Windows 98SE limits?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Johnny - 12 Nov 2005 01:57 GMT

Windows 98SE limits?
What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
What is the maximum size of ram that 98SE can use?
Thanks Johnny

Reply to this Message

Chris - 12 Nov 2005 02:03 GMT

The maximum HDD size Windows supports is 128GB ( since there are no 128GB
drives... 120GB ). However, depending on the MB, you may have to flash the
BIOS to recognize the full 120GBs.

Without any changes, 512MB is the limit for Windows. However, by adding the
line MaxFileCache=512000 under the VCache heading in the System.ini file,
you can use 1GB of memory without any problems. Again, your motherboard may
have a lower limit.

> Windows 98SE limits?
> What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
> What is the maximum size of ram that 98SE can use?
> Thanks Johnny

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 12 Nov 2005 05:30 GMT

>The maximum HDD size Windows supports is 128GB ( since there are no 128GB
>drives... 120GB ). However, depending on the MB, you may have to flash the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>you can use 1GB of memory without any problems. Again, your motherboard may
>have a lower limit.

And it is sometimes possible to use up to 1.5 gb of RAM with Windows
98 with the vcache limit in place.

There is no instance that I am aware of where anyone has been able to
use Windows 98 on a computer with more than 1.5 gb of RAM.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Johnny - 12 Nov 2005 12:40 GMT

Looks like it time to move to Windows XP. I just like 98se it has all ways
work so well for me.
Thanks Johnny

> >The maximum HDD size Windows supports is 128GB ( since there are no 128GB
> >drives... 120GB ). However, depending on the MB, you may have to flash the
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Reply to this Message

J. P. Gilliver - 10 Aug 2006 23:29 GMT

> Looks like it time to move to Windows XP. I just like 98se it has all ways
> work so well for me.

So why do you need to move - planning on needing more than these then?
[]

>> >The maximum HDD size Windows supports is 128GB ( since there are no
>> >128GB

[]

>> >you can use 1GB of memory without any problems. Again, your motherboard

[]

Reply to this Message

Pat - 18 Nov 2005 23:23 GMT

>Windows 98SE limits?
>What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
>What is the maximum size of ram that 98SE can use?
>Thanks Johnny

128GB (137 GiB) is the max drive size. However, there are ways around
this. Check out www.48bitlba.com. A patch to allow large drives is
available here: http://members.aol.com/rloew1/.

I'm using a 160GB drive on my 98FE system.

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 19 Nov 2005 05:23 GMT

>>Windows 98SE limits?
>>What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>I'm using a 160GB drive on my 98FE system.

What do you do about SCANDISK and DEFRAG? Do you have some third
party replacement for these that will work with drives larger than 128
gb?

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Pat - 19 Nov 2005 06:22 GMT

>>>Windows 98SE limits?
>>>What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

I'm using the ME versions for both. So far no problems. I use the Intel
Application Accelerator for W98 compatibility. DOS Scandisk seems to
work fine, too. That said, I have yet to stored any data in the possible
trouble zone above the 128gb limit (which is in the last partition on
the drive). Win Explorer sees the entire disk as does PowerDesk, the WE
replacement I use, although this may not matter.

My bad in my previous post. Should be 128 GiB and 137 GB.

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message

Jonny - 21 Nov 2005 09:37 GMT

> >>>Windows 98SE limits?
> >>>What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> My bad in my previous post. Should be 128 GiB and 137 GB.

Trouble spot is 128GB of data or more, not any particular partition size or
partition location relation. This sum, 128GB of data, is for the entire
hard disk, not just a partition.

Hard disk capacity realization is another subject which is woven in your
post. This is not the same thing.

Signature

Lil' Dave
Beware the rule quoters, the corp mindset, the Borg
Else you will be absorbed

Reply to this Message

Pat - 21 Nov 2005 11:30 GMT

>> >>>Windows 98SE limits?
>> >>>What is the limit on the size of hard drive?
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>Hard disk capacity realization is another subject which is woven in your
>post. This is not the same thing.

I understand that. I was just saying that I won't hit 128gb of data
until the last partition is about 1/3 filled. Even if all the prior
partitions are completely filled I will still be under 128 GB of data.
I suppose one could scatter enough data between the partitions to exceed
128gb. In my case with 5 partitions that would mean filling them to over
90% each. Which isn't likely for me since I like to keep 20-25% of a
partition empty.

However, none of this should be a problem using Intel's Application
Accelerator since it provides 48bit LBA support. ScanDisk and Defrag may
be another issue, though. Reinstalling Windows could also be a problem
since the Accelerator cannot be installed until the OS is installed.
AFAIK, no slipstreaming of the Accelerator onto a CD-ROM with W98.

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 21 Nov 2005 21:51 GMT

>I understand that. I was just saying that I won't hit 128gb of data
>until the last partition is about 1/3 filled. Even if all the prior
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>since the Accelerator cannot be installed until the OS is installed.
>AFAIK, no slipstreaming of the Accelerator onto a CD-ROM with W98.

Okay. You have your hard drive partitioned, and no one
partition/logical is larger than 128 gb.

That will work, provided your hardware (e.g. BIOS) will recognize the
drive. But a 160 gb drive as a single partition will not run Scandisk
or Defrag even with the Windows Me versions.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Pat - 21 Nov 2005 22:25 GMT

>>I understand that. I was just saying that I won't hit 128gb of data
>>until the last partition is about 1/3 filled. Even if all the prior
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Good to hear. I have been slightly concerned that I might be setting
myself up for disaster. Glad to hear ScanDisk and Defrag are good to go.
While researching installing this drive I heard somewhat
confusing/conflicting reports on these utilities. The BIOS is updated
for 48bit LBA support.

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 22 Nov 2005 20:13 GMT

>Good to hear. I have been slightly concerned that I might be setting
>myself up for disaster. Glad to hear ScanDisk and Defrag are good to go.
>While researching installing this drive I heard somewhat
>confusing/conflicting reports on these utilities. The BIOS is updated
>for 48bit LBA support.

The actual limits for Scandisk and Defrag are based on the number of
clusters, and the actual limit is about 4.1 million (2^22 or
thereabouts).

The 128 gb (binary) or 137 billion byte maximum is predicated on the
use of a 32K cluster size. With a 4K cluster size you will run into
problems with Scandisk and Defrag with drives/partitions as small as
17 gb.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Pat - 23 Nov 2005 06:23 GMT

>>Good to hear. I have been slightly concerned that I might be setting
>>myself up for disaster. Glad to hear ScanDisk and Defrag are good to go.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Interesting, the C: drive is 4.66Gib with 4k clusters and the other four
vary a little around 36GiB with 16K clusters. Any problems with that?
Looks like it should be OK to me.

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message

Ron Badour - 23 Nov 2005 11:01 GMT

You will probably have a problem with that as a 36 gb partition should have
a 32 kb cluster size. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=229154

This article is one of the best I've seen on the W98 large drive problem:
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm

Signature

Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

>>>Good to hear. I have been slightly concerned that I might be setting
>>>myself up for disaster. Glad to hear ScanDisk and Defrag are good to go.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> vary a little around 36GiB with 16K clusters. Any problems with that?
> Looks like it should be OK to me.

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 23 Nov 2005 18:39 GMT

>You will probably have a problem with that as a 36 gb partition should have
>a 32 kb cluster size. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=229154

The values in that article are excessively conservative.

Insofar as Scandisk and Defrag are concerned you can use:

4K clusters for drives up to 16 gb
8K clusters for drives up to 32 gb
16K clusters for drives up to 64 gb
32K clusters for drives up to 128 gb.

I don't know why Microsoft chose the values they did for this article,
but if you follow the logic used with the other cluster sizes then the
limit for 32K clusters should be 64 gb whereas in fact it is 128 gb.
Experimentation has shown that the values I gave above do work.

This cluster size issue used to come up very frequently a few years
ago, when many people were replacing their hard drives with larger
models. Often they would use a drive cloning utility to copy the
entire content of the old drive to the new one and by doing so the new
drive would often end up with the same cluster size as the old drive.
So if a 4 gb drive with 4K clusters was cloned to a new 17 gb drive it
could result in a 4K cluster size on the new drive, creating more than
4.1 million total clusters and therefore neither Scandisk or Defrag
would work.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Ron Martell - 23 Nov 2005 18:30 GMT

>Interesting, the C: drive is 4.66Gib with 4k clusters and the other four
>vary a little around 36GiB with 16K clusters. Any problems with that?
>Looks like it should be OK to me.

Should be no problems relating to the number of clusters.

36 gb divided by 16K means there are approximately 2.25 million
clusters on the drive, well below the maximum.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Signature

Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

Reply to this Message

Pat - 23 Nov 2005 23:18 GMT

>>Interesting, the C: drive is 4.66Gib with 4k clusters and the other four
>>vary a little around 36GiB with 16K clusters. Any problems with that?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Thanks for both replies. I had originally set up the larger partitions
at 4K but found the FAT to be excessively large (didn't know about the
number of clusters being an issue, just that it took a long time for Win
Exp to load the disk info). I settled on 16k as a reasonable compromise
between FAT size and excessive slack.
Thanks again,

Signature

Pat

Reply to this Message