Congratulations + thanks for the driver.
Mr. R. Loew is not going to be happy his $10 "shareware" driver now has better freeware competition.

I can't test it either, all my drives are < or = to 120 GB.

Question:
Which ESDI_506.PDR version did you use, 4.10.2225 or 4.10.2226 ?
Best to use 4.10.2225 because this is the most compatible and up to date.

Suggestion:
No matter which version you used, file version should be changed to reflect the update and to install properly over any other older version that might exist in %windir%\system\iosubsys .
Your new driver should have 4.10.2227 [1 notch above the newest one by M$].

FYI:
I have created an iexpress installer with backup [original file (if any) renamed to ESDI_506.ORI], uninstall + restore [original file (if any) restored from ESDI_506.ORI back to ESDI_506.PDR] Control Panel Add/Remove Programs capabilities.
I took the liberty and changed file version to 4.10.2227 using XVI32 [freeware hex editor]:
http://www.chmaas.handshake.de/delphi/free...xvi32/xvi32.htm
I also took the liberty and added the links to your 2 forums into the README.TXT:
README.TXT opens for reading whenever one installs the driver.

Posted here:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU
and here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581

* Unofficial Windows 98 SE > 137 GB Hard Disk IDE Driver ESDI_506.PDR 4.10.2227 Fix:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=78592
Direct download [80 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/48BITLBA.EXE

Keep up the good work.

Could you please make one for Windows Millenium ? Please please... ? , I have a 160 GB hard drive but don't have 98SE only Millenium...

Here's my ESDI_506.PDR (attached):

As stated above, this is based on 4.10.2222. If you think it's necessary, I'll patch the newer versions as well.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I already changed the version information slightly - it now reads "ESDI Virtual Device (Version 4.0b)" instead of just 4.0. However, according to your suggested versioning, I think the following may be appropriate:

4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2227
4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2228
4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2229
4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2230
4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2231
Thanks, I'll do the patching and leave the packaging up to you

MDGX, for your information original ESDI_506.PDR 4.10.2222 was used. So numbering this LLXX patch 4.10.2227 would people think the ESDi_506.PDR 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 hotfixes are included.

However I have an idea how to create custom version numbering for special patches. Why just not increase 2nd digit?

With this method you also overwrite newer hotfix files. However in this case I think it's necessary, since it solves a very bad problem: file corruption.

For example LLXX patch for esdi_506.pdr 4.10.2222 would become 4.10.2232 and LLXX patch for esdi_506.pdr 4.10.2225 would become 4.10.2235. This clearly shows a difference between the official Microsoft hotfixes and LLXX patch.

Microsoft won't bring out any new patches anyway

Windows ME was going to be next. It's coming

so whats this do for my 40G drive?

Will it speed things up?

ATA133

Thanks for the info, guys.

I did notice the 4.0b change, but that's only for internal use, the actual iexpress INF update won't take in account the product version, only the file version.
Edit:
The product version should not be changed, 4.0 means the Win95/98/ME/NT4 line of OSes.
There is no such thing as 4.0b WinOS.
2000 is product line 5.0, XP/2003 is 5.1 and Vista will probably be 5.2 or 6.0 [?].

And the file version must always be newer [larger number] than the previous release [M$ came up with that rule], so the INF installer can overwrite the older file with the newer one.

IMHO, I strongly recommend to use 4.10.2225 [the most compatible so far, and already has all up-to-date patches] to create the 48-bit LBA driver.
The original 4.10.2222 has bugs, which were already fixed by M$ in 4.10.2223, 4.10.2225 + 4.10.2226 [you can leave the last one aside, because that fix applies strictly to IBM portables].
If you patched the buggy 4.10.2222, the fixes implemented by M$ in 2223 + 2225 would be lost, and that's not a good thing.
And, besides, proper patching should be cumulative.

So, LLXX, if possible, at your convenience, let me know if you can patch 4.10.2225.
And you can name it whatever you wish, as long as it's above 2226.
Thanks.

This post has been edited by MDGx: Jul 20 2006, 12:15 PM

excellent work llxx and mdgx it just goes to show there no end to the 98se still alive drive.

4.90.3000 is now fixed and ready for download. That didn't take long
Will do. You can manage the versions when you package it, though I recommend 4.10.2230.

This post has been edited by LLXX: Jul 20 2006, 12:56 PM

Version 1.1 is now available.

Done

Thank you so much, going to test now !!!

LLXX, You've amazed me - not only did you have one version done, but managed to get three different releases working in a short time. Good work. Now if only I had a way to test it, but alas, all my systems run XP or have small hdd's (I have a 98SE box with a bunch of 4-18GB SCSI drives, but not anything over that size).

Doing the first one was the difficult part, since I had to analyze the existing code and figure out how to integrate the new code. After that, it was mostly copy+paste with a hex editor.

bump

Kartel, no, this is only for drives larger than 132gb and preventing data corruption.
LLXX, great piece of work, now I can get drives bigger 120gb

This post has been edited by randiroo76073: Jul 21 2006, 01:31 AM

Amazing work. I tested the WIN ME Edition of ESDI_506.pdr on a 6.4GB drive (HP Vectra VL 6/400 with PHOENIX BIOS 4.0), it doesn't cause corruption on drives <128GB as it seems. Everything works fine until now. But i have to try with something bigger than 128GB...

I know I'm probably too late here but I think it would be better to change the version numbers like this...

4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2232
4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2233
4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2234
4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2235
4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2236

Two reasons:

1) there might actually be a 2227 or higher build in the wild that we don't know about so jumping by 10 leaves a gap for safety.
2) the last digit stays the same so you can easily tell what the original version was

Just for reference, there's a wiki page on microsoft version numbering...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Version_Number

I personally agree that a 1 version increment is all that is required. (2225 should be changed to 2227 as a 2226 version already exists).

For example:
2186 (98FE)-2187
2225/2226 (98SE)-2227
3000 (ME)-3001

Can you edit the version for 98FE (4.10.2186, same hotfix as 4.10.2225)?

the_guy

yea LLXX, let's not forget Win98 FE systems. there are still a few users out there stuck with Win98 first edition.

I agree with you
Too many versions gonna get confusing