«

>What is all this talk about FAT16? Win95b and later supports FAT32.

Someone had mentioned FAT16 and said that it supported 4 gb partitions.
I was only pointing out that 4 gigs was not possible under the DOS/Win9x
kernel, and even under NTFS the cluster size was astronomical and would
generate huge drive slack. Not sure how the topic came up originally.

>Maximum file size: 4 GB minus 1 byte (2 ³² bytes minus 1 byte).
>http://tinyurl.com/2ozuo

Yes, I realized my error this morning. It is indeed a four-gig max
file size under FAT32. I stand corrected.

>Using 98SE I ripped a DVD once to a single file as an experiment and
>it stopped at 4Gig (-1 byte). It played back fine.

erik wrote:
> "moriman" <> wrote in message
> news:dah70b$e1$...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Is it possbile to work with DVDs using Win98?
>>
>>In particular I am thinking of the 4Gb file size limit of Win98's
>>FAT32 file
>>system. If I want to create an iso image of a DVD on my 40Gb hard
>>drive,
>>CloneDVD is complaining that my drive doesn't support files larger
>>that 4Gb.
>>I can repartition the drive to have a 10GB (for example) NTFS
>>partition
>>(that does support files > 4Gb) but this partition will not be
>>recognised by
>>Win98
>>
>>I really do prefer Win98 to XP but cannot see a way around this
>>problem.
>>
>>Any help that can be offered would be greatly appreciated
>>
>>TIA
>>
>>mori
>>
>
>
> If you really must keep Win98 for whatever reason, use dual boot and
> install XP as well. But I would get rid of Win98. My brother used to
> have it, too, but his children were installing various games and they
> succeeded to damage it pretty quickly (just by
> installing/deinstalling) - I used to have 2-3 phonecalls from him per
> week that something is damaged again, please help. After installing XP
> problems stopped (or he does not want to speak with me again?
> Anyway, XP is more robust and if you have good enough hardware, you
> should use it. You'll get used to it pretty quickly. BTW 10GB
> partition won't be probably enough.
>

Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP as
I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file system format ?


Richard.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:55 +0100, Richard Brooks <>
wrote:

>Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP as
>I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file system format ?

No such thing as a stupid question. Yes, NT 4.0 uses NTFS, but I can't
think of any particular advantage to NT 4.0 over Win2K or WinXP. Why
would you want to do this?

wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:55 +0100, Richard Brooks <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP as
>>I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file system format ?
>
>
> No such thing as a stupid question. Yes, NT 4.0 uses NTFS, but I can't
> think of any particular advantage to NT 4.0 over Win2K or WinXP. Why
> would you want to do this?

In my travels around my attic (past the Netware boxes, Concurrent PC-DOS
and QuickBASIC) I found my copy I thought I'd thrown away! Reading in
some of the notes, it looks like your idea in buying WinXP is the best
bet as there are some NT4 installation issues with drives larger than 4gig!


Richard.

"Richard Brooks" <> wrote in message
news:dak3qm$ujt$...
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:55 +0100, Richard Brooks
>> <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP
>>>as I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file
>>>system format ?
>>
>>
>> No such thing as a stupid question. Yes, NT 4.0 uses NTFS, but I
>> can't
>> think of any particular advantage to NT 4.0 over Win2K or WinXP.
>> Why would you want to do this?
>
> In my travels around my attic (past the Netware boxes, Concurrent
> PC-DOS and QuickBASIC) I found my copy I thought I'd thrown away!
> Reading in some of the notes, it looks like your idea in buying
> WinXP is the best bet as there are some NT4 installation issues with
> drives larger than 4gig!
>
>
> Richard.

I think Micro$oft is terminating their support for NT4, so I'd say
it's best to skip even Win2k and go to WinXP. I may be wrong, but NT4
does not support USB2 (or does it?), which can be a problem. Also it
does not have windows file protection, which is rather a nice feature.

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:43:41 +0200, "erik" <> wrote:

>"Richard Brooks" <> wrote in message
>news:dak3qm$ujt$...
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:55 +0100, Richard Brooks
>>> <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP
>>>>as I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file
>>>>system format ?
>>>
>>>
>>> No such thing as a stupid question. Yes, NT 4.0 uses NTFS, but I
>>> can't
>>> think of any particular advantage to NT 4.0 over Win2K or WinXP.
>>> Why would you want to do this?
>>
>> In my travels around my attic (past the Netware boxes, Concurrent
>> PC-DOS and QuickBASIC) I found my copy I thought I'd thrown away!
>> Reading in some of the notes, it looks like your idea in buying
>> WinXP is the best bet as there are some NT4 installation issues with
>> drives larger than 4gig!
>>
>>
>> Richard.
>
>I think Micro$oft is terminating their support for NT4, so I'd say
>it's best to skip even Win2k and go to WinXP. I may be wrong, but NT4
>does not support USB2 (or does it?), which can be a problem. Also it
>does not have windows file protection, which is rather a nice feature.
>

NT4's file system is not compatible with XP's, and NT4 does not
support USB.

... Steve ..

erik wrote:
> "Richard Brooks" <> wrote in message
> news:dak3qm$ujt$...
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:56:55 +0100, Richard Brooks
>>><>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stupid question probably but would NT4.0 work as a substitute to XP
>>>>as I'd assume from the NT in NTFS that they use the same file
>>>>system format ?
>>>
>>>
>>>No such thing as a stupid question. Yes, NT 4.0 uses NTFS, but I
>>>can't
>>>think of any particular advantage to NT 4.0 over Win2K or WinXP.
>>>Why would you want to do this?
>>
>>In my travels around my attic (past the Netware boxes, Concurrent
>>PC-DOS and QuickBASIC) I found my copy I thought I'd thrown away!
>>Reading in some of the notes, it looks like your idea in buying
>>WinXP is the best bet as there are some NT4 installation issues with
>>drives larger than 4gig!
>>
>>
>>Richard.
>
>
> I think Micro$oft is terminating their support for NT4, so I'd say
> it's best to skip even Win2k and go to WinXP. I may be wrong, but NT4
> does not support USB2 (or does it?), which can be a problem. Also it
> does not have windows file protection, which is rather a nice feature.
>

I think you're right but then it's for us guys so you have to "do it by
hand" as it were, the system not being plug n' play.

Asking in a shop down the road I'd found that WinXP is only about 60
quid/UKP so that's worth avoiding the "effing and blinding" that goes
with fdisk, install, long wait for installation then error - WinNT
cannot install.

I'm only going for a graphics rendering/DVD machine with no connection
to the outside world so I just need a simple setup with little software.


Richard.

>I think Micro$oft is terminating their support for NT4, so I'd say
>it's best to skip even Win2k and go to WinXP. I may be wrong, but NT4
>does not support USB2 (or does it?), which can be a problem. Also it
>does not have windows file protection, which is rather a nice feature.
>
W2K is NT5.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"John C." <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> >I think Micro$oft is terminating their support for NT4, so I'd say
> >it's best to skip even Win2k and go to WinXP. I may be wrong, but NT4
> >does not support USB2 (or does it?), which can be a problem. Also it
> >does not have windows file protection, which is rather a nice feature.
> >
> W2K is NT5.

It WAS NT5, it was re-worked enough to not be called NT5 anymore. They even
did a completely new BETA testing after the re-work.

Biz () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> It WAS NT5, it was re-worked enough to not be called NT5 anymore. They even
> did a completely new BETA testing after the re-work.

Nope, it's *still* NT5. If you request the Windows version from the OS,
Win2K returns (essentially) "NT 5.0". The exact version on my install with
SP4 is "5.00.2195".

Windows XP returns "5.1" as the short version number.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/MotherG...ewaySource.gif