Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:56:36 +0000 ( ) From: Greg Baker To: "Mark F. Warchol" 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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk 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 > >