Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 1
    thanks for your reply:). sorry I cant up-vote due to reputation issue :-)
    – Hemant
    Commented Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58
  • 1
    -1: NTFS can go far larger than that (on 32bit OS more than 32bits is used for NTFS sizes and allocations). See serverfault.com/questions/49158/storage-limit-in-windows-2008/… (remember Server 2003 is the server edition of WinXP and has the same limits). Are you thinking of LBA addressing range?
    – Richard
    Commented Aug 30, 2010 at 9:58
  • @Richard: The limitation does go deeper than NTFS with 64-bit LBA addressing, which is why you need a 64-bits O/S. But I didn't want to confuse the issue by using too technical terms.
    – harrymc
    Commented Aug 30, 2010 at 10:49
  • @harrymc Technet lists no 32bit vs 64bit difference (see the limits listed by MS from the A linked above). Do you have a reference?
    – Richard
    Commented Aug 30, 2010 at 11:17
  • 1
    @harrymc: Actually, the article at carltonbale.com says that the 2TB limit only applies to MBR partitioning schemes, not to GPT. And GPT is supported natively in Vista and up. So I don't see how you can claim a general limit of 2 TB for 32bit Windows.
    – sleske
    Commented Aug 30, 2010 at 23:00