200GB Drive in older machine

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by William Hamilton, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. William Hamilton

    cowboyz Guest

    500 does seem excessive. Th efunny thing though it I used to have a 40G and
    thought it was great. Never filled it. Then I brougth a 120G cause it was
    cheap at the time and I thought it would be a good idea. I can't tell you
    the ammount of times I have seen a "error - not enough space on volume"
    Boy it sucks. Looking at putting another 120G in which should be enough
    (??) To fill it I iso *everything* and use alcohol 120% instead of getting
    my discs out. (highly disappointed V8 supercars 2 won't iso) I also do alot
    of (well just started doing alot of) putting home videos onto DVD. The
    capture process takes some wicked disc space - Even capturing at Mpeg2 and
    then their is editing and creating the DVD on my hard drive just how I want
    it. To save myself alot of mistakes I might have 1 particular movie I'm
    working on on my hard drive 3 or 4 times in different formats, edited
    different ways so a 3G movie can be 12-15G easy while in the editing
    process. Then there is links corner and links 2003 which should be
    outlawed. That is a 40G worth of courses (I forget exactly how many I have
    but it's alot ,, 4-500 or so).

    I figure with disc space being so cheap I may as well use it.
     
    cowboyz, Jun 18, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. William Hamilton

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:15:13 +1200, in article

    Have you ever seen a 256GB FAT32 volume with 64K clusters?

    There is only one version of Windows that can format a
    256GB FAT32 volume, and that is Windows ME. And that
    is not using 64K clusters.
    Yes, that maximum volume size is what I quoted from
    MS' site (and you snipped). However, that maximum
    volume size does not apply to Windows ME.

    Theoretically. No Windows OS can format this size with 64KB clusters

    A 256GB partition is possible using 32KB clusters (which is
    supported on Windows ME).


    [UNSNIP]
    So tell us then, what is the _actual_ limit supported by Windows ME?
    Is it approximately 2 terabytes, as the Microsoft site says?
     
    Ralph Fox, Jun 19, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303013

    You must have Service Pack 1 of Windows XP to access drives larger than
    137 GB.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 19, 2004
    #23
  4. I've got a Microsoft document that says a FAT32 volume of 256GB requires
    64KB clusters.
    The document I'm reading (from MS) says that a disk of 256 GB requires
    64KB clusters (not supported by Win9x or ME).
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 19, 2004
    #24
  5. William Hamilton

    MarkH Guest

    Thanks for the info.

    I haven’t yet tried to create a partition bigger than 137GB on WinXP
    without SP1, so I didn’t know this. Hopefully if I have a problem with a
    non SP1 WinXP PC creating a big partition, I’ll remember this info.
     
    MarkH, Jun 19, 2004
    #25
  6. William Hamilton

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:27:48 +1200, in article

    When was this document written, and which versions of Windows
    does it apply to?

    Win 9x only supported up to 4,177,918 clusters on a FAT32 partition
    (16-bit code limited the FAT table size to 16MB minus 64KB)
    and a maximum of 32KB per cluster.
    The 127.5GB limit is 4,177,918 clusters x 32KB/cluster.

    Win ME broke the limit of 4,177,918 clusters (but not the 32KB/cluster).
    See http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_ryhg.asp

    | The 127.5-GB limit on FAT32 volumes imposed in Windows 98
    | no longer applies to Windows Me.


    Win 2000 copied the 4,177,918 cluster limitation, "by design" as MS
    often say.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/prork/prdf_fls_zkxi.asp

    | • The implementation of FAT32 in Windows 2000 limits the
    | maximum number of clusters on a FAT32 volume that can
    | be mounted by Windows 2000 to 4,177,918. This is the
    | maximum number of clusters on a FAT32 volume that can
    | be formatted by Windows 98.


    Theoretically, with 64KB clusters, Win 2000 could support a FAT32
    disk of 4,177,918 clusters x 64KB/cluster = 255MB.

    This is theoretical. No version of Windows can format a FAT32 disk
    of this size with 64KB clusters.
     
    Ralph Fox, Jun 21, 2004
    #26
  7. This is purely theoretical. Over 127 GiB (137 GB) requires 48 bit LBA
    support in the OS. Windows XP has recently gained this support via SP1.
    Any other version of Windows to support a disk of that size will also
    require a driver update. I can make an educated guess that this level of
    support is not coming to anything below Windows 2000 from MS.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 22, 2004
    #27
  8. William Hamilton

    Matty Guest

    IIRC, read/write support was added in Service Pack 4.

    Matty
    --
    My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/

    Using a mouse in unix? That's heresy.

    "Was there any truth in the rumour that you were
    dead?" - Norman; The Great Australian Bleeder

    "You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
    equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddam)

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without
    science is blind." - Albert Einstein

    "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die
    for your country. You just need to
    shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater, (Ret. AF general)
     
    Matty, Jun 22, 2004
    #28
  9. William Hamilton

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:29:55 +1200, in article
    On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:11:05 +1200, in article
    Your educated guess would eliminate NT4.
     
    Ralph Fox, Jun 23, 2004
    #29
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.