increasing hard drive size

[bsfoss]

i am trying to go from windows98 to xp. With my win98 i had 2 hard
drives, 1 6gig the other is a 120gig(this one is partitioned 3 times
20gig each, i could not get more than this, i assume because of win98)
i am now on xp but can only get 30 gig on the 120gig drive, i cant see
the other 2 partitons. i read somewhere if i use fat32 i can only get
30gig partitions, is this true? i dont want to use NTFS because of
some of my older games. i am running an old computer (pentium 700) it
has 512 mb of ram. if i install xp on the 6gig(it would not let me do
this because of the i386 crap) could i then format my 120gig to be
120gig or do i still have to partition it? if so do i have partitioned
4 times to get the whole 120gig? the data on both disks i dont care
about because i already backed up what i needed. if anyone knows how
to fix thanx.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The file system is tranparent to your games. They do not run in Fat32 or
NTFS, they run in memory. If they run in XP they will run regardless of the
file system.

After installing XP you can use XP's Disk Manager to remove the partitions
on the 120GB drive, create a single partition, and then format.

XP requires only 1.5GB available hard disk space to install. I don't what
you are referring to by "it would not let me do this because of the i386
crap." If you are trying to upgrade I would suggest that you do a clean
install instead. That should ensure that you have enough free space on the
6GB hard drive.

Given the price of hard drives these days, please consider replacing the 6GB
drive with a larger one. 20-, 30-, and 40-GB IDE hard drives are dirt
cheap.

Best of luck with your system.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

XP requires only 1.5GB available hard disk space to install.

<snip>

Maybe 1.5 GBytes is enough when you use a shoe horn
but in my experience 5 GBytes is extremely tight, 10 GBytes
is better and 15 GBytes is OK. If you want some head room
then 20 GBytes would be a comfortable figure.

 

[LVTravel]

i am trying to go from windows98 to xp. With my win98 i had 2 hard
drives, 1 6gig the other is a 120gig(this one is partitioned 3 times
20gig each, i could not get more than this, i assume because of win98)
i am now on xp but can only get 30 gig on the 120gig drive, i cant see
the other 2 partitons. i read somewhere if i use fat32 i can only get
30gig partitions, is this true? i dont want to use NTFS because of
some of my older games. i am running an old computer (pentium 700) it
has 512 mb of ram. if i install xp on the 6gig(it would not let me do
this because of the i386 crap) could i then format my 120gig to be
120gig or do i still have to partition it? if so do i have partitioned
4 times to get the whole 120gig? the data on both disks i dont care
about because i already backed up what i needed. if anyone knows how
to fix thanx.

Aside from the other information you have here, there may be a bios
limitation on the size of the hard drive in your system since this was
originally a Win 98 700 MHz system. Check with the MB manufacturer's
documentation for available hard drive sizes. An option if the bios is
limited is to purchase a PCI (I will assume that you have an available PCI
slot on the motherboard) IDE controller which, with it's drivers will
eliminate the smaller hard drive size limit you may have encountered.

Also, Win XP won't format a FAT 32 drive larger than 32 GB but you can
format with FAT 32 a drive with a Win 98 "system" boot disk, then install
Win XP onto that drive using the one larger partition. (BIOS must
accommodate the larger partition however.)

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Of course, but I was replying to the OP's question about the 6GB C: drive he
already owns.

 

[bsfoss]

The file system is tranparent to your games.  They do not run in Fat32 or
NTFS, they run in memory.  If they run in XP they will run regardless ofthe
file system.

After installing XP you can use XP's Disk Manager to remove the partitions
on the 120GB drive, create a single partition, and then format.

XP requires only 1.5GB available hard disk space to install.  I don't what
you are referring to by  "it would not let me do this because of the i386
crap."  If you are trying to upgrade I would suggest that you do a clean
install instead.   That should ensure that you have enough free space onthe
6GB hard drive.

Given the price of hard drives these days, please consider replacing the 6GB
drive with a larger one.  20-, 30-, and 40-GB IDE hard drives are dirt
cheap.

Best of luck with your system.






- Show quoted text -

i was wondering if i can format my 120 gig to ntfs (my 6gig has
windows xp already installed as a fat32) can i have the 6gig with xp
fat32 and the 120 gig as ntfs?

 

[Tim Slattery]

i was wondering if i can format my 120 gig to ntfs (my 6gig has
windows xp already installed as a fat32) can i have the 6gig with xp
fat32 and the 120 gig as ntfs?

Yes, WinXP handles any combination of NTFS, FAT32, FAT16 partitions.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Yes, WinXP handles any combination of NTFS, FAT32, FAT16 partitions.

....and even FAT12 (unlikely as it is that anyone would want a FAT12
partition).

 

[C.Joseph Drayton]

i am trying to go from windows98 to xp. With my win98 i had 2 hard
drives, 1 6gig the other is a 120gig(this one is partitioned 3 times
20gig each, i could not get more than this, i assume because of win98)
i am now on xp but can only get 30 gig on the 120gig drive, i cant see
the other 2 partitons. i read somewhere if i use fat32 i can only get
30gig partitions, is this true? i dont want to use NTFS because of
some of my older games. i am running an old computer (pentium 700) it
has 512 mb of ram. if i install xp on the 6gig(it would not let me do
this because of the i386 crap) could i then format my 120gig to be
120gig or do i still have to partition it? if so do i have partitioned
4 times to get the whole 120gig? the data on both disks i dont care
about because i already backed up what i needed. if anyone knows how
to fix thanx.

The Problem is that WindowsXP cannot format a partition larger than
32GB.

Use a 3rd party partition manager like GParted and the download and run
the 3rd party application 'fat32format.exe' you can find it by doing a
Google search. If you can't find it, e-mail me and I will send it to
you.

--
C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

CSD Computer Services
Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

The Problem is that WindowsXP cannot format a partition larger than
32GB.

Perhaps you know this and just omitted the important word, but that's
not correct. It should read "Windows XP cannot format a *FAT32*
partition larger than 32GB."

Use a 3rd party partition manager like GParted and the download and run
the 3rd party application 'fat32format.exe' you can find it by doing a
Google search.

No third-party program is needed. Regular MSDOS FDISK and FORMAT work
just fine.

If you can't find it, e-mail me and I will send it to
you.

Not to accuse you of anything, but these days it would foolhardy of
bsfoss or anyone else here to accept an executable program sent to him
by a stranger on a newsgroup. The risk is simply too great. Instead if
you want to recommend a program to someone, post a link to a reputable
site where he can download it.

 

[C.Joseph Drayton]

Perhaps you know this and just omitted the important word, but that's
not correct. It should read "Windows XP cannot format a FAT32
partition larger than 32GB."




No third-party program is needed. Regular MSDOS FDISK and FORMAT work
just fine.





Not to accuse you of anything, but these days it would foolhardy of
bsfoss or anyone else here to accept an executable program sent to him
by a stranger on a newsgroup. The risk is simply too great. Instead if
you want to recommend a program to someone, post a link to a reputable
site where he can download it.

1) Since we were discussing FAT32 that was a given
2) If the OP wants to stay in WindowsXP rather than run a MS-DOS boot
disk than he needs a 3rd party utility that will run in WindowsXP
3) That is what anti-virus scanners are for. People send me EXEs all
the time. The first thing I do is scan them. A decent browser will have
an extension that can be set to automatically scan all downloaded EXEs.

Just as an aside, a lot of today's computer users want to use there
computer not be computer techs. They want the simplest solution
possible. You start telling people to use boot disks and command
prompts and they are not interested. As an example; Linux's major
problem is that so much still needs to be done from the terminal. That
is why the 'free' OS has such a small market share. User friendly is a
thing that is a must for all software designers.


--

C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

CSD Computer Services
Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

1) Since we were discussing FAT32 that was a given

Assumptions like that get people in trouble all the time. Being
explicit is far better than assuming people will treat what *you*
think of as a given is correct.

2) If the OP wants to stay in WindowsXP rather than run a MS-DOS boot
disk than he needs a 3rd party utility that will run in WindowsXP

3) That is what anti-virus scanners are for.

I completely disagree. Anti-virus programs substantially *reduce* the
risk of infection, They do not and *can* not eliminate that risk
entirely. Yes, by all means use them, but don't rely on them alone.
Practicing safe hex is still required.

People send me EXEs all
the time. The first thing I do is scan them. A decent browser will have
an extension that can be set to automatically scan all downloaded EXEs.

Two points:

1. There is a great difference between the risk of an executable
program sent to you by someone you know and a stranger on a newsgroup.

2. Even if the executable is sent to you by your brother or best
friend, there is always a risk. Even if the attachment legitimately
comes from a friend, it can contain a virus. I'm not suggesting that a
friend is likely to send you a virus on purpose, but if the friend is
infected without realizing it, any attachment he sends you is likely
to also be infected.

You often see advice not to open attachments from people you don't
know. I think that that's one of the most dangerous pieces of advice
you see around, because it implies that it's safe to do the
opposite--open attachments from friends and relatives. But many
viruses spread by sending themselves to everyone in the infected
party's address book, so attachments received from friends are perhaps
the *most* risky to open.

 

[C.Joseph Drayton]

Assumptions like that get people in trouble all the time. Being
explicit is far better than assuming people will treat what you
think of as a given is correct.





I completely disagree. Anti-virus programs substantially reduce the
risk of infection, They do not and can not eliminate that risk
entirely. Yes, by all means use them, but don't rely on them alone.
Practicing safe hex is still required.




Two points:

1. There is a great difference between the risk of an executable
program sent to you by someone you know and a stranger on a newsgroup.

2. Even if the executable is sent to you by your brother or best
friend, there is always a risk. Even if the attachment legitimately
comes from a friend, it can contain a virus. I'm not suggesting that a
friend is likely to send you a virus on purpose, but if the friend is
infected without realizing it, any attachment he sends you is likely
to also be infected.

You often see advice not to open attachments from people you don't
know. I think that that's one of the most dangerous pieces of advice
you see around, because it implies that it's safe to do the
opposite--open attachments from friends and relatives. But many
viruses spread by sending themselves to everyone in the infected
party's address book, so attachments received from friends are perhaps
the most risky to open.

Hi Ken,

In 'theory' you are correct but for practical purposes you are wrong. I
am in business, and quite often I recieve files from both clients and
prospective clients. If I were to refuse to accept attachments for
analysis, I would destroy my business. Or make it so cumbersome to run
that it would be unacceptable.

We have been in the 'information age' for more than 30 years, we are
now at the point where we depend on that sharing of information and
product via the Internet. If you slow down the process, your business
will regress or fail.

I will grant that the Internet can be a dangerous place . . . but like
anything else if the proper tools are used, the web can be navigated
safely. The answer of not using the full potential of the Internet
limits you and your business.

For example, I run a shadow-OS program when I am on-line. Even if a
piece of mal-ware were to get by my realtime spy/adware scanner,
anti-virus scanner, rootkit installer scanner and firewall when I
reboot the computer, the probllem would disappear since it was
installed in the shadow-OS and the entire shadow-OS virtual drive is
erased when I shut down.

--

C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T

CSD Computer Services
Web site: http://csdcs.tlerma.com/
E-mail: (e-mail address removed)

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

We have been in the 'information age' for more than 30 years, we are
now at the point where we depend on that sharing of information and
product via the Internet. If you slow down the process, your business
will regress or fail.

I will grant that the Internet can be a dangerous place . . . but like
anything else if the proper tools are used, the web can be navigated
safely. The answer of not using the full potential of the Internet
limits you and your business.

Very well stated.

I've been online for nearly 20 years and have yet to have a virus/worm
problem, and that is WITHOUT limiting the files my system will
receive... and MOST of the time I've run without virus protection.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:



Hi Ken,

In 'theory' you are correct but for practical purposes you are wrong. I
am in business, and quite often I recieve files from both clients and
prospective clients. If I were to refuse to accept attachments for
analysis, I would destroy my business. Or make it so cumbersome to run
that it would be unacceptable.

Understood. You're not the only person in that circumstance. You don't
even have to be in business for yourself--you could work for a company
that requires you to accept attachments.

If you have to, you have to. I certainly don't suggest that you should
go out of business to follow my rules, or that anybody defy the rules
of his company. Nevertheless, many people are home users who do *not*
have to open attachments. It is to such people that I address the
warning that opening attachments is a dangerous thing to do, and
should be avoided wherever possible.

Personally I don't open executable attachments, and I advise others to
follow the same practice I do, *if* they are able to. I make a very
occasional exception to my no-opening-attachments rule, but only for a
very few trusted people.

 

[C.Joseph Drayton]

Understood. You're not the only person in that circumstance. You don't
even have to be in business for yourself--you could work for a company
that requires you to accept attachments.

If you have to, you have to. I certainly don't suggest that you should
go out of business to follow my rules, or that anybody defy the rules
of his company. Nevertheless, many people are home users who do not
have to open attachments. It is to such people that I address the
warning that opening attachments is a dangerous thing to do, and
should be avoided wherever possible.

Personally I don't open executable attachments, and I advise others to
follow the same practice I do, if they are able to. I make a very
occasional exception to my no-opening-attachments rule, but only for a
very few trusted people.

I will grant that if the end-user does not open attachments they will
not get a virus via attachment. The point still is that they can not
get attachments that they may need.

Instead of advocating to my clients that they NOT open attachments, I
have installed on their machines software that will allow them to
recieve and check attachments safely.

Also keep in mind that some e-mai clients allow embedded javascript.
People don't know to turn off that feature. When they open the e-mail,
it triggers the javascript which in turn opens the attachment. They do
not know that the attachment has been opened since they didn't ask it
to open.

As I said it is better to have a tool that will properly scan an
attachment when it comes in.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I will grant that if the end-user does not open attachments they will
not get a virus via attachment. The point still is that they can not
get attachments that they may need.

I'm repeating myself, but I'll say it again: if someone is in a
business situation where he needs to open attachments, then he needs
to open attachments. I have nothing to say about that.

My comments are addressed primarily to home users who hardly ever
*need* to open attachments.

As I said it is better to have a tool that will properly scan an
attachment when it comes in.

I am certainly in favor of using tools like anti-virus software. But
such software is never perfect. And no matter how often virus
definitions are updated, there is always a delay between the time a
new virus gets released and the time your anti-virus program updates
its definitions for it. No matter how short that period, it is always
there, and there is therefore always a window of vulnerability.

The safest practice is therefore a combination of software tools and
practicing safe hex. And safe hex includes not opening attachments
(unless of course, you are in a business or other situation where you
have to).