answer.
...
> According to Maxtor, Windows 9x (95/98/ME) do not support drives over 137
GB. They
> went so far as to include their Ultra ATA 133 PCI card free of charge when
the
> DiamondMax Plus 9 200GB Hard Drive was introduced....with this card, older
Windows
> versions can use the entire 200 GB.
> See here, from Maxtor's Knowledge Base:
> http://snipurl.com/8t4s
> It seems that the partition size is not relevant....the drive cannot be
used in its
> entirety unless you use add-in Ultra ATA PCI adapter card with a 48-Bit
LBA
> compliant BIOS and controller driver.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> "Derek" <nos...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:LbnZc.675$YA4.515@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > I have tried different partition sizes, the largest setup being two at
> > c.94GB each, so this is below the 137 limit. The cluster sizes have
always
> > been 32K.
> > I have just scrolled scrolled through the various preset HDD sizes in
the
> > bios and none match up to the 200GB size - and auto detect only show the
> > total size of the HDD (203GB) but no the cyls head sector etc. details
as
> > it does for my other HDD's so perhaps the bios is at fault here. My
> > motherboard is an AMD athlon processor one - GA-71XE4 which i flashed
some
> > time ago to the latest update.
> > I will see if I can get more details of the drive from the maxtor site
and
> > manual put them into the bios to see if that helps
> > Derek
> > "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:u0$ZCorjEHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > > Here is a better reference...137 GB Limitation:
> > > http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/capacity/137/os/win98.html
> > > --
> > > Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
> > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > "glee" <gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Ooi2$hrjEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > What are the sizes of the partitions on the 200GB drive?
> > > > What are the cluster sizes used for each partition?
> > > > Does your BIOS support greater than 137GB drives, or are you using a
> > controller
> > > card
> > > > that does?
> > > > from http://support.octek.com.au/FAQ/faq_0113.htm :
> > > > "The only current Windows operating systems that natively support
the
> > full
> > > capacity
> > > > of ATA drives larger than 137GB are:
> > > > Windows XP Home Service Pack 1 (SP1) or higher
> > > > Windows XP Professional SP1 or higher
> > > > Windows 2000 Professional SP3 or higher
> > > > Windows 2000 Server SP3 or higher "
> > > > "If you do not have one of the operating systems listed above, we
> > recommend that
> > > you
> > > > limit the partition size to 137GB or upgrade your operating system
or
> > try one of
> > > > the solutions listed" on the web page.
> > > > Has it occurred to you that scandisk and PM may actually be telling
you
> > the
> > > > truth....that the drive may be damaged?
> > > > --
> > > > Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
> > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > "Derek" <nos...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:kNHYc.114$E33.80@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> > > > > Hi I've just added a 200GB HDD to my system and have found that
> > transferring
> > > > > files across to it is very slow - taking hours instead of seconds.
> > > > > I have WIN98SE AMD 1Mhz CPU and 640 RAM (which hasn't caused a
> > problem
> > > > > before) I have 60GB and 80 Gb HDDs already installed and have
added
> > to last
> > > > > 200Gb drive on the 2nd IDE channel with my DVD RW. I have tested
the
> > > > > problem by putting the new 200 GB drive without the dvd on the
same
> > channel
> > > > > and used it on the primary ide channel with just one other (60GB)
Hdd
> > and
> > > > > the problem is the same.
> > > > > Running scandisk on it did show up read and write errors -
> > repartitioning it
> > > > > and reformatting was a flaky process as the partitions remained
> > unstable -
> > > > > the partitions on the 200GB drive weren't being recognized
properly in
> > > > > windows. I also used partition magic to try to format it (FAT32)
but
> > it
> > > > > often said the drive may be damaged. I suspect after some research
its
> > may
> > > > > be the 137GB limit making the data unstable.
> > > > > So I wonder if anybody has had similar problem with these big
drives
> > and
> > > > > what if any was a reliable patch/fix workaround.
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Derek
> > > > > --
