Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem? - Linux ; JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote: >> On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there. >>> >>> ...which will probably want to use more space than you ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

  1. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.
    >>>
    >>> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >>>
    >>> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the
    >>> original troll.
    >>>

    >
    > What exactly about the term "compressed" leaves any ambiguity?
    >


    Everything. It is a 3 syllable word.
    That is 2 too much for widiots
    --
    My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.


  2. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older ?system?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>
    >> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.

    >>
    >> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >>
    >> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.
    >>

    >
    > So, if I understand correctly, a Live CD will pull stuff off the
    > internet (once you decide to burn the live CD contents into your HD as
    > an image file)?


    Where did he say that, oaf?
    Do you not even know what COMPRESSION is?
    *sigh*
    IF the image the live CD loads is compressed, then the act of decompressing
    it will obviously inflate the size well beyond the capability of a CD to
    hold it.

    Now, where does ANYONE mention downloading off the internet?
    You don't NEED internet.

    > So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD.


    By the act of decompressing into RAM, yes.

    > Then there's no
    > telling where this monster, cancerous LInux distro will stop, is
    > there? It keeps growing and growing until it consumes and crashes
    > your HD!


    A live CD doesn't TOUCH your hard disk moron, until you click on the install
    button. Then it just installs the RAM image onto disk and sets up a boot
    loader. Do you really think there's no limit?

    LOL

    Here, I've got a byte somewhere that decompresses into the entire
    encyclopedia galactica... Want a copy? here it is....
    ----- attached file -----
    %
    -------------------------


    > SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD


    Get stuffed lopez.
    You've been given at least half a dozen viable alternatives to solve your
    imaginary problem by now. You've not tried ANY of them.
    And you still cry "no-one will give me a straight answer".
    Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? The chances of you getting viable
    helpful information reduces each time you post this ****.



    > So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine.


    Says the troll who was given many options to try and failed to even try one.
    Says the troll who's never even USED linux.
    Says the troll who's only here because his M$ shares are plummetting like a
    lemming in a disney film.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  3. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-07-07, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.
    >>>
    >>> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >>>
    >>> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.
    >>>

    >
    > What exactly about the term "compressed" leaves any ambiguity?


    Didn't you know? Compression is online storage in his mind. All it does is
    produce a file that's a hash to the ACTUAL file on the internet. It's not
    possible to reduce the size of things via algorithms and bit fiddling, it
    has to go somewhere.



    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
    | in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
    | Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

  4. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, raylopez99

    wrote
    on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
    :
    > On Jul 7, 10:51*am, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>
    >> > Or start with a LiveCD version and add stuff from there.

    >>
    >> ...which will probably want to use more space than you have.
    >>
    >> A compressed LiveCD can easily break the 2G limit specified in the original troll.
    >>

    >
    > So, if I understand correctly, a Live CD will pull stuff off the
    > internet (once you decide to burn the live CD contents into your HD as
    > an image file)?
    >
    > So a Live CD "grows" larger than the 650 MB CD. Then there's no
    > telling where this monster, cancerous LInux distro will stop, is
    > there? It keeps growing and growing until it consumes and crashes
    > your HD!
    >
    > SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
    > get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old). But then if I
    > upgrade the HD, it might solve my original problem because with
    > Windows 2000 I will have a larger swap file partition (which is, like
    > Ghost points out, probably why the present old Windows 2000 system is
    > so slow).


    No, the reason is most likely fragmentation of your
    swapfile, not its size. Set your virtual to twice your RAM
    in both min and max of your swapfile after you've defragged
    your harddrive (preferably *without* a swapfile at all,
    so as to allow for more space to move files about), and
    the machine should be better off in that department.

    (You'll still need AV, of course; with Windows that's a given.)

    >
    > SO, if I upgrade the HD, why would I want to switch to Linux then?
    > It's a moot point.


    Why switch to Linux at all? You've *still* not answered
    my question as to why you would consider that beneficial
    for the user in question. At best, it's an exercise in
    futility, absent something obvious.

    The user and the machine are not client-server,
    master-slave. They are *paired*. I'm an old Unix-head;
    I can work with Linux, and can make it sit up, beg, roll
    over, dig in the dirt, and retrieve bones. Others might
    barely be able to make it go "woof". Still others will
    chain it 3 feet away from its doggie dish then wonder why
    Rover died some days later.

    (Meanwhile, Windows oozes its way all over one's house. But
    never mind that; green's in this year.)

    >
    > So, in short, Linux sucks and is unsuitable for a older machine. So
    > much for the "Linux for poor people with old hardware" myth.


    Linux distros have grown way too much. How one can pare them back, I'm
    not sure unless one can in fact recognize where Rover is chained....

    >
    > RL


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
    Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
    a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:34:29 +0000, Unruh wrote:

    >>>
    >>> Lets see, there are now about 10 distros that fit on a CD. That is 700MB
    >>> which is smaller than 2-3G. They are called "Live" distributions.

    >
    >>My latest MythTV frontend uses about 2G. That's the product of starting
    >>out with the basic install from Ubuntu Server x86 7.10 and just adding
    >>what was necessary to run the stuff for MythTV.

    >
    > So? I can write a program that takes 1000000GB on disk and to run. Does this
    > say
    > anything about linux or anything else?
    >
    >>My first Linux box had a 1G hard drive. I did not forego X.

    >
    > And it did not have MythTV.
    >
    > My first Unix box (Sun 3 with SunOS) had a 100MB disk. And it ran X.
    >


    >

    A full-featured, modern GNU/Linux OS will not fit in 100M. But IIRC,
    a "rescue" environment (with the kernel, all kernel modules, and basic
    busybox-based toolset) consumes only about 64M. That will provide
    a good command line environment, which is often enough to fixup a
    borked system. And for a small, full-featured live CD which includes KDE,
    IMO you can't beat Slax. It packs a lot into a 200M image.

    I get the impression that software expands to fill the container size
    which is available. Various discrete sizes have been important in the past:
    1.44M (floppy)
    100M (Zip)
    650M (CD-R)
    4G (DVD-R) *

    * current generation, approximate

    Extremely small OS footprints remain of interest, mainly for handheld
    devices with limited storage. The next generation of flash memory will
    minimize the necessity of cutting to the bone. It will be possible to hold
    a standard OS image with the full feature set. That is, it will fit- if
    the rate of OS "expansion" (bloat) can be held in check (or finally
    starts to level off.) An 8G container should give enough room for almost
    everything conceivable. 8G flash is becoming common, now. This storage
    advance, courtesy of Moore's law, reduces the need to use extra tricks;
    such as tailored kernels, root filesystem compression, and the busybox
    toolset. In other words, the standard install will be "good enough" and
    will fit into that container with no "shoe horning" requried. This will be
    a good thing because the extact same OS that runs on your desktop will
    also be running on your handheld.

    As far as a a full-featured GNU/Linux, I prefer Slackware. IMO, it has
    done a very good job of adding features, while avoiding excessive bloat.
    Its baseline install is a good starting point because it gives the
    complete toolset, and other software can simply be added according
    to user taste. I am willing to "waste" some disk space on some software
    packages that may be seldomly used in exchange for the convenience of not
    having to "go hunting" for too many missing features.

    One trick that I use to clone Slackware onto multiple system is to
    maintain a baseline setup image. That image can simply be "pasted" into
    place onto the target hard drive partition (using dd). Some minor
    final setup steps are all that is necessary to finalize and rollout
    the clone. Right now, my baseline image consumes less than 4G (and
    includes KDE 3.5.7 and OpenOffice 2.4.1.) If KDE is removed, then the
    space used is reduced to just under 3G. That is mostly of academic
    interest to me, though. I am happy as long as the total image stays below
    4G (DVD-R container size). BTW, I also use the XFS filesystem
    for the image. The xfs_growfs and xfs_admin utilities allow for the image
    to be "expanded" to use all of space on the partition where it has been
    copied.

    --
    Douglas Mayne

  6. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older ?system?

    Linonut writes:

    >> Sounds like they don't have a life.

    >
    > They don't have any sense.


    But they do have an agenda......

  7. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
    > get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old).


    Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
    circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
    your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
    BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).

    I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
    80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
    processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
    with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.

    I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
    two reasons:
    1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
    your box,
    2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
    your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.

    If others are interested in more details about such a setup: just ask.


    Regards,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen

  8. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    Kees Theunissen writes:

    >raylopez99 wrote:


    >> SO, back to square one. I have to essentially upgrade the HD (after I
    >> get a SCSI controller card, since my BIOS is too old).


    >Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
    >circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
    >your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
    >BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).


    >I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
    >80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
    >processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
    >with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.


    >I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
    >two reasons:
    >1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
    > your box,


    I agree, but I will outline it anyway, just in case the person is really
    legit.

    make a small partion right at the beginning of the disk to contain /boot
    The partion can basically be of minimum size -- lets say 50M.
    Then install / partition and your others anywhere you want. The key thing
    is that bios of the computer is ONLY used to read the initrd and vmlinuz
    from /boot. Thereafter everything is taken over by the kernel which is
    loaded by the bios and lilo from /boot.


    >2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
    > your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.


    >If others are interested in more details about such a setup: just ask.



    >Regards,


    >Kees.


    >--
    >Kees Theunissen


  9. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Jul 9, 4:42*pm, Kees Theunissen wrote:

    > Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
    > circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
    > your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
    > BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).


    Normally he says. Well, this must be the exception. Don't you see
    that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
    the BIOS.

    >
    > I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
    > 80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
    > processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
    > with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
    >
    > I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
    > two reasons:
    > 1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
    > * * your box,
    > 2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
    > * * your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.


    Wrong again. But I thank you for your reply. I have installed from
    scratch many a machine, even where I had to mechanically alter an IDE
    ribbon cable, and do stuff to get a SATA boot drive loaded that took
    three days to figure out (too complicated to even write about; I had
    to ghost a working non-SATA drive onto the SATA drive and play around
    with dip switches). But you confirmed that it will be a lot of work
    to get Linux loaded onto this system--once I get a bigger drive.

    So stick with windows is your implicit answer. Understood.

    RL

  10. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Jul 9, 5:19*pm, Unruh wrote:
    > >1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
    > > * *your box,

    >
    > I agree, but I will outline it anyway, just in case the person is really
    > legit.
    >
    > *make a small partion right at the beginning of the disk to contain /boot
    > The partion can basically be of minimum size -- lets say 50M.
    > Then install / partition and your others anywhere you want. The key thing
    > is that bios of the computer is ONLY used to read the initrd and vmlinuz
    > from /boot. Thereafter everything is taken over by the kernel which is
    > loaded by the bios and lilo from /boot.
    >
    > >2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
    > > * *your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.
    > >If others are interested in more details about such a setup: just ask.


    Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
    Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
    using say Partition Magic, that supports Linux format (which is not
    NTFS or FATxx). Is this right? I do have Partition Magic somewhere,
    and have used it, even for LInux, but failing that, failing finding PM
    (and I'm not going to rebuy it just for this project), I don't see why
    I can't do a clean reinstall of LInux, assuming Windows 2000 cannot be
    made to work better. In short, I don't see why I should dual boot,
    though I do understand the advantages of dual boot. Remember, this
    project is for a n00b--who when they get into trouble do a hard power
    off of the system! I can't imagine them living with a dual boot
    system--liable to muck it up. I'm trying to keep in simple.

    RL

  11. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    raylopez99 writes:

    >On Jul 9, 4:42=A0pm, Kees Theunissen wrote:


    >> Normally you don't need to install a scsi controller and drive to
    >> circumvent the BIOS HD size limits. It's the kernel that accesses
    >> your HD, not the BIOS. You only need to take precautions that the
    >> BIOS can load your kernel (and initrd if used).


    >Normally he says. Well, this must be the exception. Don't you see
    >that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
    >the BIOS.


    No, it does not have to be the bios. It could also be that the hard drive
    controller is incapable of handling large disks. Rare but possible.
    Note when you say "I cannot even bootup" that is totally consistant also
    with your not having properly read the previous posts. In the boot
    sequence, the hard drive is read by the bios in order to load initrd and
    vmlinuz. They MUST MUST MUST be on the first few bytes of the hard disk for
    the bios to be able to read them. The address space-- the number of bytes
    allocated to addresses-- on those bioses only allow a limited number of
    bytes on the disk to be addressed. That means that the /boot partition MUST
    be within that set of addresses on the disk. The bios loads by telling the
    controller -- download the following set of bytes with addresses in the
    range... to memory.
    Thus on those disks you MUST make a separate partion containing ONLY the
    /boot directory, and that partition MUST be right at the beginning of the
    disk. Those MUSTs are in capitals because if you do not comply, it will not
    boot.



    >>
    >> I ran a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n system for several years with a
    >> 80 GB and a 160 GB disk. That is a system with an Intel Pentium Pro
    >> processor running at 200 MHz. The system was originally delivered
    >> with a 4 GB HD and the BIOS limit was 20 GB iirc.
    >>
    >> I won't spoil any time to explain how to setup such a system for
    >> two reasons:
    >> 1) You don't seem to be interested anyway to install Linux on
    >> =A0 =A0 your box,
    >> 2) It won't be a single click install, so it's probably way beyond
    >> =A0 =A0 your Linux knowledge and/or capabilities.


    >Wrong again. But I thank you for your reply. I have installed from
    >scratch many a machine, even where I had to mechanically alter an IDE
    >ribbon cable, and do stuff to get a SATA boot drive loaded that took
    >three days to figure out (too complicated to even write about; I had
    >to ghost a working non-SATA drive onto the SATA drive and play around
    >with dip switches). But you confirmed that it will be a lot of work
    >to get Linux loaded onto this system--once I get a bigger drive.


    Uh, no. it will not be. the requirement is as above.



    >So stick with windows is your implicit answer. Understood.


    That is always an option. However, modern Windows will not work. And there
    is no workaround for them.


    >RL


  12. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    raylopez99 writes:

    > Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
    > Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
    > using say Partition Magic,


    Many linux distros use an open source program that does the same as
    partition magic (shrinking an existing Windows partition without
    deleting files).

  13. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Maxwell Lol

    wrote
    on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:46:34 -0400
    <87d4llii1h.fsf@com.invalid>:
    > raylopez99 writes:
    >
    >> Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
    >> Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
    >> using say Partition Magic,

    >
    > Many linux distros use an open source program that does the same as
    > partition magic (shrinking an existing Windows partition without
    > deleting files).


    A combination of fstab and ntfsresize. The main problem with
    ntfsresize is that it's not GUIfied enough for some. :-)

    (It also marks the volume dirty so that Windows runs chkdsk on it
    during its next reboot, a safety feature.)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
    It's a question of when.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  14. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a older system?

    On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:46:34 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
    >raylopez99 writes:


    >> Essentially, you are saying that I should dual boot Linux with
    >> Windows, is that correct? And I assume you must set up a partition,
    >> using say Partition Magic,


    >Many linux distros use an open source program that does the same as
    >partition magic (shrinking an existing Windows partition without
    >deleting files).


    I"ll take qtparted or gparted over PM any day. PM's current insanity requires
    a system be bootable before partitions can be resized. When I'm transfering
    a system to a new hard drive, that isn't usually the case as I may reorder
    the partitions. I much prefer doing the whole operating via a live CD.

  15. Re: For the FOURTH time, please, which Linux distro for a oldersystem?

    On Jul 10, 9:14*am, Unruh wrote:
    > raylopez99 writes:


    > >Don't you see
    > >that I cannot even bootup when I install a large HD--so it has to be
    > >the BIOS.

    >
    > No, it does not have to be the bios. It could also be that the hard drive
    > controller is incapable of handling large disks. Rare but possible.
    > Note when you say "I cannot even bootup" that is totally consistant also
    > with your not having properly read the previous posts. In the boot
    > sequence, the hard drive is read by the bios in order to load initrd and
    > vmlinuz. They MUST MUST MUST be on the first few bytes of the hard disk for
    > the bios to be able to read them.


    Wait. I just realized something. You think I have a Linux system,
    "load initrd and vmlinuz". The old target machine is running Windows
    2000 (before that, it was running Windows NT), not Linux.

    Does this change your analysis? While I realize that playing around
    with BIOS can allow you to successfully load...wait let me Google
    this.

    OK, I found the solution, see below.

    So I did learn something from this thread, but no thanks to you,
    though you did get me to research it.

    RL

    hardware fixes

    Use of large harddisks in PC's with BIOS size limit

    There are certain limitations why you could not use the full capacity
    of your harddisk right from the beginning.
    Case 1
    Your mainboard BIOS lacks support for large harddisks (540MB / 2GB /
    8GB / 16GB / 32GB limit). This is when your harddisk is reported as
    unsupported [AutoDetect reports None] or with wrong sizes in the BIOS
    setup. Even when your computer stops starting.
    Case 2
    Your harddisk features an UltraDMA mode not known to the harddisk or
    vice versa. Therefore no communication can be established.
    Case 3
    Your operating system does not support partitions larger than 2GB.

    For all limitations workarounds exist.


    Case 1
    Solution 1
    Your mainboard manufacturer may provide a new BIOS binary for download
    to update your current version with a Flash utility. To identify your
    mainboard at least a manufacturer name and product name or a BIOS ID
    is needed.
    Info on how to find the BIOS ID and manufacturer

    Solution 2
    If you use an operating system like Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, Linux,
    MacOS... you can manually enter harddisk data in the BIOS to limit
    your HD to 2GB. This will prevent your BIOS from autodetecting your
    harddisk and will limit BIOS access to your harddisk to the first 2GB.
    During boot-up your BIOS will report this "wrong" size. This is only
    important up the point when the BIOS hands over control to your
    operating system (e.g. Windows 95 IO.SYS / COMMAND.COM). Then your
    operating system uses it's own method to access the harddisk and is
    indepented from your BIOS limitations. Creating partitions is more
    difficult when using this solution as FDISK does rely on proper
    initialization of your harddisk during boot up.
    You can download a partition tool to create partitions with every size
    and file system you like here:
    http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/
    FAQ for solving problems or questions:
    http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/faq.htm

    Solution 3
    Some harddisks provide a jumper to limit harddisk size visible to your
    BIOS to 2GB (sometimes 8GB or 32GB). That would be easier than the
    above given solution to enter manually data into BIOS settings.

    Solution 4
    Most harddisk manufacturers provide a software tool to do both parts
    (using fake settings for the BIOS and translating harddisk size
    correctly to its full capacity). Please specify your harddisk type to
    guide you to a download location. This solution works with legacy
    operating systems, too.
    Fujitsu DiskManager
    IBM DiskManager 2000 (v 3.10.14)
    Seagate DiscWizard 2000
    Full version for all harddisks by OnTrack (59.95$)

    Case 2
    Change UDMA mode for your harddisk. As your chipset is based on VIA
    82C586B southbridge all modes above UDMA33 are useless, because this
    chipset can only handle up to UDMA33. So limiting your harddisks
    firmware to UDMA66 or UDMA33 does NOT decrease performance. Problem
    could be that your harddisk can't get initialized as it features an
    UDMA mode unknown to the BIOS / chipset.
    Fujitsu UDMA changer

    Case 3
    Microsoft DOS based operating systems like Windows 3.1, Windows 95
    implement a file system called FAT16. This file system can only handle
    partitions up to 2GB:
    65525 cluster (max) * 32768 Byte (max) = 2.147.123.200Byte
    So you would end up with 10 partitions with 2GB each when using a 20GB
    disk. Newer releases of Microsoft Windows like Windows 95 OSR 2,
    Windows 98 and later use a new file system called FAT32 which can have
    partitions larger than 2GB. Windows 95 and Windows 95 SP1 don't
    feature FAT32 (see Properties of MyComputer for version of Windows95 -
    > 950 or 950A have no FAT32). All in all you can use harddisks with

    20GB in your PC but you might end up with ten partitions named C:, D:,
    E: ... all with 2GB each. If this is OK for you no further activities
    are necessary. If you want to use one partition with more than 2GB
    upgrade to an operating system with support for different file systems
    like FAT32 (Windows95 SP2, Windows98/ME, Windows 2000), NTFS (Windows
    NT, Windows 2000), HPFS (MacOS), extFS (Linux) etc.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2