Really Anoying HD prob!!!

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

SOLUTION

stevenlewis

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

Actually this may have nothing to do with your BIOS at all, as FAT32 has a format limitation of 32GB. If you intend to use that large drive, you'll need to either partition it into smaller sizes or more to Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

Here are two relevant articles for you:

Limitations of FAT32 File System
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006

Description of the FAT32 File System
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;154997

Dennis

kiranghag

first see what the bios detects it as...
after memory test is performed...on the next screen award and ami bios usually show the detected hard disk size.
if its 32 gb there then u have a bios problem..
if ur bios supports additional size you need to check if ur hdd has put 32gb capacity limit jumper...

The Win2000 FAT32 limits are artificial and only show up on format. Using FDISK it shouldn't have reported 32GB.

I don't think the format limitation applies to
Win98, SuperVegetto doesn't say what OS he is running...
He is indicating that it's an older pc though,
making it likely that it is a bios issue, and
that he need to follow previous advice with
regard to bios upgrade or overlay program from
the manufacturer.
SuperVegetto, another issue that you may run into,
there is an FDISK limitation of 64GB's.
To get by that you need to download a version
of FDISK that supports larger partitions
from http://radified.com/Files for example.

bjorn, you're right in that the artificial FAT32 limit is Win2000 only (my own 80GB + 200GB drives work fine in FAT32 Win98).

He allready has the latest fdisk tho.

msa2003

Just check the update of the FDISK program at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q263044

FDISK provided with Win98 has a limitation of the HDD size at 64GB (due to the usage of 16-bit values, as Microsoft described). Upgrade to newer version will allow you to partition your new drive.

Also there is a limitation of the FAT32 partition/logical drive to 32 gigs using 32K clusters in Win98 (Win2000 could use 64K clusters).

msa2003,
>>Also there is a limitation of the FAT32 partition/logical drive to 32 gigs 32K clusters in Win98 <<

???
I don't think so.

Bjorn

msa2003,
you may want to take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/default.asp?url=/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/core/fncc_fil_blpd.asp

Bjorn

How about checking the links I posted earlier Bjorn and maybe that will change your mind.

Old 98 partitioning suffers 64GB barrier. Resolution is upgrade 98 to latest version + patches. I dunno what is 32GB barrier or 137 for 98, so I suspect that the comments on BIOS are more relevant here. While you may have incompatible bios, it is possible that it is just not configured well for large drive support. So try bios config first, then look for any upgrade available for flashing your particular bios.

64 GB limit:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q263044
quotes:
CAUSE
Fdisk uses some 16-bit values internally to calculate the size of the drive. Some of these variables overflow when the drive size is equal to or larger than 64 GB.
RESOLUTION
A supported fix is now available from Microsoft, but it is only intended to correct the problem that is described in this article. Apply it only to computers that are experiencing this specific problem.

To resolve this problem immediately, download the fix by clicking the download link later in this article

NOTE: This hotfix is not designed for 48-bit logical block addressing (LBA) hard disks, and it is not supported on hard disks larger than 137 GB.

I did:
>>The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB). <<

Never disputed the format command problem with win2k.

I believe FAT32 uses increasing cluster sizes to a maximum
of 32k for drive > 32GB. The reason it will support
the really huge partitions (2TB?) is that the root directory is no longer fixed to 65,524 entries which
created the 2G limitation for FAT16 (65,524*32k), the
root
is not an ordinary cluster chain anchor in the
(partition) boot record.
No 32GB limit for win98, only a format command
problem (or feature...) for win2k.

Bjorn

Ooops,
"is not an ordinary cluster chain anchor in the
(partition) boot record"
should read:
"is NOW an ordinary cluster chain anchor in the
(partition) boot record"
Bjorn

tgtcat69

FAT32 can indeed support drives larger than 32GB. I'm running two of them at home now.

Verbadim from Microsoft's website: The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB).

I didn't say you couldn't use FAT32, just that it has both Fdisk and format limitations. I couldn't care less whether you put it on an 80G or 200G drive, the limitation of FAT32 exists. If you want to really split hairs, we're not discussing a 2 terabytes data drive, we're discussing a boot drive. Do a little more research before you even think of telling me what this is all about.

dew_associates,

I think we are trying to addres SuperVegetto's problem:
"Im having probs partitioning and formatting my new Hard Drive! I just bought a 80GB HD for my shitty Windows 98 pc! Prob is it is only showing my HD as a 32GB! ive tried a whole load off different things! but none have worked! and i was wondering if anyone here could help, Cause this is really begining to bug me! thanks "

What I've heard from you so far is:
1) FAT32 has a format limitation of 32GB. If you intend to use that large drive, you'll need to either partition it into smaller sizes or more to Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

Not so, some OS's like win2k may have a format command
limit, but this is not a fat32 issue.

2) How about checking the links I posted earlier Bjorn and maybe that will change your mind.
Well, I have and I see nothing there supporting your 1)
claim.

3) If you want to really split hairs, we're not discussing a 2 terabytes data drive, we're discussing a boot drive. .

OK, so there is something about a boot drive preventing
you from formating it to say 80GB ? Well,
I'm not aware of this, in fact I'm booting win98 off a 40GB
FAT32 partition on one of my machines. Maybe I'll see some
problems from that at some point.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - it's quite possible
you know something about this that I don't.
The only specific boot drive limitation that can think of
right away is the requirement the boot partition start
before the 1024 cyl boundary.

4) Do a little more research before you even think of telling me what this is all about.

OK, since you previous references doesn't say
anything specifically about boot drive limitations,
maybe you post a ref. addressing that issue.
Best Regards, Bjorn

Here ya go:

http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/drive_size_barrier_limitations.htm

Ok, read the Dew Associates doc, except for a couple
of problems with specific BIOS's, it's pretty
much what I already knew.

There is one statement relating to this issue
that seems to rely on
a note in
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006 (your first reference)

NOTE: When attempting to format a FAT32 partition larger than 32 GB, the format fails near the end of the process with the following error:

Logical Disk Manager: Volume size too big.

Yeah well, I could be wrong, but isn't this a
win2k (XP) message ? I certainly haven't
run into it formating a large drive under win98.

And nothing about how this somehow relates to:
"we're not discussing a 2 terabytes data drive, we're discussing a boot drive"

Are you saying that it's possible to format a
FAT32 primary partition or logical drive >32GB,
but something else goes wrong if it's the boot drive?

I've been searching the ms knowledge base and
support for any further info on this to no avail.

SuperVegetto,
I think I've already stated what I believe applies
to your question so I'm just gonna drop this
thread, I need to do a little more research before
I even think about telling dew_associates what
this is all about.

1) he has the latest fdisk (I gave it him before advising to post here)

2) FAT32 and Win98 does support large volumes (I myself have 80 and 200GB drives each as a single partition)

The 137GB limit is a hard limit of old controllers and not aplicable here.

kiranghag

check the hdd for a jumper that limits the reported capacity...remove if any is used...

msa2003

I have a blank 80 gigs WD HDD (the same size as a question author's). I tried to format it as a single FAT32 partition in Win2000 and got the message "Volume size is too large". Win2000 really lets formatting the FAT32 partition no more than 32 gigs. Later I booted from Win98 SE system diskette (with patch applied) and succesfully created and formatted a 80-gigs FAT32 primary partition with 32K clusters. I didn't try to access this partition under Win98, but I'll try. So, here is a starnge situation: at the one side, Win2000 says that 32 gigs is a limit. At the other side, there is an opportunity to format large partition under Win98 (with fix applied). It's interesting.

Yes, links already posted here discuss why this is so under Win2000. It is an artificial limit on the Format command of Win2000 to discourage people using the old FAT32 system.

You formatted that drive with 32k clusters?

Baloney Panimu, it has nothing to do with discouraging anyone from doing anything. Geez, read the history behind it from a reputable resource.

SuperVegetto??

Lol dew, read your own links. support.microsoft.com isn't a reputable source .. ? Heh.

Sunbow, "by design" doesn't mean MS is discouraging it, just the fact that it presents other issues in Windows 2000 and FAT32 wasn't designed for NT support as was the NTFS file system. In fact, if you really needed to accomplish this in Windows 2000, there is a work-around furnished by Microsoft.

SOLUTION

hatz

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

Re: Promise
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20561848/How-might-that-be-possible.html
"Since the installation of the Promise card, my network was acting weird (slow network, etc..), so I have removed the Promise card and decided to plug the HD directly on my Mobo"

(from Phoenix/Award website):

"Enter BIOS Setup"...
"If the size (capacity) reported by Setup is same as size of the new disk, then the disk is supported by the BIOS."

Dennis, you may want to revisit
http://www.dewassoc.com/support/bios/awardfaq.htm#Q5.7

I think first time I hit there. Quick visit to homepage and I commend, am impressed with the shuttle ref. As so for the 1Mpt mark, I believe you went first (where none had gone before).

I remain superstitious on MS, first striving for professional appraoch, then seeming to wimp out:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=303013
So, they can support large drives through a registry hack. Why oh why is it ever a registry hack to get something to work?! :-((

Actually Sunbow, there's nothing to revisit as the info is now more historical now, but useful to the number of people using old legacy equipment. I'm dumbfounded by the number of 386's, 486's and PI's in 3rd world country's.

hatz, ATA100/133 drives can talk down to old controllers. With a BIOS update he can see the full size of his drive.

A controller card would work (personally I used http://www.highpoint-tech.com/r133sb.htm) and I had informed him of this before he posted his question here.

But that adds a 10-20% additional outlay compared to the cost of the drive in the first place.

SuperVegetto,
No comment has been added lately (319 days), so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area for this question:

RECOMMENDATION: split points between Panimu http:#8155675 and stevenlewis http:#8155971 and hatz http:#8172283

Please leave any comments here within 4 days.

-- Please DO NOT accept this comment as an answer ! --

Thanks,

LucF
EE Cleanup Volunteer

I disagree!

dew_associates, sorry to say this, but just "I disagree!" is not very usefull to me to reconsider. Can you please be more specific?

Not a problem. The issue is a BIOS issue, not an Fdisk issue, as the questioner was furnished with the latest Fdisk version by panimu. Stevenlewis was the first to make that call, that this issue was Bios ralated, hence the points should go to him. Sure, there are peripheral issues, but the bottom line is as steven has stated.

In that case, I don't see why you disagree, I thought exactly the same. The pointers lead to three solutions for it:
1) Bios upgrade
2) Drive overlay
3) PCI IDE controller

You named three individuals, not one as I did.

<i>Stevenlewis was the first to make that call, that this issue was Bios </i>

No he wasn't.

I didn't only point to what the problem was caused by, but to the possible solutions, wich is IMO the right thing to do.

A fix based on the drive is short sighted which is why I wanted mobo details.

I don't really care, just ignore dew he's an idiot.

>>just ignore dew he's an idiot.
I don't agree with that, but I think accepting the "answers" is better than accepting the "cause"

zzz

It's called a diagnostic process.

stevenlewis

My 2 cents, PAQ/no refund or Delete/no refund
Life's to short to quibble about 75 points. And I'm sure this question has been covered in another PAQ somewhere

>>And I'm sure this question has been covered in another PAQ somewhere
that's for sure... ;-)

I agree Steve.

As for you Panimu, you've been here more than a year and have answered exactly one question, yet you've asked a multitude of them. Hmmm, so who's the idiot? Hmmm, idiot and panimu has a sort of ring to it.

Please dew_associates and Panimu, keep it friendly: http:/help.jsp#hi102
No need for this...

LucF

With no real feedback of user, I'll go that split points are more deserved than otherwise, and that Panimu, begining with 1st comment was on a good track, bios/mobo and HW mismatch. Maybe SW too.

I'm of slight confuse on Dew's recommend, made me of thought that maybe this was old file and not sorted right due to old date bug, or other link of same author. Maybe it is our access method different. I don't see a SuperVegetto reply to anything.

Anyway, besides the recommend I'd do for sending some pts to Panimu, I prefer to defer to LucF for handling the remainder. LucF seems to be doing a reasonable cleanup effort, so I'm dittoing stevenlewis that it isn't worth us arguing, or even quibbling, but remind that I ever vote to PAQ with points when there's been decent contributions made. No sense us losing our work in a delete.

Thanx SunBow ;-)

I keep the recommendation the same as there where three possible solutions to this Q. And to the Mod following up, please delete or edit the inappropriate comments.

LucF
EE Cleanup Volunteer <= please note the Volunteer...