Can Windows 98 Detect a 160 GB HDD Partitioned to 32 GB FAT32?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kaos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partition
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Windows 98 can detect a 160 GB hard drive partitioned into 32 GB FAT32 chunks, but it is not optimal due to the limitations of FAT32. NTFS is recommended for its reliability, support for larger files, and enhanced security features. Users dual-booting Windows 98 and Windows XP often do so for compatibility with older DOS programs, but alternatives like virtual machines (e.g., ScummVM) exist for running legacy software. The maximum partition size for Windows 98SE is 32 GB, which may restrict usability if partitions exceed this limit.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of FAT32 and NTFS file systems
  • Knowledge of dual-boot configurations
  • Familiarity with partitioning tools and concepts
  • Basic understanding of virtual machine software
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the advantages of NTFS over FAT32 for modern operating systems
  • Learn how to configure dual-boot systems with GRUB or NTLoader
  • Explore virtual machine options for running legacy DOS applications
  • Investigate partition management tools for Windows and their capabilities
USEFUL FOR

Users dual-booting Windows 98 and Windows XP, IT professionals managing legacy systems, and anyone interested in optimizing file system performance and compatibility with older software.

kaos
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
I have 160 gb hdd and i partitioned it 32 gb(fat32) chunks using extended partitions.
I am now using windows xp. Can windows 98 detect this hdd?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Fat32 isn't very good. I suggest you format ntfs. Why are you dual booting windows 98 and windows xp?
 
dduardo said:
Fat32 isn't very good. I suggest you format ntfs. Why are you dual booting windows 98 and windows xp?
Why is NTFS better then Fat 32? Does it have a smaller cluster? Or is it security?

Is there a utility (like the one that converted fat16 to fat 32) for converting fat32 to NTFS?

(Still contemplating shifting to a NT platform.)
 
ntfs is better because it is more reliable, can supports more files, doesn't defragment as much and has security labels. In terms of speed fat32 is probable faster as is the case with ext2 versus ext3 for linux. Journaling operations causes some overhead, but is worth the extra reliablility.
 
yes i am dual booting win 98 and xp as there are some programmes that arent compatible
even with emulation (some old dos programs) and i can't seem to detect the hard disk.
 
What programs are you running that would force you to run windows 98? Are you trying to run some really old games? If this is the case then there are plenty virtual machines for those type of games such as scummVM:

http://www.scummvm.org/
 
Or hell, run Win98 in vmware or bochs, and use NTFS on your disk. The bottom line is that FAT32 is going to make you waste a LOT of that 160 GB capacity with enormous chunk sizes.

- Warren
 
Nevermind, I now realized you broke the 160 GB disk up into a bunch of 32 GB partitions, so the chunk size issue is not relevant -- but it'll still be really inconvenient to use 5 small logical disks that way.

- Warren
 
ok nvm thanks guys
 
  • #10
You're dual-booting Windows 98 just to run DOS programs?

Put a small dos partition at the beginning of the disk and just install dos on it. (Why do you want anywhere near 32gb for dos games?) Configure your boot manager (grub, ntloader, or whatever you like) to hide the dos partition when you boot XP and hide the XP partition(s) when you boot dos. That works fine for me with a couple of 80gb disks.

Then you can use NTFS for your XP partitions.

If you want you could probably do the same thing with Win98, but why bother if all you need is dos?

(I think "32gb" is the max for Win98SE, it may be less for earlier versions. Maybe you're just slightly over the limit.)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
915
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
943