What a single 8TB MBR Hard Disk Drive Looks like in Windows XP

[Dibya]

Lol I wanna have 12mb hdd. My phone  has more internal memory  than that. Those drives are sata or pata?  I think sata is far away.

[rloew]

The 12MB Drive was MFM and cost $3000.

[Dibya]

What are you kidding me?  $3000 for just 12mb . It is cost of my whole gaming pc.

[rloew]

Ask granny. Your parents were too young.

[Dibya]

I asked her . She said you are right. She said cp/m days 12mb like today's 12gb.

Oh man Owing a computer in those days seems to be a nightmare for me. 

[rloew]

I have a 1 bit (not Byte) Memory Device. It is the size of a hard cover book. Two vacuum tubes and other parts in a plug in module.

[Dibya]

Vaccum tubes.  Oh man its antique computing. 

Oldest mobo that I seen is designed for intel pentium pro. 

[rloew]

That is still several generations later than the original IBM PCs that I used to work with. I have a few motherboards somewhere.

[bphlpt]

5 hours ago, Dibya said:

I asked her . She said you are right. She said cp/m days 12mb like today's 12gb.

Oh man Owing a computer in those days seems to be a nightmare for me. 

In those days, computers had a maximum of 64 KILO bytes of RAM that you could possibly install in the entire computer, and you were lucky if you could manage to fit that on a single plug-in card the size of today's graphics cards, That is way less than the cache that is inside the CPU today.  A HDD with 12MB back then was actually closer to 12TB today.  How could you possibly fill up all of that space?

Cheers and Regards

[Dibya]

1 hour ago, bphlpt said:

In those days, computers had a maximum of 64 KILO bytes of RAM that you could possibly install in the entire computer, and you were lucky if you could manage to fit that on a single plug-in card the size of today's graphics cards, That is way less than the cache that is inside the CPU today.  A HDD with 12MB back then was actually closer to 12TB today.  How could you possibly fill up all of that space?

Cheers and Regards

I will put three or four songs  and it will fill up hdd. I don't  know  whether  mp3 existed that time. 

64kb of ram ? Oh man In my home , my main rig has 16gb ram. Sometimes i feel that insufficient.  I cannot manage with 64kb.

[98SE]

On 10/28/2017 at 9:47 AM, rloew said:

I am aware of Pirate Bay. I was referring to legal methods.

I never said anything about going to Pirate Bay I believe these are your own assumptions.  I said there were torrents which is just a peer2peer way of getting a file.   Just like someone uses FTP it's just another file transfer method.  If you check the Apple Forums they probably have a "legal" torrent link somewhere if you don't want to go through the Apple Store method.  There are a lot of "legal" files that are torrent files so don't mix this up and confuse this with pirate sites.  Most unknown sites I wouldn't trust the content.  

If you see an official torrent link set up by an Apple Forum moderator I would consider downloading it that way if it's available.  If this method no longer exist then yes you need a Mac or as I pointed out buying a cheap copy of an much older Snow Leopard for $20 from Apple.

The newer Apple MAC OS has been free since Mavericks 2013 from what I can recall I remember it was available it to download for free off their main Apple Page then.

I don't get why everyone thinks a "torrent" automatically assume = illegal/copyright infringement.  Even you could make a torrent for your 9X demo programs if you wanted people to distribute the 9X demos freely.  

It's just a distribution platform before people began abusing it and giving it a bad reputation it now has since you automatically assume torrent mean PB.  Just like FTP and HTTP can be used to download free "legal" files.

https://www.mytechlogy.com/IT-blogs/4660/the-origins-of-torrents/#.Wf6iK7hbMz4

 

Too much negativity has been connected with PB in general I suggest you refrain from mentioning this name as I said before the best way for you is to get an official retail Snow Leopard MAC OS DVD install disc through the Apple Store.

Since you never downloaded MAC OS Mavericks for free off the Apple site when it was available you have to go a round about way to login to the Apple store on a MAC as that was 4 years ago.

I already previously gave you the official Apple purchase link here it is again.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

$20

Once Snow Leopard is installed and working then you create a free Apple Account and login to the Apple Store where you can download the latest MAC OS update for free.  You can keep updating to the newest version for free since Apple has made MAC OS free for quite a few years now since Maverick but you apparently missed the earlier boat.

 

Latest version info:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/macos-high-sierra-now-available-as-a-free-update/

 

Older version info:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/09/macos-sierra-now-available-as-a-free-update/

 

2013 version info:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2013/10/23OS-X-Mavericks-Available-Today-Free-from-the-Mac-App-Store/

 

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

$20

If the Apple store Snow Leopard Retail DVD won't install on your system then maybe buy a cheap used Apple laptop on eBay that meets the OS minimum system requirement.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475

Then you can go directly to the Mac App Store with it and download the latest free Apple MAC OS update.

 

Quote

You are confused. I was looking at 4Kn Internal Drives, not laptop drives or USB 

I said that a 4Kn Drive would behave the same. I did not say they could be used with an USB adapter. Since I do not have a 4Kn Drive, I can't test my various USB adapters to see if any work.
I also don't know what USB interface size it would use.

No confusion as I know you were looking at "internal" drives.  I would go for the laptop 2.5" because you can use a SATA to USB adapter to power it up (no power brick adapter) and lower heat dissipation.  And laptop drives can be used internally so what you are looking for are actually internal 4Kn 3.5" SATA drives.  These 3.5" drives get so hot I keep them connected bare outside of the chassis.

Quote

I said that a 4Kn Drive would behave the same. I did not say they could be used with an USB adapter. Since I do not have a 4Kn Drive, I can't test my various USB adapters to see if any work.

I usually run a bunch of tests directly to find out if XP can see it.  3.5" drives are more limited in what methods you can hook up while 2.5" size drives you could test standard USB adapters to see what happens which is what I would try out.  If I see a 4KB Native 2.5" drive pop up very cheap I might test one out and run them myself.

 

Quote

I also don't know what USB interface size it would use.

I'm sure you'll find out through testing.  Are you talking about the logical sector size the USB would appear to the OS?

 

Quote

I don't like it either but improper usage leads to confusion. You use TB for both Decimal and Binary based sizes. You even came to an incorrect assumption because of it.

You said:

They are both the same limit, 256TiB or 281TB. There is no cap here. You also abused the roundoff of 18TB to get 288TB.

You are not the only that doesn't follow the standard. Fortunately the context usually is enough to tell the difference, although as you get to higher numbers the discrepancy increases.

There is no confusion the Hard Drive will be 28X TB but the Windows limit states 256TB so if MS meant 28X then according to you they should have used 256TiB or state in full the exact bytes for accuracy and avoid any confusion.  I only went with the hard drive manufacturer capacity in decimal but Windows does not declare in Bytes for exactness when they stated 256TB.  Microsoft may have decided to drop the binary prefix altogether and assume the values themselves are now Binary rather than Decimal but using the conventional Decimal name.  So a KB to them is 1024 Bytes instead of 1000 Bytes.  This might cause more confusion so they may need to use the older 28X TB value if they want to make you happy since they didn't use 256TiB but 256TB.  The 256TB probably also looked better over 28XTB.

People tend to like these binary looking numbers:

1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024...

 

But for a user the 28X TB actual limit is a benefit as a 25TB loss would have been painful.

However the Hard drive manufacturer wanted the larger decimal number for advertising/marketing so if they were sell specific 256TB drives that would actually be hurting us in this case.  They would most likely skip above 28X TB to 300TB so using one of these drives you would have to separate the extra 19TB of space.

If they followed the GB capacity upgrade path it would be a 320TB drive instead making a 256TB drive most likely max you'd consider buying to keep with the older NTFS compatibility on one partition.

 

In the past they used 137.4 GB / 128GB Binary

https://support.wdc.com/knowledgebase/answer.aspx?ID=936

Hard drive manufacturers use the TB but based it off of decimal version of 1KB = 1000 Bytes.

In my calculations 18.0TB would be about the correct MAX limit hard drive that could use as much of its space for MBR.

You will not find a 2.2TB drive nor will you find a 17.6TB drive and highly unlikely a 17.0GB drive will pop up so the the 18.0TB drive will be as close a drive capacity that will max it out.  Hard drive companies will most likely make a 14GB, 16GB, 18.0TB drive, and a 20.0TB drive.

If you want to avoid confusion using the binary form you fully adopted then I suggest you go with the full length binary name rather than the abbreviated form which adds to the confusion more than it helps.  Spelling it out entirely MeBiBytes or TeBiBytes would be more clear and allow people to make sense of what you are talking about if they needed to look it up.

Most people if you asked them in person how many GiBs or TiBs they have will look at you funny.  Now if you wrote MiBs some might think you were talking about Men In Black.  Now if you say how may Gigs or Ters is your drive they might get your meaning.

 

But the war of decimal vs binary went to battle in the court system and who won?

https://web.archive.org/web/20071016171124/http://wdc.com/settlement/docs/complaint.htm

 

From this chart it looks like they officialized the binary terminology in 2000 but YottaByte was already in use in 1991.

They missed the boat by 9 years which didn't help and Giga and Tera prefixes were already adopted 40 years earlier so I find it unlikely an easy transition any time soon.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/gigabyte-decimal-vs-binary/

 

Quote

They are both the same limit, 256TiB or 281TB. There is no cap here. You also abused the round off of 18TB to get 288TB.

I'm basing if off the 18TB x 16 drives to reach the limit.  I don't think they will skip 12.0GB right to 20GB.  I see a 2GB increase in capacity leap increment happening.

Your 281TB or my 288TB overestimate is the Hard Drive manufacturer's version of actual HD decimal capacity since they would use the decimal bytes instead of binary bytes.  Examining the conversion 17.592TB = 16 TiB approximately.

A true 256TiB hard drive = 281.47497671066 TB approximately.

256TB is the Windows NTFS stated limit as I explained before so if they really meant 256TiB they didn't declare it in binary form or spell it out in bytes for no possible confusion so I found what might be the exact NTFS Bytes limit.

281,474,976,654,120 Bytes using 65536 Bytes cluster size

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askcore/2010/02/18/understanding-the-2-tb-limit-in-windows-storage/

 

Even something written with an exponent would be clearer.  But I didn't start the capacity terminology but stuck to what was maintained in the early 80s when PCs became popular and mainstream and has been sustained even till today as being more dominant.  Whether you or someone in the past could have brought up the 1000 Bytes vs 1024 Bytes 2.4% differential argument for major adoption could or would they have won and made everyone change the naming scheme before it was too late is uncertain.  

I think because these base 10 prefixes were pretty common maybe this is the reason why we are where we are now stuck with it.  I still have my binary byte memory counts memorized seeing it so much back in the day but I would never think 1000 = 1KB when discussing computers.  So I'm not a hater of binary but most people like decimal form because it's more relatable.

But trying to convert everyone or even 95%+ that already have been using an existing standard to use another with much lower acceptance except some geek heads would be like making everyone here that speaks English speak French overnight.  There's going to be a lot of resentment and a lack of adoption even if it is considered more accurate and even kilometers would seem more precise than miles.

 

Curiously I wonder how Americans would take converting speed limit signs from MPH to KPH all over the US all of a sudden even though the US borders Canada it still hasn't happened.  I think it would cause a lot of chaos.

The 5 1/4" 360KB disk had 362,496 Bytes from my memory.  This converts to a 354KiB Floppy Disk.  So even the 360KB disk could have been called the 362KB disk or the 354KB disk but certainly 360KB probably sounded the best.  The 360 Degrees in a circle probably helped.

If we went all binary in the past I guess a 1.44MB floppy disk is now downgraded to a 1.416 MiB Floppy Disk.

Neither 354 KiB or 1.416 or 1.41 MiB Floppy would seem flattering to say today.

 

Quote

You are not the only that doesn't follow the standard. Fortunately the context usually is enough to tell the difference, although as you get to higher numbers the discrepancy increases.

I agree I'm not the only one but the standard that existed and I followed and even during 1980-2000 there was no perceivable resistance or adoption of the binary standard.  Following a new standard ultimately adds to the confusion.

I'm sure partly can be blamed on Hard drive manufacturers and the original Floppy drives started the same pattern of non binary labeling of capacities.

One positive thing that may resolve this issue is after YottaBytes there hasn't been an official set name for beyond that capacity although some favorable possibilities only.  This might be a good time to switch from YB to a newer Binary name that can be finally be agreed upon by the computer industry and adding the extra XBB to designate Binary Bytes to force the new standard which would be more convenient to adopt over the former.  When YottaBytes is reached it becomes significant enough a figure of 20%+ difference with YoBiByte that it will probably happen some time around then.

https://www.ramicomer.com/en/blog/conversion-and-difference-kilobyte-to-kibibyte-megabyte-to-mebibyte/

The TeraByte vs TeBiByte difference was 10% so that would have been a better stage to transition more easily but that time is gone.

Something like 1.2 YottaByte = 1.0 XBB where the conversion is mathematically easy to translate and just continue on this Binary standard.

Then there will be a YB to XBB crossover usage similar to how KB and MB were used so often.

Eventually people will be using large XBB drives like we use TB drives today and the older Bytes usage will probably be forgotten since they are so tiny no one even uses or cares anymore except some relic programmers.

 

Quote

The maximum Cluster size max increase with larger Sectors, increasing this limit. This works with FAT16 and FAT32.

How large can the Sectors for NTFS be increased?

Quote

Scenario #1 requires GPT since it needs 64 Bits.
It proves the concept even if it doesn't cover all drives.

If I wrote a GPT Loader, it would work with External Drives in DOS and Windows 9x.

But according to this Intel says GPT was supported on Vista 32-Bit.   Are you saying it requires a 64-Bit CPU to run this 32-Bit OS with GPT?

I actually ran Vista 32-Bit on an old Pentium-M laptop.

http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/sb/gpt_white_paper_1_1.pdf

 

Quote

If I wrote a GPT Loader, it would work with External Drives in DOS and Windows 9x.

Unfortunate news that NT/2K/XP won't work with GPT external drives.

 

Quote

I'm not referring to PetaByte drives. I'm referring to your suggestion of super large Sectors. to support MBR.

We'll see how long MBR will survive.  Perhaps I will end up transitioning to GPT at 32TB+.  The current memory limitations on XP 32-Bit might be overwhelmed for every day "future internet" usage requiring a jump to XP Pro 64-Bit or later and I'm open to that possibility if I've exhausted all other methods.

Quote

If it is 512 Byte then the MBR limit is 2TiB. If it is 4K then the MBR limit is 16TiB. If you want larger, you would probably have to order custom firmware and write a new set of drivers.

When the time comes 18TB might be within reach in 5 years or less and depending on the prices of drives as storage capacity increases and their monetary values continue to plummet.

Quote

I'm referring to the current NTFS. A future version that exceeds 256TiB on it's own would not be compatible..

This probably would make eXFAT a better candidate for XP and already in existence since 2006 making it a better workaround if exFAT could support > than the current NTFS 256 TBB  / 281 TB limit.

Quote

My first hard Drive was 12MB.

You mean your 11.444 MiB / Mebibyte hard disk drive.

The first hard drive I used was a 5MB Seagate ST-506 MFM full height 5.25" so it occupied one large rectangle slot so that left the other slot for a large full height 5.25" floppy drive or later dual half height 5.25" 360 drives when the technology improved.  I still remember the red blinking light on those some drives also used green.  I kind of miss seeing those drives blinking on their own.

Later was a ST-412 10MB MFM also a full height hog.  There were ways to cheat and get 50% more space with RLL controllers.

Since these hard drives really got filled up fast copying floppies to them their only redeeming quality was not needing to fiddle with floppy disks to boot DOS and a faster boot time.  The loud obnoxious noise and a tendency to get bad sectors or fail completely were its downfall.

Some nice PCs could interface with the controller and it would show the hard drive and floppy drive info on the front display panel.  It made computers more interesting then.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by 98SE

[rloew]

Quote

Quote

I am aware of Pirate Bay. I was referring to legal methods.

I never said anything about going to Pirate Bay I believe these are your own assumptions.  I said there were torrents which is just a peer2peer way of getting a file.   Just like someone uses FTP it's just another file transfer method.  If you check the Apple Forums they probably have a "legal" torrent link somewhere if you don't want to go through the Apple Store method.  There are a lot of "legal" files that are torrent files so don't mix this up and confuse this with pirate sites.  Most unknown sites I wouldn't trust the content.  

If you see an official torrent link set up by an Apple Forum moderator I would consider downloading it that way if it's available.  If this method no longer exist then yes you need a Mac or as I pointed out buying a cheap copy of an much older Snow Leopard for $20 from Apple.

....

I never made a comment about the legality of torrents. I made a point that you suggested that I violate the distribution terms of the OS by downloading it without paying either for a MAC or Snow Leopard.

Since I don't have an interest in MACs, I have no plans to spend money to test it.

Quote

Quote

You are confused. I was looking at 4Kn Internal Drives, not laptop drives or USB 

I said that a 4Kn Drive would behave the same. I did not say they could be used with an USB adapter. Since I do not have a 4Kn Drive, I can't test my various USB adapters to see if any work.
I also don't know what USB interface size it would use.

No confusion as I know you were looking at "internal" drives.  I would go for the laptop 2.5" because you can use a SATA to USB adapter to power it up (no power brick adapter).  And laptop drives can be used internally so what you are looking for are actually internal 4Kn 3.5" SATA drives.  Lower heat dissipation.  These 3.5" drives get so hot I keep the bare outside of the chassis.

Laptop Drives may be simpler to connect and use less power, but they are more expensive and have less capacity than 3.5" Drives. I have not seen a 4Kn 2.5" Drive anywhere. 

Quote

I said that a 4Kn Drive would behave the same. I did not say they could be used with an USB adapter. Since I do not have a 4Kn Drive, I can't test my various USB adapters to see if any work.

I usually run a bunch of tests directly to find out if XP can see it.  3.5" drives are more limited in what methods you can hook up while 2.5" size drives you could test standard USB adapters to see what happens which is what I would try out.  If I see a 4KB Native 2.5" drive pop up very cheap I might test one out and run them myself.

I test in 98SE as I more tools to do tests. Good luck with finding a 2.5" 4Kn Drive. 

Quote

Quote

I also don't know what USB interface size it would use.

I'm sure you'll find out through testing.  Are you talking about the logical sector size the USB would appear to the OS?

That and whether it would work at all.

So far one did not work at all, the other passed through the 4Kn Interface. 

Quote

Quote

I don't like it either but improper usage leads to confusion. You use TB for both Decimal and Binary based sizes. You even came to an incorrect assumption because of it.

You said:

They are both the same limit, 256TiB or 281TB. There is no cap here. You also abused the roundoff of 18TB to get 288TB.

You are not the only that doesn't follow the standard. Fortunately the context usually is enough to tell the difference, although as you get to higher numbers the discrepancy increases.

There is no confusion the Hard Drive will be 28X TB but the Windows limit states 256TB so if MS meant 28X then according to you they should have used 256TiB or state in full the exact bytes for accuracy and avoid any confusion.  I only went with the hard drive manufacturer capacity in decimal but Windows does not declare in Bytes for exactness when they stated 256TB.  Microsoft may have decided to drop the binary prefix altogether and assume the values themselves are now Binary rather than Decimal but using the conventional Decimal name.  So a KB to them is 1024 Bytes instead of 1000 Bytes.  This might cause more confusion so they may need to use the older 28X TB value if they want to make you happy since they didn't use 256TiB but 256TB.  The 256TB probably also looked better over 28XTB.

....

Citing more examples of how often people abuse the nomenclature isn't getting us anywhere.

Microsoft is a particular example. There have been lawsuits over theor discrepancies.

You can probably get away with using the wrong units since the context often suggests one or the other.

I try to use the proper units to minimize any uncertainties.

Quote

The maximum Cluster size max increase with larger Sectors, increasing this limit. This works with FAT16 and FAT32.

How large can the Sectors for NTFS be increased?

I said Clusters, not Sectors.

I increased FAT32 Clusters to 256 Sectors in Windows 9x and 512 Sectors in Windows XP. Using 4K Sectors this would result in Cluster Sizes of 1MiB and 2MiB respectively.

I have already prepared a modified NTFS Driver to experiment with, but I have to figure out a way to create or hack an NTFS Partition with these Cluster sizes.

Creating a FAT32 Format is easy. NTFS not so much.

Quote

Quote

Scenario #1 requires GPT since it needs 64 Bits.
It proves the concept even if it doesn't cover all drives.

If I wrote a GPT Loader, it would work with External Drives in DOS and Windows 9x.

But according to this Intel says GPT was supported on Vista 32-Bit.   Are you saying it requires a 64-Bit CPU to run this 32-Bit OS with GPT?

I actually ran Vista 32-Bit on an old Pentium-M laptop.

No. You do not need a 64-Bit OS to use 64-Bit Sector Addresses. Just 64-Bit Math.  

Quote

If I wrote a GPT Loader, it would work with External Drives in DOS and Windows 9x.

Unfortunate news that NT/2K/XP won't work with GPT external drives.

That's because Paragon did not write suitable USB Drivers. There is no reason why it cannot be done. 

Quote

Quote

I'm not referring to PetaByte drives. I'm referring to your suggestion of super large Sectors. to support MBR.

We'll see how long MBR will survive.  Perhaps I will end up transitioning to GPT at 32TB+.  The current memory limitations on XP 32-Bit might be overwhelmed for every day "future internet" usage requiring a jump to XP Pro 64-Bit or later and I'm open to that possibility if I've exhausted all other methods.

I'm pretty sure you will be transitioning above 16TiB. Beyond that, it is either GPT or EMBR.

Quote

Quote

If it is 512 Byte then the MBR limit is 2TiB. If it is 4K then the MBR limit is 16TiB. If you want larger, you would probably have to order custom firmware and write a new set of drivers.

We'll see when the time comes as 18TB might be within reach within 5 years or less and depending on prices of drives as storage capacity increases and their monetary values plummet.

I think a lot sooner.

Quote

Quote

I'm referring to the current NTFS. A future version that exceeds 256TiB on it's own would not be compatible.

This probably would make eXFAT a better candidate for XP and already in existence since 2006 making it a better workaround if exFAT could support > than the current NTFS 256 TBB  / 281 TB limit.

Is it. I thought it had the same limit.

Quote

Quote

My first hard Drive was 12MB.

You mean your 11.444 MiB / Mebibyte hard disk drive.

The first hard drive I used was a 5MB Seagate ST-506 MFM full height 5.25" so it occupied one large rectangle slot so that left the other slot for a large full height 5.25" floppy drive or later dual half height 5.25" 360 drives when the technology improved.  I still remember the red blinking light on those some drives also used green.  I kind of miss seeing those drives blinking on their own.

Later was a ST-412 10MB MFM also a full height hog.  There were ways to cheat and get 50% more space with RLL controllers.

Since these hard drives really got filled up fast copying floppies to them their only redeeming quality was not needing to fiddle with floppy disks to boot DOS and a faster boot time.  The loud obnoxious noise and a tendency to get bad sectors or fail completely were its downfall.

Some nice PCs could read the controller and it would show the hard drive and floppy drive info on the front display panel.  It made computers more interesting then.

Not sure if it was 12MB or 12MiB.

Although the Drive itself was a full-height 5.25" Drive it came in an external enclosure about half the size of my Computer.

Edited November 6, 2017 by rloew

[jaclaz]

15 hours ago, 98SE said:

Too much negativity has been connected with PB in general I suggest you refrain from mentioning this name as I said before the best way for you is to get an official retail Snow Leopard MAC OS DVD install disc through the Apple Store.

Since you never downloaded MAC OS Mavericks for free off the Apple site when it was available you have to go a round about way to login to the Apple store on a MAC as that was 4 years ago.

I already previously gave you the official Apple purchase link here it is again.

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard

$20

Once Snow Leopard is installed and working then you create a free Apple Account and login to the Apple Store where you can download the latest MAC OS update for free.  You can keep updating to the newest version for free since Apple has made MAC OS free for quite a few years now since Maverick but you apparently missed the earlier boat.

 

Just in case, and for no apparent reason, another Apple link:

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_sec_upd.pdf

Point 2.A) might have some relevance:

Quote

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.  
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have 
purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited 
non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-
branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-
Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple 
Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple 
Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same 
time. 

(bolding is mine)

jaclaz

[rloew]

If you want me to do tests, you can ship the MAC to the address on my website.

[98SE]

11 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Just in case, and for no apparent reason, another Apple link:

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/osx_snow_leopard_sec_upd.pdf

Just in case for no apparent reason except to show what my sealed Apple Snow Leopard DVD I bought years ago still unopened with the shipping package it came in directly from Apple.