A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

using an old OS on XP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 18th 14, 02:27 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
98 Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

Paul wrote:

For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive
that was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same
as any NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million
allocation units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible
for either DOS or Win-98 to handle).


I would expect the size of the FAT is a bit of an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_...cation_Tabl e

"Because each FAT32 entry occupies 32 bits (4 bytes) the
maximal number of clusters (268435444) requires..."

1073741776 bytes or a gigabyte of RAM to hold the whole FAT.


I don't think that win-9x/me ever loads the entire FAT during normal
operation.

Right now I've got two large SATA drives (A and B) connected to the
win-98 system I'm typing this post on.

chkdsk on drive A:

1,464,780,864 kilobytes total disk space
900,908,800 kilobytes free

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit
45,774,402 total allocation units on disk
28,153,400 available allocation units on disk


Drive B is a 750 gb drive, with 22.8 million total clusters, with about
6000 free clusters.

I have 2 gb ram on this system (with a "special" memory patch that
allows win-98 to see and use all 2 gb).

According to Norton System Information, I currently have 2015 mb free,
and 87.3 mb in use. I have Firefox 2 running, and it's using 24 mb (the
most of any loaded module). Win16 Sys is listed as using 21.1 mb, Win32
Sys is using 14.6, Netscape (Communicator, what I'm using to read/post
to usenet) is using 14.1 mb. 32-bit device drivers are using 9.51 mb.

I see no large block of ram being used to store or cache the hard drives
or their FAT's.

Regarding this issue of cluster size and FAT-32, have a look at what I
posted back in 2007:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...on/Rd6U5kIturI

Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32

=================================
So here is the master summary of this thread:

---------------------------

1) Scandisk (DOS scandisk.exe, not Windows scandskw.exe) does not
appear to have a cluster-count limitation. Both Win-98se and Win-ME
versions of scandisk have been run on drives with up to 31 million
clusters and have executed properly with no errors. Himem.sys must be
loaded for scandisk to function properly. Microsoft states that
FAT-32 volumes are limited to 4.17 million clusters because of
scandisk.exe, and that scandisk.exe is limited to a memory or data
array size of 16 million bytes. It could very well be that this 16 mb
limit is based on Microsoft's stated minimum system requirements for
Windows 98 (which is 16 mb of system RAM) and that scandisk will
automatically make use of all available system memory if required.

----------------------------

2) Win-98se has been installed directly on 160 gb volumes formatted
with 4kb cluster size (resulting in 40 million clusters) and has not
shown any instability. This was performed on a 160 gb SATA drive
assigned to a RAID controller (but not used in RAID mode). To test
for 137gb data corruption (which theoretically takes place when a read
or write across the 137 gb boundary occurrs) a series of 1 gb VOB
files were copied repeatedly in order to fill the drive. The drive
was eventually filled with 150 of these 1 gb files, and no drive
corruption occurred.

----------------------------

3) The only drawback that I've seen when running a volume with a large
cluster count is that DOS will take a much longer time to perform the
first DIR command. This might also happen in Windows as well - I may
have seen this effect but I haven't specifically looked for it. The
issue is the computation and display of free remaining drive space,
which is part of the DIR command and also happens when browsing the
drives in windows. Related to this is the question does windows store
the amount of remaining drive space somewhere on the drive (instead of
requiring it to be re-calculated every time it's needed).

---------------------------

4) Standard DOS tools like fdisk and format can be used to partition
and format hard drives in excess of 137 gb. Fdisk was used to
partition a 160 gb drive into a 32 gb primary and 121 gb secondary.
The updated or "fixed" version of fdisk.exe was used. What has not
been tested (yet) is the undocumented /Z:n command line parameter for
format, which allows the user to specify a particular cluster size (n
x 512 bytes). Third-party drive utilities (based on On Track's Disc
Manager) can also be used to partition and format hard drives, but I
have found those utilities to be very unstable and to lock up/crash
about 75% of the time I use them.

---------------------------

5) There is evidence that 6,291,204 clusters may represent some sort
of "magic number". A third-party drive partition tool (PartitionMagic
Pro Server 8.05) resorted to this cluster count when an existing 32 gb
partition was manually resized to 4kb cluster size. Norton Disk
Doctor and Speed Disk was found to work properly using this cluster
count, but not on a volume with a slightly larger cluster count of 7.8
million clusters (see note 7 below). This 6.3 million cluster count,
combined with 32kb cluster size, results in a volume size of 206 gb.
Perhaps this set of parameters is the reason for the 200 gb hard drive
size which emerged in early to mid 2003. A dir command is also
performed instantly with no delays in computing free space given a
volume with 6.3 million clusters.

---------------------------

6) Win-98 versions of Scandisk (scandskw.exe) and Defrag did not
function on a volume with 6.3 million clusters but seems to be limited
to the MS stated value of 4.17 clusters. However, Windows ME versions
of dskmaint.dll and defrag.exe does appear to function correctly with
Windows 98se and compatibility with volume size of up to 31.2 million
clusters has been observed. It is not know what their ultimate limit
is.

----------------------------

7) Norton Utilities is a very common third-party set of applications
and their compatibility with large hard drives with a large cluster
count may be of importance to some people. I have found that Norton
Disk Doctor and Norton Speed disk were compatible with volumes with up
to 6.3 million clusters, but not more without using the command-line
parameter /NOLBA. When using this parameter, NDD and SD worked on
volumes with 7.8 million clusters but not 31 million. The exact
cluster-count limit is therefore unknown at this point and I may
explore that in the future.

The switch /NOLBA forces NDD and SD to skip the drive configuration
check. This can also be done using a registry entry by adding a DWORD

registry value named NOLBACHECK at this location:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Symantec\Norton Utilities

When this option is set to 1, Norton Disk Doctor and Speed Disk skip
the drive configuration check.

----------------------------

8) Anyone considering adding a large hard drive (a drive larger than
137 gb) to an existing win-98 computer needs to consider certain
issues that include the drive type (IDE/PATA vs SATA) as well as how
the drive is controlled by the motherboard BIOS (mapped to IDE channel
or controlled by RAID controller). The main issue here is that you DO
NOT WANT the win-98se 32-bit driver (ESDI_506.PDR) to be used to
access a hard drive larger than 137 gb. Many or most motherboards
made for the past 3 years will have built-in SATA ports. Windows-98
users are advised to obtain SATA drives instead of the older
conventional IDE drives when adding a new drive (larger than 137 gb)
to a system or if building a new system.

====================================

And see also this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...on/DV_7O2vV1hw

Windows 98 large file-count tests on large volume (500 gb hard drive)
Ads
  #62  
Old August 18th 14, 02:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
98 Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

Bill Cunningham wrote:

I have talked to others about the possibility of a FAT64. They say
they don't think it would be practical. MS does have this exFat thing
that must be an extension.


There is really no problem with the current structure of FAT-32 when
used with hard drives of 2 tb or smaller.

The FAT-32 method of storing files IS NOT limited to any particular
file-size (clusing chaining can theoretically give you a single file
that can take up the entire drive).

The file-size entry for FAT-32 could make use of a few spare bits so
that the max-file-size (as recorded in the FAT) could easily be 2 to 8
times more than the current limit of 4 gb.
  #63  
Old August 18th 14, 03:22 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
98 Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

wrote:

I think I still have aW/98SE ISO here.

If you can't find any other way, I can put it up on my web site
I doubt Bill will sue me.


There are several versions of win-98se on the torrents...
  #64  
Old August 18th 14, 07:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?


Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS
with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box.

I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a genuine
win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a copy of
it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure what to
do now.


Bill
I have a Genuine windows 98 se CD too
That have to run in windows 98 fe

But there is a work around to it

By adding win98 boot to your
CD-R bootable

I would use
http://www.deepburner.com/
The Free will do the job

What is "win98 boot"?

Bill


  #65  
Old August 18th 14, 07:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default 98 Guy "using an old OS on XP"


"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...


"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but the
installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.


If you mean fat16 when you say FAT no. I formatted a fat32.

Bill


  #66  
Old August 18th 14, 07:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

There are several versions of win-98se on the torrents...


I didn't know there were several versions of 98SE. Isn't the second
edition the second edition?

Bill


  #67  
Old August 18th 14, 08:36 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...
Bill Cunningham wrote:

I have talked to others about the possibility of a FAT64. They say
they don't think it would be practical. MS does have this exFat thing
that must be an extension.


There is really no problem with the current structure of FAT-32 when
used with hard drives of 2 tb or smaller.

The FAT-32 method of storing files IS NOT limited to any particular
file-size (clusing chaining can theoretically give you a single file
that can take up the entire drive).

The file-size entry for FAT-32 could make use of a few spare bits so
that the max-file-size (as recorded in the FAT) could easily be 2 to 8
times more than the current limit of 4 gb.


So when we get up into the extbytes and petabytes we'll definately need
a FAT64 or better then right?

Bill


  #68  
Old August 18th 14, 09:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


wrote in message
...

I think I still have aW/98SE ISO here.

If you can't find any other way, I can put it up on my web site
I doubt Bill will sue me.


Go ahead. I like ISOs but I don't care to much for torrents. Especially
for such a small size OS.

Bill


  #69  
Old August 18th 14, 09:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default 98 Guy "using an old OS on XP"

"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...
"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but
the installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.

If you mean fat16 when you say FAT no. I formatted a fat32.
Bill


Look for
File systems (FAT, FAT8, FAT16, FAT32 and NTFS) explained
Floppy Disk is just FAT
Windows 98 Fat32
all you need is 10 to 60 GB
And why would you need a
Bigger Volume Size for

http://www.pctechguide.com/hard-disk...ntfs-explained



Stop and Think

Windows 98 on your PC
With a 64 bit Video Adapter
That make no Drives for 98

Well
You be only Able to

Displays a 16 bit Color quality
with a Screen resolution of
800 by 600 pixels to
1024 by 768 pixels

You have No
Audio Drive for it

Lol No Internet too

Because this on Drives
for that Old windows 98

All you did I f-up your PC

Is there a
Work a around

Hell Yes
That's why Microsoft make

Microsoft_Virtual_PC_2007

So that you can have a working
Virtual Audio & Video Adapter

Virtual_PC_2007
is not a Game
But a Powerful Tool

http://store.mynews.ath.cx/temp/Virtual_PC/

Options/
Virtual_Floppy_Disk/
New_Virtual_Machine/
Boot_V_Floppy/
Shot_Virtual-00001.jpg
Setting_Up_VHD/
Virtual_Win-98/
Virtual_Win-Me/
Partition/
Shot_Virtual-00002.jpg
PrintScreen47_Setup/


/temp/Virtual_PC/Partition

With MaxBlast 4,
ATA/IDE hard drive
Installation utility

Yes your Virtual
PC hard drive
can be Partition

I did all that with a Win Me
just for you to see

http://store.mynews.ath.cx/temp/Virt...tual-00015.jpg

I have no Windows Millennium Edition Setup
Product Key

Thank God I have a Windows 98 Product Keys Lol



  #70  
Old August 18th 14, 10:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP



"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?


Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS
with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box.

I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a
genuine win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a
copy of it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure
what to do now.


Bill
I have a Genuine windows 98 se CD too
That have to run in windows 98 fe

But there is a work around to it

By adding win98 boot to your
CD-R bootable

I would use
http://www.deepburner.com/
The Free will do the job

What is "win98 boot"?

Bill


Windows 98 Set Up
Floppy Disk
That can with the CD

But if your have a upgrade CD
You will not have Floppy Disk

I have in this file Boot_98.img
But I'll can make a zip file for you at:
http://store.mynews.ath.cx/temp/Virt...irtual_Win-98/

Boot_98.zip

Make a New CD
Add all your Win 98 CD files
and add all file out of that Zip

Not the Folder Boot_98
Just the Files that in it

Then deep burner it to a new CD

That will make a Bootable CD for You
you do have your
Genuine windows 98 se
Product Key

You have to have it

  #71  
Old August 20th 14, 10:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...


"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"Hot-Text" wrote in message
...
"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?


Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS
with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box.

I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a
genuine win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a
copy of it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure
what to do now.


Bill
I have a Genuine windows 98 se CD too
That have to run in windows 98 fe

But there is a work around to it

By adding win98 boot to your
CD-R bootable

I would use
http://www.deepburner.com/
The Free will do the job

What is "win98 boot"?

Bill


Windows 98 Set Up
Floppy Disk
That can with the CD

But if your have a upgrade CD
You will not have Floppy Disk

I have in this file Boot_98.img
But I'll can make a zip file for you at:
http://store.mynews.ath.cx/temp/Virt...irtual_Win-98/

Boot_98.zip

Make a New CD
Add all your Win 98 CD files
and add all file out of that Zip

Not the Folder Boot_98
Just the Files that in it

Then deep burner it to a new CD

That will make a Bootable CD for You
you do have your
Genuine windows 98 se
Product Key

You have to have it

http://www.cheetahburner.com/

I like this one too.

Bill




  #72  
Old August 22nd 14, 10:22 AM posted to alt.comp.freeware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default with Virtual PC 2007 "It's fun to be able drag and drop Files from XP into a 98"

"David Catterall" wrote in message
...
Hot-Text wrote:
Bill
That old School
Use This This
Virtual PC 2007
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...s.aspx?id=4580
It Supported your Operating System
Or
https://www.virtualbox.org


He's right, Bill.

I once tried to install W95 on to a FAT32 partition on a computer with XP
on it.

The machine jammed. Not because my installation was faulty, but because
the 2002 processor executed the 1995 code too quickly and caused, IIRC, a
division by zero error.

Good luck!
David



I have a good windows 98 up and running
in Virtual PC 2007

It's fun to be able drag and drop
Files from XP into a 98 and back agene

and he have a Big N0 win98
with a f**k up Xp by now

  #73  
Old August 22nd 14, 10:30 PM posted to alt.comp.freeware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default with Virtual PC 2007 "It's fun to be able drag and drop Files from XP into a 98"

In message , Hot-Text
writes:
"David Catterall" wrote in message
...

[]
I once tried to install W95 on to a FAT32 partition on a computer
with XP on it.

The machine jammed. Not because my installation was faulty, but
because the 2002 processor executed the 1995 code too quickly and
caused, IIRC, a division by zero error.


If you`really`do`mean`95`rather`than`98,`there`was`so me`such`a`problem
-`IIRR,`with`AMD`only`not`Intel`processors;`AMD`had `a`fix`downloadable
on`their`website.`No`idea`if`it's`still`there.`You `could`also`avoid`the`p
roblem`by`running`the`processor`at`a`lower`speed:` IIRR`about`300`MHz
was`OK,`by`the`time`you`got`to`350`MHz`you`were`li kely`to`be`having
problems.`IIRR`it`did`mainly`show`during`booting,` and`once`you'd`got
past`that,`if`you`did,`it`was`mostly`OK.`98`didn't `have`the`problem.

Good luck!
David



I have a good windows 98 up and running
in Virtual PC 2007

It's fun to be able drag and drop
Files from XP into a 98 and back agene

and he have a Big N0 win98
with a f**k up Xp by now

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

he was eventually struck off by the BMA in 1968 for not knowing his gluteus
maximus from his humerus.
  #74  
Old January 15th 15, 02:57 AM posted to alt.comp.freeware,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
MyNews[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default with Virtual PC 2007 "It's fun to be able drag and drop Files from XP into a 98"

"Flasherly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 22:30:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

`98`didn't`have`the`problem.


98 could get pretty weird on an advanced platform, although it's
intial gag reflex action was feeding it too much memory. I tried out
of curiosity to get it running - think it might have been on a S478
Celeron D platform, if that: but, a no go


Virtual PC 2007 Windows 98 Virtual Machine
Newsgroups News:alt.binaries.windows

Windows 98 Virtual Machine Properties
General
Message-ID:

Developing, building and duplicating a virtual environment, tho is
probably for all intent redundant. Like trying to convince a gamer
running 12 cores clocked out at 4GHz each, that Descent or Doom
weren't so bad for W98 games.


Memory
Message-ID:

Even used to be able to run slow-down tools and sound utilities for
porting over old games.


Statistics
Message-ID:

Amazing 50% of an American population regularly continue now to play
along with their favorite games, with women only recently edging out
men. Wouldn't take me but 5 or 10 minutes to realize with
Descent/Doom - been there & done that;- but, evidently as is now
proven in the case with women, they just take that licking and keep
coming back for more of whatever makes 'em tick.


Advanced
Message-ID:

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.