If you are not having any problems you are an expeton to the rule that windows was written for. Maybe you have an angel mounted on your processor.... did you visit the link? see http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46752 Windows 98SE can NOT access a drive with more than 137 gig on it no matter if you make 2 100 gig partitions on it or 20 10 gig partitions. Show me a screen shot, with your partitions used space and free space and I will explain to you why yours is working. I know there is a fix for this problem and that is the info I seek, what version addresses the fix and where to get the version of the Unofficial Windows Servive Pack that corrects the problem. It is possible to have a 250 gig drive under windows 98SE one partition all usable, with a patch to windows.

0

"It is possible to have a 250 gig drive under windows 98SE one partition all usable, with a patch to windows" I guess I misunderstand your problem. If that's what you are looking for I can't be of any help. Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!! Sorry, I do not check for private messages

0

Correction... "I misunderstood" Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!! Sorry, I do not check for private messages

0

My second HD is a 200 gb, BIOS sees it as 203gb. I partitioned it as 5 gb [D:] for XP and got 185 gb for the balance [H:], the rest went into cyber heaven but I can live with that. I used the new Win ME Fdisk without a problem in 98/XP [both FAT32] dual boot system. I did this from a 98 bootdisc and not in XP. I have no service packs or updates for 98SE either and never will. Only drawback is that Scandisk and Defrag will not work on the H: drive but Norton's defrag will but easier to do all that in XP mode anyway, not that it needs it done much. I also will never use third party software for partitioning etc...just good 'ol Fdisk for me. It has never failed me yet. Machine is 3½ years old and likes me very much which is why I hardly get get a problem.

0

"I have no service packs or updates for 98SE either and never will." Amen Ronnie. Good to see you around again. It's nice to know win98SE will handle partitions larger than 137gb. I prefer smaller ones and I've never tried it. Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!! Sorry, I do not check for private messages

0

Sorry... I read my last post and I was rude. I opoligize.... You see... I run a smalll business from my home for several Pro Photographers... They do Weddings and birthday parties, graduations, business meetings ect ect ect. Even some really bizzare home movies. I edit them, and mass produce them. Altho I hold down a full time job myseld I have 2 people in my home 8 hours per day burning DVD's Printing covers and labels for the product. I have spent thousands of dollars on software that runs under 98SE but does not have the same flexability, look, or end result under XP. All 4 of my computers are capable of running under XP but to get all the programs I am talking about throwing away the thousands I have spent on software and re-spending thousands to get XP versions to get the same results I am getting now. I have got people re-ordering stuff that is 8 to 10 weeks old and has been deleted or copied to disc's which is becomming more of a problem to archive and retrieve... so all I want to do is to be able to leave stuff on the drive longer. I am now using the 80 Gig drives I had just for the OS and programs and want the larger hard drives just for storage. Again... I appreciate your suggestions... Carrott

0

G'day Ham, it might be pertinent to note that my H: drive has never been below 110gb free space so there still could be a hitch if I reach the 137 gb limit in 98 but I doubt that it will ever be filled up naturally as I always remove data once I've finished doing whatever to it [it's a multimedia drive for downloading and encoding etc..which is why I needed all that space]. I could deliberatly fill it up to find out...but not today. As for service packs etc.. I recently 'bit the bullet' on XP after over 3 years with it and updated with over 40 updates and finally got SP2 as well, no big deal I thought, just a lot of space used up. I was bored so that's why I tried them but I didn't really need anything anyway. It seems many people are having problems with SP2 but not li'l 'ol me.

0

G'day Carrott, I detected no rudeness in your post so no apology required. I think I got my updated WinMe Fdisk from http://www.bootdisk.com about 18 months ago if I remember right and changed the name and put it on my 98 bootdisk.

0

"I backed up a dvd to the drive at 7 gig" Er, isn't there a 4GB limit on file size with FAT32? Best

0

You can record videos larger than 4gb and I guess copy from DVDs also. But you won't be able to move or copy that file. The limit for move and copy is 2gb. Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!! Sorry, I do not check for private messages

0

A dvd is made up of several files that can exceed 4 gb in total. These files are not 4gb each. Vobs generally do not exceed .99gb in FAT32 from my understanding but I could be wrong. I've never seen one bigger nor could I join them with the program I use to more than that size. I also just copied and pasted 6 gb of a 13 gb folder but when it said 475600 minutes remaining I thought that would take me into the next life so I aborted. The 6gb copied okay. I do know that too much data being deleted can delay many normal functions for minutes and a reboot fixes this. Even renaming a file can take up to 5 mins or so and 98 doesn't seem to recover from it till a reboot.

0

http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm Apparently to run 98 on a partition larger than 137 gig you need 98 chipset drivers that support 48 bit LBA. Even then scandisk, defrag and fdisk(?) won't run properly. Limitations of FAT32 File System

0

Defrag from the WIN 2000 or ME will work fine on these drives. You can use an external program to scandisk such as Fixit Utilities. Fdisk? Drive partition setup by Maxblast. The Files copied to run the tests are 1073739776 bytes each. Found the patch here for anyone interested. Cost $10. USD. http://www.members.aol.com/rloew1/ Also I use a file manager, called File Maven to copy, delete, ect. Never have used Windows Exploder (Explorer) It is a split screen program with MANY functions including ZIP/UnZIP, copy, move, delete, print, create/remove/rename files or directories ECT I can delete an 80 gig hd, if the files are mostly VOB size in under 1 minute without any hangups on the system what so ever. If the files are smaller tho, yes it can take some time as it deletes them one at a time, for instance 5 minutes to wipe out c:\Windows after removeing the system, read only, and hidden attributes. Thanks for all your help guys!!! Carrott

0

"I do know that too much data being deleted can delay many normal functions for minutes and a reboot fixes this." Ronnie, there's a fix for this at www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!!

0

I never updated to IE6 in 98 either ! I still have the original IE5 but I don't believe that's at all related to this glitch that only happens when I do bulk things such as removing the read-only attrib on a thousand files or more at once or copy from the Find a thousand files or more at once or delete a thousand files or more at once [sometimes several hundred files will do it too]. I don't do this very often so I always expect it to happen when I do so I'm not phased by it. I don't think 98 can handle a lot of files at once ! As for Browselc.dll, that's one of my favourite files for resource editing [I removed Favorites and Help from the menu bar in Explorer and folder Windows and a few odds and ends from the Browser menus] I never use the Web Page view in Explorer either. Windows Explorer for exploring my directories and files, Internet Explorer for exploring the...well..Internet and never the twain shall meet. But thanks for the info anyway.

0

"I never updated to IE6 in 98 either !" A man after my own heart. I don't normally believe in upgrading unless I have a good reason to do so. I have been running a dual 98/XP system for a couple of years, but used 98 almost exclusively. But I finally was forced to switch (kicking and screaming) to XP for a couple of reasons. I'm surprised that it fails in IE5. That massive delete problem was driving me nuts back when I was using 98 because I was doing huge deletes quite often. The replacing of those Browse files from IE5.5 cured the problem. Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!!

0

The odd thing is that Win 95/IE4 handled it all better than 98 did and I still believe is was quicker than 98 overall as well. I also have a 98/XP setup and only use XP for dvd stuff as many programs now are not made for the 9x O/S's. I bought XP more as a curiosity than a need but I did need a bigger and faster PC and it came with it so I thought...what the heck. Couldn't wait to get my grubby little hands on it's registry. I wonder how soon XP will be on the scrap heap of computer history...sooner than we think I suspect.

0

"I wonder how soon XP will be on the scrap heap of computer history...sooner than we think I suspect." I think you're right Ronnie. Microsoft will do it's best to force us to buy a new OS. Take care! Do yourself a favor BACKUP!!!

0