How Many Partitions Can Mac OS 9.2.2 Mount:

I read about HFS+ can't have more than 65,000 files on it. Also, I think there was file system errors on the hard drive. So I was going to erase anyways so I could partition. I found HFS Explorer, and if HFS Explorer had read AND write support, I would have reformatted in HFS+ (I have a HP Mini Windows XP netbook, which has a large storage space in the internal hard drive that I put all my files on for now.)

But since HFS Explorer does not support writing to it...

I formatted with Mac OS X's Disk Utility. with "MS-DOS" format.

Mac OS 9.2.2 does not mount all the volumes!! I tried reducing the amount of volumes from 16 to down to 7. Partition is extremely recommended with FAT file system and this hard drive is a 160GB one (also it wasn't entirely filled up) and it still does not have any files copied to it yet.

Why is Mac OS 9.2.2 not loading all the volumes?!
Is it one of those annoying little things that Mac OS 9.2.2 has?
Should I just put a few volumes as HFS+

I AM going to get more hard drives, and divide them by different file systems. One will be FAT, another HFS+, another NTFS, and when I get Amiga computers, ...whatever file systems Amigas use. etc. I am also doing the same thing with my Jump Drives. A 4GB one is FAT, and another 4GB one is HFS+

Any solutions? I cannot buy any additional hard drives for most likely a few months and... since the volumes all mount in Windows XP, AND yes, I am using the Safely Remove Hardware button also. so should I just only connect this one to Windows XP as this computer has faster USB ports? (but I only have one netbook, and 3 imac g3s, and 3 ibook g3s.)

I Was Mistaken:

It ended up being a FAT32, and I did not need to partition because a FAT32 can in fact be 160gb.

I ended up redoing it and putting only one FAT32 volume in it.

It will mount on Mac OS 9.2.2 now.

but

Also...
The main issue that I know of with FAT, is the F should stand for Fragmenting...so I should defragment regularly.

Oh. I was mistaken again lol:

That makes sense now. Not only did I think that the FAT limits were the same as FAT32, I misread the HFS+ .... thinking that the HFS limits were actually the HFS+ Limits!!

not really now.

Thanks for helping.