OS 9, 10.1, 10.4 partitions on 1 new drive?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by OSMac, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. OSMac macrumors 65816

    Jun 14, 2010
    Trying to partition and install os 9 , 10.1, 10.4 on a single 1TB drive in a Quicksilver 2002 G4.

    If I boot from the OS 9 cd and try and set the partitions it does not seem to see the full 1TB size correctly.

    If I boot from Tiger 10.4 dvd it sees the drive and allows the it to be partitioned but when I reboot with os 9 cd it does not see the partitions set up in the Tiger installer, again thinks the drive is smaller.

    Anyway to do this?
  2. MisterKeeks macrumors 68000


    Nov 15, 2012
  3. OSMac thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jun 14, 2010
    One of the original drives crashed and the other is noisy ...
  4. MisterKeeks macrumors 68000


    Nov 15, 2012
    I'm just wondering why you need 10.1.
  5. OSMac thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jun 14, 2010
    Just wanted to setup the machine as it came with 9.2.2 and 10.1 then add 10.4 and maybe 10.5 as well on the same disc. Just a little project :)

    Tried again, Tiger sees the drive correctly as 931GB and partitions it fine.

    OS 9 and 10.1 only see it as a 128GB drive, doesn't matter if I preformat it in Tiger or not.

    Strange as the QS 2002 is supposed to not have a 128GB limit
    and it doesn't when booted from Tiger?

    Using a IDE to SATA converter maybe that's part of the issue.

    Just thought I'd post to see if anyone else had the issue ever.
  6. California macrumors 68040


    Aug 21, 2004
    I think it's OS9, which also cannot address more than 1.5gbs of ram.
  7. Idefix macrumors 6502

    Jul 10, 2012
    use Sheepshaver to run 9.04 in emulation, forget about 10.1
  8. blesscheese macrumors 6502a


    Apr 3, 2010
    Central CA

    I ran into this recently and think this applies to your situation: Apple KBase article

    Basically, in addition to the (known) 128gb limit, there is also an issue of the older OS's not being able to see/use drives larger than 200GB...sheesh...

    I'm guessing that is what you are running into.
  9. OSMac, Jan 19, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013

    OSMac thread starter macrumors 65816

    Jun 14, 2010
    Thanks that seems to be it.

    OS 9 can work with up to 200GB but OS 10 to 10.1.5 can only work with a max of 137GB.

    10.2 on works with large drives no problem.

    So its probably best to use a smaller drive(s) for 9.2.2 and 10.1.

    Found this too explaining the issue

    Symptom: Disk space reported under Mac OS X is less than reported under Mac OS 9.x.

    Issue: Mac OS X, Version 10.0 through 10.1.5 does not support the 48-bit addressing utilized by hard drives with capacities greater than 137GB, but Mac OS 9.x does. As a result, Mac OS 9.x accurately reports disk space on these drives, but Mac OS X, Version 10.0 through 10.1.5 does not; these OS versions report a maximum of 128GB of disk space.

    Note: Because of this lack of support, data corruption may occur on these high capacity drives.

    Affects: Any of the computers listed above running Mac OS X, Version 10.0 through 10.1.5 with Tempo RAID133 installed and a hard drive with a capacity greater than 137GB.

    Solution: The drivers for large drive support are included in Mac OS X, Version 10.2 through 10.2.x; upgrading from an earlier version of OS X to Mac OS X, Version 10.2.x will alleviate this .

    Issue: There is a limitation in Mac OS 9.x that will not recognize a volume larger than 190GB.

Share This Page