posted
It wouldn't do to leave all those questions unanswered. (I read some spoilers for Ep 2, and I heard they talk about SATA. Edge of my seat.)
In other less interesting news, I tried installing Win2K on a new 200GB drive (no mobo swapping) knowing full well that my SP4 enhanced Win2K install disk (over which I'd toiled so hard with the slipstreaming and the following error-riddled instructions) would totally recognize this big old drive and I wouldn't have to resort to any Win98 weirdness to have it work. Except that it didn't and I wound up having to fdisk it up to it's full capacity, format /s it and then run the Win2K SP4 disk and have it nuke that old partition and re-format. Over the course of several days I was able to do this (work and moviemaking in-between). It does seem strange that a Win98SE utility does recognize large disks where Win2K (which some complex math reveals was released 2 years after) does not.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I know it's not overly helpful, but isn't there a totally legal copy of XP you could get hold of?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Erh, yes, well, that would be because Win2K's so aptly named FastFAT driver is very serious about abiding by the restrictions of (Win98) FAT32, which, while very accomodating in the cluster department (so accomodating, in fact, that a logical volume can house up to 2^28 (not 2^32, because, for some reason known only to Microsoft, the last four bits aren't actually used) of them, which, at 32KB per cluster, yields a theoretical volume size of 8 terabytes ("theoretical" because the MBR partition table and FAT32 boot sector are littered with 32-bit fields that limit said size to only 2 terabytes (at 512 bytes per sector, of course), and because there is some weird backward compatibility deal re: ScanDisk (which is a 16-bit program, and since all 16-bit programs have a maximum memory block allocation size of 16MB (minus some housekeeping bytes) and a FAT entry on a FAT32 volume takes up 4 bytes, it cannot process FAT32 FATs with more than 4177920 32KB clusters) in place that further limits said size to around 128GB (except in WinME, where it is back to 2 terabytes))), is not so friendly when it comes to partitions (being just a lowly file system as opposed to a guts-'n'-glory addressing scheme), at least not in Win2K, which, for another reason known only to Microsoft, will not let you format FAT32 partitions in excess of 32GB even if you sell your soul to Bill (though it will recognize any such pre-existing partition correctly), and but so therefore (2) Win98 fdisk (which is a 32-bit partition table manipulator, and partition tables reside in a disk's MBR, and MBRs are independent of any file system snags) will happily whip your blank 200GB disk into shape, whereas the FastFAT-aided Win2K (SP4 or no SP4) install routine, if pointed toward the same blank 200GB drive, will not think to check, or check to think, beyond the 128GB FAT32 volume limit.
You should format to NTFS.
(This was not part two. Also I feel guilty about stealing your marbles.)
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Holy shit: that's nothing but gibberish! Back on the Ritalin for you, young man!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
Remind me not to ever ask for directions!
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Well of course that's why. I don't know why I didn't think of that. Explain to me again why Mac users are daft. Ok, no wait. Don't.
quote:Originally posted by Psyliam: I know it's not overly helpful, but isn't there a totally legal copy of XP you could get hold of?
But think of all the fun I'd miss out on. Also it was a certain very knowledgeable someone here who I believe told me that Win2k was just like WinXP without all the kiddy shit.
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: You should format to NTFS.
I think I did. I mean I wanted to. Would it be goofy on account of the original fdisk partioning?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane: Also it was a certain very knowledgeable someone here who I believe told me that Win2k was just like WinXP without all the kiddy shit.
That was the original belief. But XP is actually far more different than people originally thought. The driver support is better, if nothing else. And other things. I haven't got my big anti-2000 rant to hand that isn't just taken from PC Format's helpdesk in any way, so I can't be more specific. Plus, I really should be working.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Fortunatly I can just copy it from the web-site . Woo! Note: The following opinion is not mine, but it is the opinion of someone who looks a bit scary, so I'd listen to him ahead of, say, Foolish Jason or Crazy-Man Tim.
quote:Windows 2000 isn�t just a different version of Windows; it�s a completely separate branch of the evolutionary tree. It�s the Neanderthal man of operating systems � upright gait, simple tool use, primitive language, but nonetheless destined for the archaeological midden heap. The only reason Windows 2000 is more stable is that it refuses to run a lot of software. ... Microsoft has repositioned Win2K as a secure and stable operating system for the corporate environment but this is just marketing fluff designed to protect thousands of pre-existing volume licensing deals.
That was irrelevent, wasn't it? Unless your next question is about running "A Bug's Life", in which case you should follow the link.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
A bit of an exaggeration as well, methinks. I'm currently using W2K and I can run everything that I want to, well excluding Linux programs (duh). The main issue is that yes, you will not be able to run many games that were designed strictly for W95/ME but seriously, what is anymore? (and considering that A Bug's Life was released in what, 1999?)
However, methinks that anyone tooling around with a 200GB hard drive, a 9800, and a Sempron should be more interested in playing say Rome: Total War, KOTOR2, or Half Life 2 than say 6 year old games.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You also can't use that X-Box sing-along-like-an-idiot-thing with W2K. Much sadness there.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
PaRappa the rapper? Because I think that's Sony. I do appreciate the article you linked, Liam, but he doesn't really back his claims up with anything. And Win2K has proven pretty stable for my uses (albeit not gaming uses) (Also I didn't find a picture of him so I remain unintimidated, unpersuaded) Which isn't to say that I'm not XP curious. Because now that I think of it, I do kind of like that kiddie shit.
Not that anyone cares, but my gaming PC actually runs Win98SE because I like old games for I am olden. It's just my work PC (Office, Lightwave and 3DShit) and now Moviola PC (Azureus and WiMP) that are running 2K. After much hassle. But stable.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
It wasn't really an article. That bloke writes the helpdesk pages in PC Format, and most of his answers involve him being unecessarily rude and/or sarcastic to those writing in. They don't really have enough space to do a complete breakdown.
And if you like playing old games, and your old PC plays them, then by all means use it.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
