I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
(dual head video card) system.
Thank you for your time and input.
Bryan

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:53:46 -0700, Bryan wrote:

> I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
> against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
> understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
> this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
> XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
> exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
> vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> (dual head video card) system.
> Thank you for your time and input.
> Bryan

Win98 is not limited to 2GB. FAT32, available in this operating system,
allows larger partitions. Older versions of BIOS and FAT16 will impose a
2GB limit. Your system sounds modern enough that using partitions greater
than 2GB should be within your reach. Suspect that the 2GB limits you're
seeing now are due to how the system was set up originally.

Have been using XP for 2+ years and love it. Have not missed using Win9x/ME
at all.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP/ Windows XP - Shell/User

It can nothing to do with the BIOS

Fat 32 supports up to 32 GB (I think).
Windows XP, which uses NTFS5 (not a typo) supports up to 2 TB. About 2,000
GB. Win NT uses NTFS, which doesn't support encryption, disk quotas, sparse
files, reparse points, and volume mount points.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> You may need to update your BIOS. One of my Windows 98 PCs uses a 60GB
hard
> drive.
>
> "Bryan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:007501c369a7$e201f5a0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
> > against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
> > understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
> > this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
> > XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
> > exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
> > vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> > (dual head video card) system.
> > Thank you for your time and input.
> > Bryan
>
>

Fat 32 supports up to 32 GB (I think).
Windows XP, which uses NTFS5 (not a typo) supports up to 2 TB. About 2,000
GB. Win NT uses NTFS (no "5"), which doesn't support encryption, disk
quotas, sparse files, reparse points, and volume mount points.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Sharon F" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:53:46 -0700, Bryan wrote:
>
> > I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
> > against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
> > understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
> > this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
> > XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
> > exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
> > vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> > (dual head video card) system.
> > Thank you for your time and input.
> > Bryan
>
> Win98 is not limited to 2GB. FAT32, available in this operating system,
> allows larger partitions. Older versions of BIOS and FAT16 will impose a
> 2GB limit. Your system sounds modern enough that using partitions greater
> than 2GB should be within your reach. Suspect that the 2GB limits you're
> seeing now are due to how the system was set up originally.
>
> Have been using XP for 2+ years and love it. Have not missed using
Win9x/ME
> at all.
>
> --
> Sharon F
> MS-MVP/ Windows XP - Shell/User

Actually it's XP that won't create and then format a partition with FAT32
larger then 32GB, but you can use an old 98/ME boot disk and FDISK larger
partitions as FAT32 if needed :-)

"PCyr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Fat 32 supports up to 32 GB (I think).
> Windows XP, which uses NTFS5 (not a typo) supports up to 2 TB. About
2,000
> GB. Win NT uses NTFS (no "5"), which doesn't support encryption, disk
> quotas, sparse files, reparse points, and volume mount points.
>
> --
> Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes
>
> Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
> self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)
>
> Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> Change the obvious to the obvious.
> ------------------
> "Sharon F" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:53:46 -0700, Bryan wrote:
> >
> > > I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
> > > against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
> > > understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
> > > this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
> > > XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
> > > exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
> > > vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> > > (dual head video card) system.
> > > Thank you for your time and input.
> > > Bryan
> >
> > Win98 is not limited to 2GB. FAT32, available in this operating system,
> > allows larger partitions. Older versions of BIOS and FAT16 will impose a
> > 2GB limit. Your system sounds modern enough that using partitions
greater
> > than 2GB should be within your reach. Suspect that the 2GB limits you're
> > seeing now are due to how the system was set up originally.
> >
> > Have been using XP for 2+ years and love it. Have not missed using
> Win9x/ME
> > at all.
> >
> > --
> > Sharon F
> > MS-MVP/ Windows XP - Shell/User
>
>

"Bryan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Any thoughts about this: 98se
> vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> (dual head video card) system.

Other posters already mentioned the HD limit thing so I won't.

I have a Katmai P3 @ 450 MHz on a seriously outdated mainboard with
a mere 320 MB RAM, dual monitors (via two video cards) and an
absurd amount of software installed (web server, DTP, imaging,
audio, programming languages, internet stuff, security stuff, a
bunch of lightweight games and more).

I'm running XP Pro, and IT WORKS JUST FINE, no matter what some
people might tell you. I dare say your hardware won't pose an
obstacle to Windows 2000 or XP. Your 512 MB RAM in particular will
help. I rather like XP Professional, I just wish it was open source
or something. Windows 98 is a nightmare.

If you care about my subjective opinions (and I don't quite see why
you should, but), read on.

pros:

Hardware installation is dead easy. Not that I can't guarantee this
for anyone else's setup, but I rarely even have to dig up the
driver CD when plugging something into my computer.

Task Manager. You can obtain information on active processes via
the Task Manager. If a program hangs, you can easily kill it. Fatal
crashes (bluescreens) are mostly due to bad drivers and don't occur
just because it's that time of day or something; Windows isn't
quite "there" yet, but a decently configured XP is less unreliable
than Windows 98.

XP is a multiuser OS (the Home Edition less consistently so for all
I know). This might actually be of more interest to you than it is
to me since you don't seem to live alone. Protect your OS from
careless manipulation from inside and out, restrict users to their
own user profile directories, keep each user's settings and data
neatly separated. I also suspect some of the software I use
(originally Linux/Unix software ported over to Windows) might not
work that well on a single-user Windows (that may not concern you
much).

Some control over services. Things running "in the background",
such as a firewall or server or dozens of potentially useless-for-
you Windows components can be listed, stopped, started and
configured in central places.

Look and feel. Well, I was rather put off by the "Fisher Price"
look, but eventually realized I actually prefer it to the drab,
kinda "dirty" Windows classic look. Not that you can't use that one
anymore if you like.

contras:

License/Product Activation. I might just have to throw my XP away
once I upgrade this admittedly "cheap" computer. I naively bought
the less expensive OEM version of XP, not realising what it meant
with regard to the license. While this is arguably my own fault for
believing it was _my_ business what to do with the software I
bought, I'm so annoyed with this by now that I'll never buy
anything from Microsoft again. By all means go with the retail
version if you want to (or have to) use Windows.

Default UI settings. Plenty pretty but ultimately time-wasting
effects. Anything remotely informative, from file extensions to the
contents of important directories, is, initially, hidden (so as not
to confuse the hapless user?). Not really an issue since you can
turn all of it back on.

Insecurity. By default, the user account you creature during
installation has administrator rights. By default, plenty services
are running that serve no purpose on a non-LAN machine. By default,
Windows phones home (or elsewhere) every so often, except you won't
notice if you don't have a personal firewall installed. While that
might not be an actual security/privacy risk each time, I wish it'd
just _tell_ me what exactly it's trying to do -- this being _my_
computer and all.

Integration of Outlook Express, Media Player, Internet Explorer
with the OS. It doesn't matter if you want these around or not, you
can't get rid of them even if you _never_ use them. A waste of
harddisk space, and, I think, disrespectful toward the user. (Okay,
a point could be made that IE is required for Windows Update -- but
then, why not tell the user that they need to keep IE around if
they want semi-automated updates?)

EULA. Just read the End User License Agreement some time. It's not
funny anymore.

Games. If you like to play games, older ones in particular, you'll
likely run into troubles. The "compatibility" tab of "legacy"
apps' properties dialogues helps a little, but not always.

I guess I'm making it sound as though XP was the worst thing that
could ever happen to your computer. And it does take some
configuring to make it un-annoying, in my opinion. But, considering
I'm not a network admin or wizard hacker or anything, it serves me
very well.

~Ally

--
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.

Thanks, noted.
--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"John E. Carty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:t_S1b.6533$_(E-Mail Removed)...
> Actually it's XP that won't create and then format a partition with FAT32
> larger then 32GB, but you can use an old 98/ME boot disk and FDISK larger
> partitions as FAT32 if needed :-)
>
> "PCyr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Fat 32 supports up to 32 GB (I think).
> > Windows XP, which uses NTFS5 (not a typo) supports up to 2 TB. About
> 2,000
> > GB. Win NT uses NTFS (no "5"), which doesn't support encryption, disk
> > quotas, sparse files, reparse points, and volume mount points.
> >
> > --
> > Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes
> >
> > Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
> > self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)
> >
> > Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
> > Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
> > Change the obvious to the obvious.
> > ------------------
> > "Sharon F" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:53:46 -0700, Bryan wrote:
> > >
> > > > I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
> > > > against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
> > > > understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
> > > > this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
> > > > XP? My kids use XP and it seems to work well with some
> > > > exceptions for some games. Any thoughts about this: 98se
> > > > vs. XP? I have a Pent. 733 with 512 RAM and dual monitor
> > > > (dual head video card) system.
> > > > Thank you for your time and input.
> > > > Bryan
> > >
> > > Win98 is not limited to 2GB. FAT32, available in this operating
system,
> > > allows larger partitions. Older versions of BIOS and FAT16 will impose
a
> > > 2GB limit. Your system sounds modern enough that using partitions
> greater
> > > than 2GB should be within your reach. Suspect that the 2GB limits
you're
> > > seeing now are due to how the system was set up originally.
> > >
> > > Have been using XP for 2+ years and love it. Have not missed using
> > Win9x/ME
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sharon F
> > > MS-MVP/ Windows XP - Shell/User
> >
> >
>
>

And those computers probably aren't compatible with XP. That's why MS
doesn't allow to upgrade from 95 to XP; most of the hardware from the 95 era
and before is unsupported. No computer that has XP compatible hardware
should/(probably) would have a motherboard and BIOS that old.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Papa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not necessarily true. To quote from a Western Digital Hard Drive manual:
>
> "Some computer systems built before 1996 do not support hard drives with
> more than 4095 cylinders (hard drives larger than 2.1GB), unless you
update
> the system BIOS, install an eide controller card with onboard BIOS, or
> install third-party software such as EZ-Drive."
>
> Also, from the same manual:
>
> "There is an 8.4GB hard drive limitation on some traditional system BIOSs.
> To access the full capacity of 8.4GB and larger hard drives, your system
> BIOS must support extended BIOS functions..."
>
> "PCyr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > It can nothing to do with the BIOS
> >
> <snip>
>
>

"PCyr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| And those computers probably aren't compatible with XP. That's why MS
| doesn't allow to upgrade from 95 to XP; most of the hardware from the
95 era
| and before is unsupported. No computer that has XP compatible
hardware
| should/(probably) would have a motherboard and BIOS that old.


I don't know where you get your infomation. Most if it is untrue.
I was trying to settle an OEM vs RETAIL thing for my self and
installed WXPPRO OEM on a P2 266 with 384 MB RAM it
installed and ran fine for 20 days. I then uninstalled it because
of activation.

Bryan wrote:

>I currently use 98se and like it. However I am running up
>against the 2GB C drive limitation. It is my
>understanding that XP does not have this limitation. Is
>this correct? Are there any limitation of disk sizes for
>XP?


?? There is no 2GB limit on the C drive in Win98. There was in original
Win95, that could only use FAT 16, but Win98 normally uses FAT 32 which
allows effectively unlimited size. If that is the only trouble, you
need a partition manager to expand your C: (shrinking something else to
make room) and convert to FAT 32. I suggest BootIT NG, from
http://www.BootitNG.com ($35 shareware - 30 day full functional trial)

Download, to its own folder, extract from the zip, run the bootitng to
make a boot floppy.

Boot the floppy, Cancel Install, entering maintenance, then click on
Partition work.

THere you can select partitions and resize and slide them about as
needed. And if you increase the size of C it will convert to FAT 32
(which you can force anyway with Properties and select the type in the
download box


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (E-Mail Removed)