Maximus Decim Cumulative Update ver.2.10
for Windows 98SE English
------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes more than 100 updates received
from service WindowsUpdate and
from Microsoft web site.
* Native (without installation of additional drivers
for each type) support USB flash drives (NUSB 2.2).
* The detailed description of the order
of installation Windows 98SE, necessary updates
and components.

* Includes:
mdcu210e.exe - Actually file of a update
wininst210e.txt - description of the order
of installation
pchio98.exe - see wininst210e.txt
q313829fix.exe - see wininst210e.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------
What's new?
1. Added 268064, 271701, 192425, 240664, 246817, 319571, 320798, 270063, 262232, 257821, 323466 (Active Dirtectory Client files).
2. NUSB 2.2

http://rapidshare.de/files/1221448/mdcu210e.zip.html

So is this to be used with/instead of/a long side with the Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack?

Look here.

Comparison of SE SP 2.0 and MDCU 2.1:

- SE SP tries to install only necessary updates for your system, MDCU installs all updates.
- MDCU contains a good generic USB mass storage device drivers adopted from Windows ME.
- MDCU doesn't support uninstallation.
- MDCU doesn't contain some features of SE SP:

Gape, you're wrong in some criterias:
Not exactly true. It uses same Windows install mechanism and does not contains any IE/MDAC/WSH/MSI/VCRT updates, so all updates can be installed well.

Adopted from ME. Sometimes even better than ME support.

- Preserve mechanism (new files from sp2.cab)
+ Really solves 512+MB of RAM problem

SE SP doesn't contain some features of MDCU:
- DOS driveletter fix
- QFECHECK entries
- Install order. It's tested many times and different from SE SP.

Not exactly true? I said it for the hotfixes' installation...

MDCU only installs all files with:

filename.ext,,,32 (COPYFLG_NO_VERSION_DIALOG)

But SE SP installs files with four different methods:

filename.ext
filename.ext,,,32 (COPYFLG_NO_VERSION_DIALOG)
filename.ext,,,1024 (COPYFLG_REPLACEONLY)
filename.ext,,,1056 (1024 AND 32)

If a user doesn't have a file on his/her system, generally SE SP will not copy the updated file. So SE SP tries to install only needed updates as much as possible with this mechanism.

Of course, because of "preserving" mechanism of Windows 98, if system needs this file later, it is copied from SP2.CAB, not from Windows's setup CABs.

More info about INF CopyFiles.

Thanks for the other additions/corrections.

You're right here; your product is more flexible and suitable for almost anyone.
But MDCU specializes on wise install order which advice full installation (98lite seems also not supported), so "preserving" (sp2.cab) and file-existance check is not need.

As for MS article, i studied it when was creating inf scenario for RP.
I noticed almost all flags not working properly with setupx installer (i don't know is it true), so i'm using setupapi (NT-like) installer, which is faster and correctly uses all flags.

What is this?

Is that a modified version of Q311561?

Tihiy, what can we do about RAM problems and 137 GB HDD limit? Can we hack VCache.VxD and/or Esdi_506.pdr?

Gape, you're an oracle.
This crazy address
http://members.aol.com/__121b_HeNUO+UpHGm0...9g/v5yhhca3pTc=
leads to patch for Esdi_506.pdr, which enables handling of 145GB [and more in full ver];
but it is demo and no even warez copies exist.

Recently maximus have sent me a hexed copy of that patch which works with drives up to 400GB; i'm currently testing it now.
Also some DOS/Windows tools can't handle this limit as well.
It can be fixed by using Windows ME tools like scandiskw or defrag. New DOS tools can be used from FreeDOS.

"DOS driveletter fix" is a patch for any io.sys which makes DOS to forget drive letter order when installing new drive.

This patch is commercial. How did this guy hacked Esdi_506.pdr? It should not be difficult.

I think Windows ME's Scandisk and Defrag doesn't handle big HDDs, too.

You can try and look. It's very small in size, but I was unable to find what it does.


Not sure about anything, i have 120GB HDD max.

200 GB IDE and 250 GB SATA in one partition each in my Win ME box here with no patch (+ 120 GB IDE with two partitions). The first has been formatted with ME fdisk and the second one with Paragon Partition Manager from within Windows as fdisk would not recognize it. I think the DOS7(?) 98/Me limit is two terabytes.

I think scandisk does its full job as well, considering the long time it takes for a large drive with many files on it.

Why use defrag when there is a 100 times better (10-20 times faster and read-write allowed on the drive being defragmented) entirely legal free copy of Diskeeper Lite that you can use forever available everywhere ? You just need to delete the html.exe (not very sure of the filename but it's easy to spot) from its folder after install to never see the nag anymore. Very generous. I've read in several places in the computer press that Windows defrag is nothing but extremely cut down Diskeeper technology.

You probably have MB with Intel chipset or own IDE/SATA drivers.

Well my above system handles 200 and 250 GB without additional controller card or the Intel Application Accelerator. Athlon 2600 on Abit NF7S nForce2 chipset. The 200 GB drive has been spinning under ME (and maybe 98 but I can't be sure anymore) on an MSI motherboard with a Duron and then the above Athlon.

I would think one may think he needs that stuff only if one wants to plug large capacity drives on VERY OLD motherboards.

I am far from being an expert but I think this thing maybe a rip-off as I don't see how a driver patch can affect the limitations of the BIOS. In those cases I am not sure one can do anything if one can't flash the BIOS with a firmware upgrade.

Thanks to correct me if I am wrong.

nForce's drivers support more than 137 GB HDDs. Also VIA, SiS, ALi etc. supports more than 137 GB with their drivers on the Windows 98/ME. Intel also supports more than 137 GB on Win98/ME with their Application Accelerator product.

This problem is from ESDI_506.PDR, which is internal main IDE driver file of the Windows 98 / ME. If you don't use internal IDE drivers of the Win98/ME, you will not have this problem.

Can you explain me how I did successfully format the C:\ Drive to 200 GB (183 in fact. 200=183 because 1024=1000 in fact I think.) with fdisk from the the WinMe CD when the nforce motherboard drivers weren't installed.

As well, after install of Win Me the drive was recognized as a 183 GB though the nForce motherboard drivers weren't installed yet.

200=183 because 1024=1000 in fact I think.

As well I have looked in device properties and it does not seem to me that nForce has installed any driver to handle HDDs. The IDE controllers are standard Microsoft.

I have unpatched ESDI_506.PDR in my IOSUBSYS folder.

AFAIK these are several different things.

Size detection is easy, it is read from the harddrive by "IDENTIFY DEVICE" ATA command, words 60:61, and since the number of addressable sectors is 32-bit number, maximum supported size is 2048 GB.

Fdisk does no formating, it just writes the Partition Table contained in the Master Boot Record (MBR).

So far no problem with 128 GiB (137 GB) limit. This limit and therefore the problem of old OSes is caused by the fact that the old scheme of Logical Block Addressing (LBA) has 24 bits only. New LBA has 48-bits.

In practice, it may look like everyting works smoothly even on system that does not support LBA-48. But only before you cross the 137 GB border. After this border, you will start to write again from the beginning of the disk - overwriting the MBR and making your disk totally unusable with all data lost.

More information you can find here: http://www.48bitlba.com/

Petr

Windows ME's FDISK supports big HDDs. So partitioning and formatting is not a problem. The problem is not the detection, too. The problem is to cross the 137 GB barrier.

Look Petr's comments, and 48bitlba.com for more information.

What do you mean ? I have crossed it without problems on very standard hardware it seems.

I've read the doc entirely and if I had to believe what he writes, my system wouldn't handle my disks without his patch.

The above quote is from Seagate.

Since Windows 95 OSR2 and the introduction of FAT 32, Windows supports partitions of up to 2 TB.

Have you already been there yourself ? Are you sure of what you are saying ?

If true it's big issue.

And I would expect hard drives manufacturers to warn their customers of that issue as well as I would expect Microsoft to issue a fix as they still support the Win98SE/ME platform.

Sorry Gape I did not read Petr before posting.

The 137 GB barrier is caused not by the filesystem (FAT32 in your case), but by the device driver. Standard ESDI506.PDR driver supports standard 28 bit LBA (not 24, it was typo) addressing only, it means 268435456 sectors per 512 bytes = 137438953472 bytes.

I already wrote you that you can be sure that you really crossed the barrier only if you filled the disk beyond it. Did you?

And the problem is in ESDI506.PDR. So you have to check what driver do you use. Go to the device manager and look what files are asociated with your hard disk controller. Is there ESDI506.PDR?

If you still don't believe, please read http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098/EN-US/ e.g.:

OK?

Petr

Yuck!

I have some kind of Promise IDE chip on my motherboard. I use via 4-in-1 drivers and run an app called "VIA IDE Miniport driver" (I am not sure what it does exactly but I end up using UltraATA 100 anyway). I use a different PDR file so I think I might not have the bug.

One of my drives is 200 GB. I've seen corruption occur... I can't use certain partitions in DOS, or run scandisk or defrag (not even ME version in Windows)

Diskeeper Lite is an OK substitute for defrag.

Is there any safe alternative to scandisk? Or is the only other choice, if a partiton gets corrupted, to just reformat it?

Petr

As you've seen I've already more or less answered and had the same question to you.

You understand by this that I did not go past the 137 GB limit with data. My C: drive is almost empty and was just about to be partitioned for multibooting in fact.

Yes, of course I use ESDI506.PDR. IOS.VXD is listed as well.

I now fear it is used as well by my 250 GB Serial ATA drive who has 108 GB of data I would hate to loose or spend hours or even days recovering it.

I will forget partitioning C:\ for now. Will now back up my system on another drive and will fill C: with junk until I reach this barrier.

I'll give feedback in a reasonable delay as to what happens.

See ya.

OK Petr, is there a fix? both my primary & seondary IDE controlers are using ESDI506.PDR, do we have a replacement file from ME,2K,XP we can put in it's place?

You have ASUS A7V400-MX, it means that you should use VIA 4-in-1 drivers probably.

But I'm not sure if everything will work, it has to be tried.

There is a patch of ESDI_506.PDR but it is not free of charge: http://members.aol.com/rloew1/Programs/Patch137.htm

I have no personal experience so I cannot help you further.

Petr

Yes, I have not noticed that there is a new page.

I'd say just be careful, it's easy to lose your data.

Some time ago I discovered how to patch Award BIOSes to break 34GB and 64GB barriers - http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ - but 137GB barrier is worse in its nature. I have no personal experience yet so I don't want to make you sure what is the right way.

Petr

I use Athlon 64 so I doubt my BIOS is old.

Regardless of what PDR you have, DOS is still scary

Maybe in DOS a tool such as LetAssig can help block out partitions above 137 GB? http://www.v72735.f2s.com/LetAssig/index.html
I will try it later..

VERY NASTY

It copies up to 137 GB and bang all running programs crash and you can't reboot.

This is the worst bug there is in Windows.

It is a f***ing scandal that this has not been fixed by M$.

And they claim their OSes on FAT32 handles 2 TB.

I have "200" (190) GB drive with about 5 partitions totalling 120 GB, followed by a single 70 GB partition at end.

I think I had corrupted the disk when I did a scandisk on the 70 GB partiton the other day. It wouldn't bootup and when i did "dir" on my normal boot drive it showed random ASCII characters. So scandisk and defrag are no good!

From Win 98 though I use xxcopy to do backups to the 70 GB partition, and it works fine because I do not use the bad pdr file as my hard disk controller.

What is strange is that in DOS I can view the 70 GB partition without a problem. I guess command.com does not have 28-bit ATA limitation??

Actually have 2 ASUS A7V400-MX, 1 is in server for home lan, w/ latest VIA 4in1. The server is what I'm worried about, has 2 40gbs now, was going to upgrade to 2 200gb but maybe I should stick w/ 120gb as it holds all mine & wifes backups

Does anybody know any details regarding this fix? Is there any webpage with dscription? Is the author known?

Is this the fix that was present in older versions of SESP?

It means
change from
81,FF,00,04,73,06,BE,04,00,E9,E7,FD,50,32,C0,86,06,5C,0F,0A,C0,58,74,EE,80,0E
to:
81,FF,00,03,73,06,BE,04,00,E9,E7,FD,50,32,C0,86,06,5C,0F,0A,C0,58,90,90,80,0E

or in assembler form:

MOV SI,4 -> MOV SI,3
.....
JZ $-10 -> NOP, NOP

What it exactly does?

Petr

The only "unofficial" IO.SYS patches I know of are these 2 [not counting the WinME IO.SYS real DOS mode patches]:

* IO Patch v1.4 16-bit for Windows 95B/95C OSR 2.x and 98/98 SE patches
Microsoft IO.SYS to allow using it on creating bootable CD-ROM/floppy images
[37 KB, freeware]:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/simtelnet/msdos/cdrom/iopat14.zip

* JO.SYS v1.4 16-bit for Windows 98/98 SE patches Microsoft IO.SYS to allow
proper delay/schedule when booting from bootable CD-ROMs/floppies:
http://www.nu2.nu/jo/
Direct download [25 KB, freeware]:
http://www.nu2.nu/download.php?sFile=jo14.zip
Bootable Windows 98/98 SE floppy Boot Sector Fix [16 KB, free]:
http://www.nu2.nu/download.php?sFile=w98btfix.zip

Hope this helps.

I have found this patch in the russian conferences FIDO three years ago. The patch has been named well-known, without the instruction of the author. I searched for other similar patch, but have not found anywhere. I have written only the program carrying out correction. It works with any version IO.SYS (original, Q239697, Q311561) Windows 98se. Will probably work c as the file IO.SYS Windows 98 FE.

Comparing files io.old and io.sys
000016A4: FE E8
000016A5: C2 EF
000016A6: FE 08
000016A7: CE FE
000016A8: 75 C2
000016A9: E1 FE
000016AA: E8 CE
000016AB: DE 75
000016AC: 08 DE
00001FC1: FE C3

I use this patch without problems three years by many machines.
There are some problems at display of the information fdisk (and free fdisk) -are changed by places of the letter of disks.

And do you know what does this patch? In your readme is written: "patch IO.SYS for change of the order of assignment of letters to hard disks" - but what change?

Anyway, it seems there are more patches:
1. This "Patch IO.SYS from Windiws 98SE for change about layout of disks v1.1"
000016A4: FE E8
000016A5: C2 EF
000016A6: FE 08
000016A7: CE FE
000016A8: 75 C2
000016A9: E1 FE
000016AA: E8 CE
000016AB: DE 75
000016AC: 08 DE
00001FC1: FE C3

2. Patch used long time in SESP, also Tihiy's IO.SYS with logo removed is patched this way. Unknown function.
000136C2: 04 03
000136D5: 74 90
000136D6: EE 90

3. IOPATCH v1.4, ©1999 by Gary Tong, g.t@mailcity.com
(mentioned by MDGx above):
0000AD48: 8A F5
0000AD49: 00 FF
0000E5AB: B4 90
0000E5AC: 4B E8
0000E5AD: CD 83
0000E5AE: 21 29
00010AC0: "Starting Windows 98" changed to "FAT32 CD-ROM Boot... "
00010FA2: 20 0D
00010FA3: 20 0A
00010FA4: CD 24
00010FA5: CD 00
00010FA6: CD B4
00010FA7: CD 4B
00010FA8: CD 52
00010FA9: CD 50
00010FAB: CD 21
00010FAC: CD 58
00010FAD: CD 5A
00010FAE: CD 72
00010FAF: CD F8
00010FB0: CD C3

So there are three different patches, the third for CD-ROMs only, the first almost undocumented but at least we know that it changes drive letters by some way.
The second patch, that had been in SESP v 1.2 to 2.0rc2 is mysterious - nobody knows what it does.

Petr

That's correct. I tried it and scandisk in w98se would not work. SO, not much use really...