ortega_viacava
New member
How do I get over the size creation limit of 4 gb of win98se when capture video? (pinnacle studio) Must I change to winxp? Is there a patch for win98se to get over it?
4 gb limit creation file win98se
- Thread starter ortega_viacava
- Start date
HippyWarlock
New member
FAT16 has a 4GB limit on partition size
the 4GB limit is a FAT16 limitation, IIRC 16 bits has (like its 32 bit 2Tb <Terra-bit> cousin) a finite size, and 4Gb appears to be it :-(
FAT32 is (2^32)-1 bytes, or one byte less than a full 4GB. But let's not get lost in numerical symantics.... (or conspiracy theories - MS won't let XP FAT partition greater than 32Gb... Nothing in the laws of maths that says you can't... Remember NTFS may be more efficient, but, 2Tb-32Gb=a lorra bits missing. No File Allo' Table is that inneficient. Maybe they want us all sitting on NTFS partitions? hmmm, then what??)
This link may help confuse you further, it explains the some limits on FAT32
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006
What you need to do is upgrade your OS. Then the world my son, is your oyster [bash shell].
Again IIRC 98 Cannot access NTFS in a native manner, but I think ME can?
the 4GB limit is a FAT16 limitation, IIRC 16 bits has (like its 32 bit 2Tb <Terra-bit> cousin) a finite size, and 4Gb appears to be it :-(
FAT32 is (2^32)-1 bytes, or one byte less than a full 4GB. But let's not get lost in numerical symantics.... (or conspiracy theories - MS won't let XP FAT partition greater than 32Gb... Nothing in the laws of maths that says you can't... Remember NTFS may be more efficient, but, 2Tb-32Gb=a lorra bits missing. No File Allo' Table is that inneficient. Maybe they want us all sitting on NTFS partitions? hmmm, then what??)
This link may help confuse you further, it explains the some limits on FAT32
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;184006
What you need to do is upgrade your OS. Then the world my son, is your oyster [bash shell].
Again IIRC 98 Cannot access NTFS in a native manner, but I think ME can?
ponzan
1
if you're going to do video is highly advisable to change to a more stable OS like Win2K/XP and be able to work with NTFS partitions. If for some reason you won't change dreadfull win98 you may also try with "NTFS for windows 98" a litlle app that brings you the ability to access NTFS partitions from win98. But I'm not sure how good would this work for video demands (it does work fine for regular stuff; like from win98 I run games that are installed on a NTFS partition, like UT2003, NFSP HP2 and so...)ortega_viacava said:
Last edited:
HippyWarlock
New member
Won't that slow it up?
It sounds like some translation program, I assume such a layer would slow 98 down, Surely it's better to leave FAT32 (ok it fragments quicker and it may be a tad slow?) but as NTFS partitions reach stellar proportions then they will get slower by default.
Best formatting the partition with efficient cluster sizes:
clean install 98:
Defrag drive:
Set swap file fixed size:
I like XP but I never have a totally NTFS disk - FAT16 partitions come in handy too:
Keep
It sounds like some translation program, I assume such a layer would slow 98 down, Surely it's better to leave FAT32 (ok it fragments quicker and it may be a tad slow?) but as NTFS partitions reach stellar proportions then they will get slower by default.
Best formatting the partition with efficient cluster sizes:
clean install 98:
Defrag drive:
Set swap file fixed size:
I like XP but I never have a totally NTFS disk - FAT16 partitions come in handy too:
Keep
ponzan said:
ponzan
1
it doesn'tHippyWarlock said:
NTFS for Win98
Key features:
Provides support for NTFS volumes on Windows 95/98/Me
NTFS drives behave just like regular FAT and FAT32 drives
Uses the same Microsoft NTFS drivers as Windows XP /2000/NT but runs them under Windows 95/98/Me
Includes NTFSCHK utility for repairing disk errors
attachment contains ntfs98v2, license, and necessary files from win2000.
if you have much ram, in win98 do this:
-search for system.ini.
-look for section called [vcache]
-add this exactly below it: MaxFileCache=262144
now you can run 9x with ntfs partitions. enjoy!
HippyWarlock
New member
hmmm
The more stuff you add into a complex thing like an OS, then the flakier you make it... and , though I am exceedingly drunk now... I reckn it will run slower than an OS built to read NTFS....
You Quoth:
NTFS drives behave just like regular FAT and FAT32 drives.....
oh well no reason to change eh?
FAT32 is smaller, and designed thus, and will load ya progs faster than NTFS
bUT... The benefits of NTFS far outweigh its slim disadvantages
The more stuff you add into a complex thing like an OS, then the flakier you make it... and , though I am exceedingly drunk now... I reckn it will run slower than an OS built to read NTFS....
You Quoth:
NTFS drives behave just like regular FAT and FAT32 drives.....
oh well no reason to change eh?
FAT32 is smaller, and designed thus, and will load ya progs faster than NTFS
bUT... The benefits of NTFS far outweigh its slim disadvantages
HippyWarlock
New member
OK i GIVE IN
ViaCarva
Use his software, then everything should be ok
Vodka is like hot,, but not cool <it's ok they're not mutually exclusive I've realised
ViaCarva
Use his software, then everything should be ok
Vodka is like hot,, but not cool <it's ok they're not mutually exclusive I've realised
Jesterrace777
New member
Agreed. DVD Decrypter in ISO mode is proof of that.HippyWarlock said:
NTFS for W98 is a last resort solution, and the same applies for Paragon MountAnything 3.0 software, which is much more advanced and mounts several filesystems under W9X/ME (NTFS, ext2/3) as read-write. In all caeses you will not have the "luxury" of a usable recycle bin, filesizes for files >4GB reported WRONGLY, and a few potential issues.
Better forget that 9X ever existed and go on with 2000 or XP.
Better forget that 9X ever existed and go on with 2000 or XP.
PhilEnfield
Member
@ HippyWarlock
"MS won't let XP FAT partition greater than 32Gb... "
This isn't correct. It's Windows 2000 that has this limitation, not XP.
There does seem to be an obsession to change over to NTFS, but If you are using the likes of AnyDVD,DVD Decrypter,DVD Shrink,DVD20ne, Nero, RNM etc., then you shouldn't find any limitations with FAT32 and it certainly will not affect your ability to burn.
Nearly all of the easy click methods use files .... and these are normally only 1,048,574KB each, so when ripping, compressing and burning files, you will not get anywhere near the maximum filesize limit of 4gb.
If you intend to start authoring disks, with menus/creating images etc. and getting into more advanced things then it's possible that you will hit the size limitation.
The DVD Decrypter issue is not an issue either. If you are using ISO/Read and the file is greater than 4gb, it will create 2 ISO files and join these in the burning stage.
Like I said, unless you are going to get into more complex/authoring stuff ... FAT32 will work fine.
"MS won't let XP FAT partition greater than 32Gb... "
This isn't correct. It's Windows 2000 that has this limitation, not XP.
There does seem to be an obsession to change over to NTFS, but If you are using the likes of AnyDVD,DVD Decrypter,DVD Shrink,DVD20ne, Nero, RNM etc., then you shouldn't find any limitations with FAT32 and it certainly will not affect your ability to burn.
Nearly all of the easy click methods use files .... and these are normally only 1,048,574KB each, so when ripping, compressing and burning files, you will not get anywhere near the maximum filesize limit of 4gb.
If you intend to start authoring disks, with menus/creating images etc. and getting into more advanced things then it's possible that you will hit the size limitation.
The DVD Decrypter issue is not an issue either. If you are using ISO/Read and the file is greater than 4gb, it will create 2 ISO files and join these in the burning stage.
Like I said, unless you are going to get into more complex/authoring stuff ... FAT32 will work fine.
Last edited:
Actually he IS correct.PhilEnfield said:
Both 2000 and XP can MANAGE FAT32 partitions larger than 32 GB with a couple of issues (bad defragmentation and slack space management), but NONE of the two can CREATE a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB, no matter which clustersize you use.
The NTFS thing is not an obsession, its a necessity. Nobody sane enough would buy a Porsche Carrera and then feed the motor with 85-octane gasoline.
In fact the NTFS journaling features alone should be more than enough a reason to switch.
Last edited:
PhilEnfield
Member
Your reply is a bit puzzling I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I can assure you that Windows XP definitely supports FAT32 partitions greater than 32GB.scarecrow said:
I have a dual boot system with W98se and XP Pro and have 3 partitions :
C: FAT32 1.95GB - Windows 98se and one program
D: FAT32 16.12GB - Windows XP Pro and all software
E: FAT32 58.58GB - All Data files etc.
The reason I didn't convert the E: partition to NTFS was because I wanted full compatibility across Operating Systems.
I have since installed a Pioneer 104 and more recently a 106 and have found no limitations at all, as mentioned above.
The reason I posted was to assure the original poster that FAT32 will be suitable for him. I have thought on several occasions to convert my E: partition, but ..... like I say ... I prefer it that way for personal reasons, plus why fix it when it aint broke.
And before you say "Authoring" ... I have successfully produced many Multi disks with SpruceUp & DVD Lab, so if you choose the right software, there are still no limitations .... Unless you know different
"Necessity" ... I think Not
EDIT :
Having re-read your post, I think I can see where you're coming from.
I agree that XP can manage FAT32 partitions, but cannot create them. This is because Microsoft crippled the FDISK program with a limit of 32gb, in an attempt to get everyone on NTFS. We can only guess at why they might have wanted to do that
Partition Magic 8, however, does the trick or you can create your partitions from a start up disk before installing XP and ignore the prompt to change, during installation.I know most folk will probably go for NTFS, without knowing any difference, but there are occasions when this is not the best route.
FAT32 worked fine for many years and still does, so it's wrong to slate it, just because M$ have dreamt up something new. Both have their places.
Last edited:
Scarecrow has it NTFS
I have both large FAT32 and NTFS partitions in my system.
FAT32 larger than 32G can be created by most commercial partitioners, and even non-commercial ones. Even a Linux installation CD can create and format a large FAT32 partition.
Win 2000 manages those premade partitions equally well with XP (= slightly crappily). For me the most annoying thing is that the OS somehow decides that something is wrong with the filesystem there pretty frequently, and performs a routine check of the whole partition at system startup, while even the dumb user knows that nothing is really wrong there, leaving aside mr. Gates' idiotic OS conceptions.
Just hit the reset button while working with a FAT32 filesystem, and you've already created a little (or big enough to render the partition unusable) mess. Doing the same on an NTFS one the worst you can have is a couple of broken, and most likely fixable, inode entries. And that IS a huge difference...
Just ask any web administrator out there to store his critical web server or FTP server data to FAT32. He will groan and spit out something not particularly polite... and not without a reason.
FAT32 larger than 32G can be created by most commercial partitioners, and even non-commercial ones. Even a Linux installation CD can create and format a large FAT32 partition.
Win 2000 manages those premade partitions equally well with XP (= slightly crappily). For me the most annoying thing is that the OS somehow decides that something is wrong with the filesystem there pretty frequently, and performs a routine check of the whole partition at system startup, while even the dumb user knows that nothing is really wrong there, leaving aside mr. Gates' idiotic OS conceptions.
Just hit the reset button while working with a FAT32 filesystem, and you've already created a little (or big enough to render the partition unusable) mess. Doing the same on an NTFS one the worst you can have is a couple of broken, and most likely fixable, inode entries. And that IS a huge difference...
Just ask any web administrator out there to store his critical web server or FTP server data to FAT32. He will groan and spit out something not particularly polite... and not without a reason.
PhilEnfield
Member
OK ... you make some valid points also and I don't want to get into a "my disk is better than yours" type of argument , but it does annoy me when I see folk on forums, such as this, who say you cannot successfully Rip/Compress & burn DVD backups, using FAT32.
I have been doing exactly that for over a year and must have burnt hundreds of Ritek G03's & G04's, on both my Pioneer 104 and 106 drives.
Just wanted to put the record straight on that issue .... that's all After all some folk only have W98 and cant always afford to upgrade.
I know there are reliability issues generally, with W98, but FAT32 does work
, but it does annoy me when I see folk on forums, such as this, who say you cannot successfully Rip/Compress & burn DVD backups, using FAT32.I have been doing exactly that for over a year and must have burnt hundreds of Ritek G03's & G04's, on both my Pioneer 104 and 106 drives.
Just wanted to put the record straight on that issue .... that's all
After all some folk only have W98 and cant always afford to upgrade.I know there are reliability issues generally, with W98, but FAT32 does work
Last edited: