Date:	Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:56:36 +0000 ( )
From:	Greg Baker <chimera AT kiwi DOT net>
To:	"Mark F. Warchol" <mwarchol AT flash DOT net>
cc:	viking AT flying-brick DOT caverock DOT net DOT nz, OpenDOS AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Help needed with invalaid partition table
In-Reply-To:	<199808091352.IAA29582@endeavor.flash.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.02.9808091049450.147-100000@CyberDre4ms.kiwi.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Hi Mark,

I'm not an expert on this, but from my experience that is very relative
advice.  I was using a 3.2 gig with OpenDOS/Win3.1 on one partition and Linux
on the other.  I had absolutely no problems with accessing HD space on the
OpenDOS side of it, although it was split up into several different smaller
partitions simply because the cluster size is smaller when you do it that way
and it saves you a lot of wasted harddrive space.  At the moment, against my
better judgement, I have Mac95 installed on what was the OpenDOS partition,
and I have no problems there.  Somewhere in the middle, I upgraded my
motherboard, so that might have helped Mac95 understand about the 3.2 gig
(beacuse, Mac95 isn't supposed to handle greater than 512mb without the
overlay software as far as I know (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) ).  In
the computer that I put the old MB in, I have been having all kinds of
harddrive problems (that one also has a 3.2 gig in it).  I don't know why
that computer no longer recognizes greater than 512mb without the overlay,
but both DRDos and Mac95 won't handle it.  I think it depends on your BIOS
whether or not the OS will have a problem with the harddrive partitions.

Greg Baker
Electrical Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Center for Environmental Research and Technology

-- 
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is
supposed to be doing at the moment.
                -- Robert Benchley

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Mark  F.  Warchol wrote:

> 
>     Hello All,
>     Regarding my problem installing a new master hard-drive another list
> indicated to me that (dos)-Drdos wouldn't accept a drive as master larger
> than #512-M and that dos in general has this problem/limitation, and that it
> wouldn't make a difference if I partation the drive smaller because the
> entire drive wuld be seen beforehand as the nonpartationed size.  They did
> suggest that their is software to help with this but #512 wuld be the limit
> without software.
>     Is this correct and wuldn't that mean that no drive bigger than #512-M
> couldn't be useed as the master without software?
>     Please inform me!
>       Thanks,
>        Mark
> 
> 

- Raw text -