Burning 1GB or 2GB files on Win9X

[erpdude8]

I have the same problem where the capacity of a DVD is 'read' as 2GB although the disc is full. I wonder why...

BTW, Nero 7.0.0.0 works fine here on 98SE - dunno why everybody only recommends Nero 6 for Win98.

I have a Samsung SH-S182D DVD burner and I'm very pleased with it.

well the last version of Nero 7.x supported under Win98/ME is 7.2.7.0 posted here:

http://www.nero.com/eng/downloads-nero7-98me.php

[u2kforever]

Can i use a 160GB internal HD on my computer?

I already have the intel accelerator 2.3 install, is that all i need?

Once i replace the old HD, it will just load up and work correctly right?

[DonDamm]

Did you ever wonder why imaging programs like True Image and others have a setting to limit the files size to no more than 2GB?? that's why.!! I remember back in 1995 when I got a brand spanking new P133 from Micron and they'd just gotten some 2GB scsi disks from Conner. It preformed brilliantly, but later when the sizes increased I quickly learned of the 2GB limitation. It was then I moved to NT and never looked back!

Combo drives are.... outdated now. The current DVD-DL burners from both LG and Samsung work brilliantly and for a low cost (here ~€25).

Yes you can use a 160GB hard drive on your machine. However, there are some important caveats. First your BIOS. You need to determine the limits of your bios and will want to have the latest version available. Second, even with a comatible BIOS you'll likely run into the file system barrier. Win98 uses FAT32 which despite its great improvement over plain FAT16, still runs into a wall. I think that's around 127GB if I remember right (and there's an earlier one at 37GB, but that depends on your system and you didn't mention the specs). So, you'll want to partition a 160GB disk (good idea anyway - one for the OS and programs, one for the data, and maybe one for backups) into 2 or more primary partitions, and then both your BIOS and OS will be happier. Also, be aware that even though there may be a BIOS limitation, Windows can often see the bigger disk. Mysteries never cease.

There are also mbr overlays like MaxBlast from Maxtor that help you fool your system into seeing more space. Personally, I don't like those and recommend against them, though they do work.

Now, that all being said, why do you want to keep fighting to maintain a system which can't really manage current hardware. If you have USB at all, it is most certainly USB 1.0 or 1.1 which means and external disk is out of the question. Sure you can keep adding controller cards an such, but you'll keep running into limitations of both your board and chip, not to mention your memory capacity and the inherent limitations of the OS. I have a colleague in Oxford who runs a computer business and now refuses to work on any machines with Win98 because he says it is a losing battle. There aren't drivers for most any newer hardware and even when you do get it working, it is a security nightmare if you want to connect to the net. As a stand alone I can understand...maybe. But not if you intend to be connected to the net - and I believe that is your intention by the fact that you post here.

I'm not suggesting you go out and buy the latest and greatest as I myself am currently of limited means. However, a three-year old machine can be had for almost nothing (~€50-€100 or so) on the used market and will considerably enhance your ability to deal with all these issues. This is just a thought that might make your life a bit easier. Unless you like playing with the OS and learning all about it's workings and such. In that case, forget I mentioned anything! :^)

Edited March 15, 2008 by DonDamm

[BenoitRen]

Yet another misinformed NT user visited our forum? It never stops.

Second, even with a comatible BIOS you'll likely run into the file system barrier. Win98 uses FAT32 which despite its great improvement over plain FAT16, still runs into a wall. I think that's around 127GB if I remember right (and there's an earlier one at 37GB, but that depends on your system and you didn't mention the specs).

It's not a file system limitation, but an OS one. Win9x uses a 32-bit pointer for HDD addresses. Thanks to LLXX' patch, a 48-bit pointer is used.

So, you'll want to partition a 160GB disk (good idea anyway - one for the OS and programs, one for the data, and maybe one for backups) into 2 or more primary partitions, and then both your BIOS and OS will be happier.

It's a drive limitation, not a partition one. Partitioning won't solve the problem.

it is a security nightmare if you want to connect to the net

Nonsense. This is popular hearsay. Try it yourself, and then come back.

[Sfor]

Can i use a 160GB internal HD on my computer?

I already have the intel accelerator 2.3 install, is that all i need?

Once i replace the old HD, it will just load up and work correctly right?

The question is if the BIOS will let you to use the HDD of this size. Some old bioses hanged during detection of such a big drive, others clipped the size of it to the 137GB.

With the Intel Application Accelerator you will be able to use the full HDD capacity, even if the BIOS clipped the disk size to 137GB. But if the BIOS is hanging during the drive size detection, you need the BIOS update.

Yet another misinformed NT user visited our forum? It never stops.

Second, even with a comatible BIOS you'll likely run into the file system barrier. Win98 uses FAT32 which despite its great improvement over plain FAT16, still runs into a wall. I think that's around 127GB if I remember right (and there's an earlier one at 37GB, but that depends on your system and you didn't mention the specs).

It's not a file system limitation, but an OS one. Win9x uses a 32-bit pointer for HDD addresses. Thanks to LLXX' patch, a 48-bit pointer is used.

Well, it is not exactly the truth. The problem is with the generic IDE driver. Other large disks (without an IDE interface) will work without any patch.

The 32bit pointer limits the size of a single file to 4GB. It has nothing to do with the LBA48 limit. In case of files accessed through the Windows 9x network interface the maximum file size is 2GB, only.

Windows 98 can work with a single partition of 400GB and larger. But, the scandisk and some other disk utilities will not work correctly. Also the automatic swap file system can fail, as well.

it is a security nightmare if you want to connect to the net. As a stand alone I can understand...maybe. But not if you intend to be connected to the net - and I believe that is your intention by the fact that you post here.

It's a strange one to me. I'm afraid to connect a Windows NT based system directly (without a NAT router) to the Internet. While I have no fear to do the same with Windows 98 (even without any firewall or AV protection).

And that is because the Windows 98 does not have any server like security holes. A non IE browser (or a safe browser) is enough to make a Windows 98 computer a secure one.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Sfor