% .. that's not quite a lot.
>
> RwP
>
>




Ralph Wade Phillips 04-18-2004 03:41 PM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
Howdy!

"Mad Ad" <admail@NospaM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:D8xgc.74$bC4.33@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
> how can you say .46 of a gig isnt a lot?


Compared to 128G? It isn't.

Compared to my first hard disk ( a whopping 5 megs )? It's a HELL
of a lot.

> I can get 3 to 4 full mp3 albums
> (at a reasonable bitrate) in that space or a medium size game or several
> applications/utilities or a base instal of windows 98 ... I can see youve
> learned how to punch a few calculator buttons to arrive at some useless
> relativistic percentage but that doesnt help the OP judge how far under
> 128Gb he has to go to achieve his fat32 maximum huh?


You were nice enough to supply the exact number. I described where
the problem was coming from, and a workaround to avoid the problem (which
would enable him to use 128G even ...)

Both are helpful.

What's NOT helpful is your apparent attitude - that of (apparently)
"YOU SUCK!" without any consideration that maybe, just MAYBE, I gave him
what he was asking for (a workaround to the scandisk problem).

But it's all a matter of attitude. You can learn to work nicely
with others - or you can keep on trying to sound like an anal retentive.
This is always your choice ...

RwP



Millimeter 04-18-2004 05:17 PM

Re: Scandisk32 (Win98SE) balks at 128GB partition
 
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:41:55 -0500, "Ralph Wade Phillips"
<ralphp@techie.com> wrote:

>Howdy!
>
>"Mad Ad" <admail@NospaM.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:D8xgc.74$bC4.33@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net...
>> how can you say .46 of a gig isnt a lot?

>
> Compared to 128G? It isn't.
>
> Compared to my first hard disk ( a whopping 5 megs )? It's a HELL


Wimp, mine was 10 megs yeilding nearly (apparently) 18 with
doublespace. Still got it under the stairs somewhere. :-)


>of a lot.
>
>> I can get 3 to 4 full mp3 albums
>> (at a reasonable bitrate) in that space or a medium size game or several
>> applications/utilities or a base instal of windows 98 ... I can see youve
>> learned how to punch a few calculator buttons to arrive at some useless
>> relativistic percentage but that doesnt help the OP judge how far under
>> 128Gb he has to go to achieve his fat32 maximum huh?

>
> You were nice enough to supply the exact number. I described where
>the problem was coming from, and a workaround to avoid the problem (which
>would enable him to use 128G even ...)
>
> Both are helpful.
>
> What's NOT helpful is your apparent attitude - that of (apparently)
>"YOU SUCK!" without any consideration that maybe, just MAYBE, I gave him
>what he was asking for (a workaround to the scandisk problem).
>
> But it's all a matter of attitude. You can learn to work nicely
>with others - or you can keep on trying to sound like an anal retentive.
>This is always your choice ...
>
> RwP
>




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.