1.44*1000*1024 is not meaningless. It's historical grown. The predecessor was a 720kB (720*1024) floppy. This floppy size was exactly doubled, making a 1440kB floppy, in short 1.44MB. This should have been 1.406MB, of course, but how could the marketor say he doubled the size of the '720', and then sell you a floppy which is not twice as big?

Uh... The 1.44 meg floppy is actually 1.38MB, not 1.40. That of course, if you're not using a hacked filesystem.

?
A standard 1.44MB floppy has 2 sides, 18 sectors/track, 80 tracks and 512 bytes/sector. This gives 2*18*80*512 bytes = 1474560 bytes, which is 1.40625 MiB.
Maybe it has a formatted size of 1.38 (MB? MiB?), but the used filesystem is not a part of the floppy specification.

Yes, the formatted size is 1.38MiB (FAT12). Maybe it's not part of the spec, but since when did we care about anything but usable capacities of our drives?

It's the same as saying that a 305GiB drive is actually 320GiB (the marketed capacity).

I hope this doesn't cause any trouble. But just for informational purposes, as follows. When you format a 160 Gig hd, E.G., it takes approx.. 10 Gigs to format it. And yes windows does use the method where it looks as disk space the same as memory, i.e. : 1024 instead of 1000. Which as was stated earlier reads space as smaller than if you read it from DOS, which uses the actual byte size. Also if you use NTFS (XP not the older ver.s, it uses 2k clusters. NTFS used to use 64k.) So if you put a 1k file in a 2k cluster it takes up 2k. Fat32 uses 32k clusters if the partition is over 16 Gig.s. So if you put a 1k file there it = 32k. on the HD. Only 1 file will fit in a cluster. You can make the cluster size littler with fat32 but if you exceed the DOS limits of to many clusters, there will be problems with data, scandisk, ext. I don't want to sound like a know it all, I AM NOT!!! The longer I work on computers the more I learn. I have been working on computers since the before original Intel 80086 chip came out. I still have computers with these chips. (They were called XT computers instead of AT.) I also still have "Billy Boy Gates" original DOS (Ver.1) He purchased DOS from another programmer for $5,000. He had to adapt it to work with the Intel chips. He named it DOS for Disk Operating System. He licensed DOS to IBM before he even knew of the OS. He went & found DOS after he licensed it. He is the worlds greatest salesman!!! (For the true story of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, MS & Apple read the book "Fire in the Valley", or watch the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, which was made from the book, as a "T.N.T. original" (Ted Turner's Turner Network Television.) If you've read this far I am sure you have guessed I am "Older than Old". (I am 49 years old, & have a loving wife of 20 years, & a 15 year old daughter.) I work mainly on networking & trouble shooting computers, mainly for commercial accounts. New computers are as "disposable as BIC lighters". I am writing this message on a 2000 HP Vectra Business computer with a 650 MHz. PIII. It works as good as the day I bought it. (I paid $2000 for the computer, monitor, mouse, speakers, ext.) It will still be working 20 years from now. (I have several 20 year old computers that still function perfect.) Once again I am not a know it all. I have paid my dues though. I learned computers in 1979 at our local community college. (There were only mainframe computers then, no PC.s) The "state of the art OS was Unix, which of course is what Linux was derived from. There is not much call for Unix or Linux programmers these days. Anyway, enough nostalgia! I hope to be a valuable part of this forum & to keep learning from all of you! I think this is a nice forum! I am happy to have found it. Cheers to all!

I want to fill my 320 gig hard drive with that copy2gb utility, but the download link is broken. Where can I get it (or a similar utility)?

On the other hand, maybe I don't need it? I partitioned this drive into three partitions - 100, 100, 120 gigs, respectively, and copied all the data from the old 80 gig drive. Now, as I understand, the whole E: partition is beyond the 137 gig limit and it is filled with more than 40 gigs of data. Scandisk runs on the whole three partitions without any error. Of course, it's best to fill the disk completely just to be sure.

One more thing: I installed version 2226 because this was the latest version, but I noticed now that it's for IBM laptops, and I'm on a desktop PC. Does that mean I installed the wrong version and I should replace it by 2225?

mate Gapes service pach has the 2225 fix in it
http://www.msfn.org/board/98-SE-SP-30-BETA-1-t61749.html


yes you should be using 2225


Don't even use the 2nd partition before adding the patch. You will get data corruption!!!

I wonder, what's the difference between 2225 and 2226? I installed 2226 because it was the latest and had the most downloads. So far, it seems to be working fine, I have nearly 70 gigs of data written on my 3rd partition which is all beyond the limit, and no data corruption occured. Drive C: now is 100 gigs large with 15 gigs filled, so it should have been affected if 48bit LBA wasn't working properly.

However, if you say that 2225 should be used, I'll download that and replace the 2226 version with it.


Thanks for the warning, I appreciate that, but there's no need to worry as I still have all my data on the old drive put safely on the shelf. I really value my data, that's why I've been reading this forum for two years and only now decided to upgrade the HDD. I first applied the patch while I still was on my old drive, then and ONLY then I installed the new drive.

Wait a sec, do you have LLXX's 2226 patch installed?

If so you would most likely be ok, but if its the standard Microsoft 2226 update, you will get data corruption.

Yes, LLXX's 2226 patch that is attached to the first post in this thread. Now I'm pretty sure that everything is fine, here is the screenshot:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3531/testyl4.jpg

As can be seen, drive E: is filled with more data than C: can hold, and Scandisk detects no errors in C:.

Now, just one more question. I think I know the answer, but it's better to double check. Most probably, I'll have to reinstall Windows sooner or later, so, if the primary partition (C:) is less than 137GB and if I skip the Scandisk check during the installation with the command line parameter, the installation shouldn't touch the other partitions, right? So, during the first reboot, I press Shift + F5 to go to comand prompt, replace the PDR file, edit MsDos.sys to disable automatic Scandisk check and let Windows load. Are these steps enough to make the installation safe?

I don't want to install to another hard disk, but if the above steps are unsafe I'll have to consider it.

It says on the first page of this thread to only use the 2226 patch on IBM portables with removable disks, and to use 2225 on all other PCs/portables.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&...st&p=534910

I use 500GB HDD few months and didn't find problems with DOS version of scandisk on large partitions (I have 2x192GB FAT32 there). Under DOS it's used INT13h BIOS extension - no any ESDI_506.PDR or other driver. So I think you don't need to wory about it. Just replace ESDI_506.PDR before windows first boot.

Yep, if you cancel scandisk you'll be fine.

Alternatively,

copy your windows cd to your hard disk
add the patched ESDI_506.PDR into the WIN98 folder
burn the files back to a cd

and it will slipstream in the new patched version of ESDI_506.PDR

Didn't we already discuss that, in order to slipstream it, the file has to be written into the CAB file? Forgive my aged memory if I am wrong - I can't find the reference in the thread but perhaps some able-memoried person can refresh that for us please.

And if you can't slipstream (or don't want to), as far as installing is concerned, if you stop at the first reboot and replace the file (with the correct version of course - 2226 only for the IBM portables) after that you are good to proceed as normal.

I copied the installation from CD to hard disk like 7 years ago - much more convenient (don't have to put the CD every time Windows needs some CAB). Slipstreaming is a great idea, replacing the file in the CAB is very simple. Will put 2225 there, then.

I still wonder in what exactly 2226 differs from 2225, still 2226 is being used (keep forgetting to replace it) but no ill effects.

Just for the record, you don't have to include it in a CAB file.

Any file in your WIN98 folder will be used instead of those in your CAB files.

This is a simple way of slipstreaming files where a direct replacement of a file is all that is needed (it doesn't work for adding additional files to your Windows installation)

The difference between the 2225 and 2226 versions is as follows:

Several routines were moved from the PCOD Segment to the LCOD Segment so they would be preloaded.

A Power Handler is registered that allows the Virtual Power Management Device to flush the Driver.

Thanks for the technical input.

The 2226 driver update stated that it was only for old IBM portables with removable disks.
I figured that there should be no reason why it would not work on any PC...
I was running 2226 for some time before I rolled back to 2225, since most people seem to think 2225 would be more stable/compatible.

So, Mr. Loew, what's your expert opinion on 2226 verses 2225 on any PC?
Are there any disadvantages when running 2226 over 2225?
I would have thought that it was a good thing that the power management could flush the driver?

Also, based on Microsoft's versioning model, 2226 should be an update to 2225, but apparently not really.
More of a parallel driver version...

EDIT: Oops, sorry, I spelt your name wrong!

I haven't experimented with it so I don't know if the power management handler causes any problems.
In normal operation it should have no effect. It might make a difference when suspending or hibernating.
Of course it is larger and uses slightly more resources.



It is an update. All changes made between 2222 and 2225 are present.

Hello,

my W98SE works fine with one 250GB ond one 400GB Seagate HDD and the LLXX patch.

Defrag and Scandisc will not work! I need Defrag and Scandisc from ME. It's in the file from this post:

Post#56

But the link in this post is dead.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!!!



Sorry, my English is bad. Hope, anyone can understand my.

Try here, right below Office Viewers.

@Drugwash:

Thank you very much!
But in the file in post#56 is also the dskmaint.dll from ME.
Need I this dll or not?
Thanks!

BigHDD 3.0 new download link

English: http://rapidshare.com/files/5999772/bhdd30e.zip.html
Russian: http://rapidshare.com/files/5999855/bhdd30r.zip.html

The disk tools URL is actually:
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#TLS

BHDD 3.0 link [347 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/BHDD30.ZIP

Enjoy.

Hi,
I just tested new bighdd package aslo with scandisk and defrag are working now I use NU2002 anyway but good work.
Tested om 500GB SATA drive with 2x192GB FAT32 partitions

Only for Czech Windows98 with czech version files:
http://windows98.ic.cz/win98se/bighdd30.exe (372kB classic install- made with iexpress)
or http://windows98.ic.cz/win98se/bighdd30.zip (_install.bat)

Btw: tested with 500GB MyBook WD and any FAT32 partitions drive (160GB WD)

Thx LLXX, Petr, RayeR and Maximus Decim!

Just read all 22 pages of thread, `cuz I know many competent advisors hate it when visitors ask an already-answered question. There were some good clues, but I don't think it's been exactly asked & answered. Hope someone can help.

Background: (I have newer, faster computers with later OS; but Win95 on an old, slow Acer-built IBM Aptiva remains far and away my favorite. Win 95 won't "die" for me until I can't get it to work any more! It's plenty fast for all I do on it; and all my applications are configured exactly as I like them.) Some years back I put a Promise Technology Ultra 100 TX2 ATA controller into my beloved "antique" Win95 computer to use bigger hard drives than it could originally handle (I think the factory limit was 6 GB per drive). First I put in a 60GB and 80GB drive. They worked fine for several years, but recently one began clattering. I scurried out fast to get a single 320 GB WD EIDE HDD to replace both smaller drives. I used Maxtor Maxblast to partition, format, copy files from the old drives, and make new drive bootable. (Doc for the WD utility said it wanted a newer OS.) OS reports partitions as 90, 98, and 120 GB. So far so good.

It seemed to be working perfectly. But I actually only have about 30 GB total data and prograrms, plus whatever the SWAP file uses. Then I ran into warnings on the Internet about drives which seemed to work but corrupted data when the total in all partitions exceeded 137 GB, with other warnings about ScanDisk and Defrag not working if the drive was over 127 GB or so. I found this site while searching for answers, and installed LXXX's modified ESDI_506.PDR (the latest 4.0 one for Win95, not one of the 4.1 versions for Win98). My system continues to boot and run well; but I have not death-tested it by filling up the drive to greater than 137 GB yet.

Meanwhile, Promise Technology has newer drivers and a newer BIOS for download than I was using, even for Win95. (Thanks to Promise Tech!) I downloaded and successfully installed the new drivers and successfully flashed the BIOS to the newest version. If I understand things correctly, doing so has given me 48-bit LBA large hard drive addressing through the combo of the add-on hardware (Ultra 100 TX2 card) and latest drivers and BIOS update. An early post in the thread says that PCI ATA adapters bypass both the computer's BIOS and the Win95 ESDI_506.PDR file.

This leads me to the actual question: Now wottabout LXXX's modified ESDI_506.PDR file? Which of the three following descriptions and advice applies?

(1) I need all the following to safely address big partitions on my antique Acer-built IBM Aptiva: LXXX's patched ESDI_506.PDR file -- plus the PCI ATA card, driver, and new BIOS.

(2) I don't need the patched ESDI_506.PDR file; but it's harmless since all disk activity is now handled by the PCI ATA card, OK to leave LXXX's PDR file installed.

(3) The patched ESDI_506.PDR file could cause conflicts with the PCI ATA set-up; I should remove it and go back to the original M$ version I saved.

(4) Something else?

I have several computers. I use the Win95 one most; but I reserve the newer, faster ones for software that "old faithful" cannot handle, primarily multi-media, Open Office, and a few resource-intensive hogs. This process has led me to realize I also may need to address the control of large hard drives I have running in a Win 98 machines, too! It's got a 200 GB drive which seems to be working, but I hadn't taken any of the steps above to protect it from file corruption above the 137 GB barrier.

My thanks to LXXX, the other participants, and especially anyone who can eliminate the remaining confusion by answering the above!

The answer is (2)
But it is more than just harmless, it is playing it safe, for who knows the future? Some day you might decide or be forced to transfer your installation to another hardware, not using the Promise board but the motherboard BIOS instead, so your system is already ready for it.

BTW, welcome to the forum!

That's not true. the adapter card bypasses the BIOS, but only the supplied driver can bypass the windows default driver.

I agree with dencorso. The ESDI_506.PDR driver is in use or not. In the first case you should have the patched version, in the second case it's not used, and harmless.

Thank you both. I very much appreciate such prompt response to a topic most would consider "old news." It looks like my "old favorite" machine is again now set to run ... as long as something else doesn't break. It's had quite a few new parts over the years, both to replace and upgrade; but the MOBO is still the original.

I had a little success this morning with the second machine, which is running Win98SE. Its ATA card is a Maxtor-branded Ultra ATA 100, originally sold in a drive bundle, though now controlling a WD disk, set up similar but not identical to the one in my Win95 box. Although this card was built by Promise and the original drivers pack included files from Promise, it was private-label branded. Seagate's got Maxtor now; and although their WEB site still has a support downloads page for both a 48 bit LBA large drive drivers pack and an updated BIOS flashing kit, neither of these files would actually download. Possibly some alternate files direct from Promise would work; and I might have tried them but for the following.

I went to the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/) and pasted in the URL for the page at Seagate's site where they offer the files that didn't (or don't) download (that is, perhaps they would at a less busy time? Don't know). Wayback has several earlier versions from February 2007 to later that year. They all reference the same file versions for both the latest driver and the flash update. I also saved full copies of both download pages, as they contain instructions.

Here's the icing on the cake: Although the Wayback machine does not actually have the missing compressed files, the download pages do preserve the filenames and direct download URLs which were in use in 2007. They both proved to be still valid at Seagate's site! I copied those back into my browser and both BIOS 2.01.0.43 in file U100b43.exe and driver version 2.0.0050.42 in file ATADRVR.exe came right through. So, the Wayback Machine helped me grab what was just beyond reach using plain-vanilla methods. Sometimes the extra step leads to good luck.

This wasn't complex like writing code, but it was a "kinda involved" stepwise procedure for an end-user. Thought this note might help someone coming by later in search of the same sort of solution.

Wow! That's a quite nice trick. I've been using the Wayback Machine to get otherwise lost text for a long time, but never thought to try the URLs retrieved in the process, as you just did. Thanks a lot for the idea! You rock!

I have only just encountered the 137Gb problem in Win98SE with the acquisition and installation of two large HDDs (one - the boot drive - 250GB PATA and a 320GB SATA). All was well until a massive amount of data collected under WinXP must have spilled past the bounderies and appeared as gibberish in Win98!

Your version of ESDI_506.PDR seemed to offer the solution - but isn't there a "gotcha"? How do you replace an existing v4.10.2226 with a v4.10.2226 if I didn't have a v4.10.2226 in the first place? Isn't this a paradox?

Anyway, reading another thread, it is suggested that removing ESDI_506.PDR will force the system to use the BIOS setting and make the large HDDs accessible at the cost of slowing things down. This works as predicted but with other interesting side effects (which I will address in a response to that thread)!

(This is supposed to be a query to LLXX on page 1!)

It's not. Simply add the file to %windir%\SYSTEM\VMM32 and you're set. Do it in Real DOS Mode. And, while you're at it, be sure to add ESDI_506.PDR v. 4.10.2225, because v. 2226 is for IBM laptops only.



She'll never answer, I'm sorry to tell you, for she's been banned for some time already, and AFAIK has disappeared from known cyberspace.

First try v. 4.10.2225, then v. 4.10.2222 if you are still in DOS compatibility mode.
(Not every PC supports v. 4.10.2225).

You can do in Windows (then reboot),since you are already in trouble. (Using DOS is required during a fresh Windows98 OS install).