Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



bsperan

NTFS support in Win 98/SE/ME?

Recommended Posts

I was mainly interested in access to files over 4GiB in size.
That's also my main use use of NTFS partitions. About 4 years ago I was thinking about creating a UDF partition on my internal HDD for files >4GB, but then I put that on a back burner.

UDF is supported by Win98 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/218617 [msconfig -> Advanced] and allows huge file sizes, one internet page mentions 128TB, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems mentions "unknown". UDF is an open standard http://homepage.mac.com/wenguangwang/myhome/udf.html .

At that time I had briefly installed WriteDVD! v5.06, to format a HDD as UDF. I was also looking for Disk Drive TuneUp V3 but could not find it.

Here another link: http://www.raymond.cc/forum/software/11617...a-recorder.html

FixDVD!/FixUDF! for Win98/ME/NT/2000/XP still seems to be sold via Digital River http://www.softarch.com/EN/Product/FixDVDUDFWin.html

My concern 4 years ago was the scarcity of utilities supporting HDDs formatted as UDF. Perhaps there is also a way to format SDHC cards or USB sticks as UDF and a way to read and write big files on such UDF-formatted device under Win98.

Edited by Multibooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using UDF for some time even with IMGburn on windows 98. UDF seems really to be better solution for Windows 9x, but there is something else.

I was able to acess 8gb files, even write 8gb files with video creating program, but i was never able to copy such files even from NTFS to NTFS drive.

No matter what filesystem will be used this is limit in windows, at least for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, NTFS is still a problem......and what about ExFat in Win98 - maybe this way is easier ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

To my knowledge exFAT (FAT64) is available only for Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008 + 7 [look under "NEWS FLASH:"]:

http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm#FAT32

NEWS FLASH:

- Microsoft introduced FAT64 (exFAT) (Extended File Allocation Table) file

system for Windows XP/2003/Vista/2008/7 similar to FAT32/FAT32X, but without

the boot sector, cluster size, directory entries or file size limitations that

plagued FAT32/FAT32X, designed for SSD + USB Flash drives and compatible with

hard drives:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa914353.aspx

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Advantages:

- largest hard/SSD/Flash disk/partition size 16 EB (ExaBytes) (theoretical

limit);

- largest file size 16 EB (ExaBytes) (theoretical limit);

- largest cluster size 32 MB;

- > 1000 files per directory;

- extensible directory structure and file name hashes;

- improved free space allocation and delete performance due to free space

bitmaps;

- Transaction-Safe FAT File System (TFAT) support;

- OEM definable custom file system parameters for specific (portable) devices.

Disadvantages:

- backward incompatible with DOS/MS-DOS, Windows 95, 98, ME, NT and 2000;

- no access control lists (ACL) support;

- no file system journaling support.

How to enable FAT64 (exFAT):

Windows XP users: MUST install (in this exact order):

1. Windows XP SP3:

http://www.mdgx.com/xp.htm#SP3

2. Windows XP SP2/XP SP3 exFAT Drivers Update:

http://www.mdgx.com/xp.htm#XFAT

Windows 2003 users: MUST install (in this exact order):

1. Windows 2003 SP2:

http://www.mdgx.com/ws3toy.htm#SP2

2. Windows 2003 SP1/2003 SP2 exFAT Drivers Update:

http://www.mdgx.com/ws3toy.htm#XFAT

Windows 2000 SP4, XP Pre-SP2 + 2003 Pre-SP1 users (may or may not work):

http://www.merawindows.com/Forums/tabid/32...ts/Default.aspx

Windows Vista users: MUST install Windows Vista SP2:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd262148.aspx

Windows 2008 + 7 have FAT64 (exFAT) drivers built-in.

But some1 with driver level programming skills who can afford to spend a lot of time developing + testing this can probably make a native DOS driver, or even adapt the XP one [EXFAT.SYS], or at least make a VXD driver compatible with 9x OSes. [?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But some1 with driver level programming skills who can afford to spend a lot of time developing + testing this can probably make a native DOS driver, or even adapt the XP one [EXFAT.SYS], or at least make a VXD driver compatible with 9x OSes. [?]

As often happens, OFF-TOPIC, but not much ;):

How much money do you think these guys are making nowadays from selling this?:

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/index.htm

at US$ 429 apiece? :w00t:

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/order.htm

Single user license for VxDWriter 2.0 costs US$429.00

Maybe if they would decide to "let go" that software or provide a "complimentary copy" a C programmer willing to take the challenge could even be found. :unsure:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But some1 with driver level programming skills who can afford to spend a lot of time developing + testing this can probably make a native DOS driver, or even adapt the XP one [EXFAT.SYS], or at least make a VXD driver compatible with 9x OSes. [?]

As often happens, OFF-TOPIC, but not much ;):

How much money do you think these guys are making nowadays from selling this?:

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/index.htm

at US$ 429 apiece? :w00t:

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/order.htm

Single user license for VxDWriter 2.0 costs US$429.00

Maybe if they would decide to "let go" that software or provide a "complimentary copy" a C programmer willing to take the challenge could even be found. :unsure:

jaclaz

I doubt a free copy of VxDWriter would get meny people writing VxDs for Windows 9X.

I already write VxDs for Windows 9X without needing VxdWriter.

I have written a 64-Bit Memory VxD and am in the process of writing a Multi-Core VxD for Windows 9X.

Porting an undocumented Driver would be a lot more work.

I haven't seen enough interest in my exisiting VxDs to justify the much greater task of porting ExFAT or other XP Drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt a free copy of VxDWriter would get meny people writing VxDs for Windows 9X.

Well, a man can dream, or not? :unsure:

The point I was trying to make is that with the Win9x environment largely out of any kind of official support, ONLY hobbyists, a few "dinosaurs" and more generally NON-COMMERCIAL users are likely to still use it.

I bet that the revenues from very "vertical" apps, targeted exclusively to the unsupported/unused Windows platform are very near to 0.

A few "illuminated" companies/developers, no matter if because they are just "good guys" or because they actually keep their sales under control and found that it's several years they were able to sell a license for apps aimed to a Commercially non-existant target, stoppped their development and made them available freely, a few examples:

http://www.ardi.com/win_download.php

http://web.archive.org/web/20080308215648/...ft.com/ftp/sdd/

http://www.xp-smoker.com/98smoker.html

http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=752

On the other hand, there are episodes of what I cannot but consider commercially "stoopid" approaches:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...12326&st=22

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...12326&st=39

Now that Neoware has been acquired by HP, it's allright, since they don't have to sell their products, and a nice thingy has been lost forever:

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2007/071001xa.html

I already write VxDs for Windows 9X without needing VxdWriter.

I have written a 64-Bit Memory VxD and am in the process of writing a Multi-Core VxD for Windows 9X.

Sure, I don't doubt you have the knowledge to do that :), only you won't do it or won't do it for free.

Please note that I do understand that it is exclusively your choice to write it, choose the license form and to have people pay for your software, but I am notoriously cheap. ;)

Porting an undocumented Driver would be a lot more work.

Maybe, or maybe having a "C based" tool, would make it easier. :unsure:

I haven't seen enough interest in my exisiting VxDs to justify the much greater task of porting ExFAT or other XP Drivers.

Exactly my point: not foreseeable income from the sales of such software.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few "illuminated" companies/developers, no matter if because they are just "good guys" or because they actually keep their sales under control and found that it's several years they were able to sell a license for apps aimed to a Commercially non-existant target, stoppped their development and made them available freely, a few examples:

These companies/developers did not develop these products to be given out freely. They did one or more of the following:

1. Developed the product when Windows 9X was popular, made their money, then gave it away for free when it was no longer worth marketing.

2. Started Developing the product when Windows 9X was popular, abandoned the effort when the market collapsed, then gave away the Betas.

3. Released a crippled version to promote a pay version.

4. Developed a product for a more marketable OS such as XP/Vista/7 and released a free version for 9X for publicity.

5. A few people do it for their 15 minutes of fame or to promote other paid products.

Anyone who takes up your challenge would not be covered by reasons 1-4 above. At best only #5 would apply.

I write my programs specifically for Windows 9X in the current market so reasons #1, #2, and #4 do not apply. #3 applies to my Demo Versions of some products. Few of my products have tie ins to other products or more popular OSes so #5 doesn't apply.

I also provide support and updates for my products. Few freebie publishers will go through the trouble of providing support or updates.

Please note that I do understand that it is exclusively your choice to write it, choose the license form and to have people pay for your software, but I am notoriously cheap.

As the old saying goes: you get what you pay for.

With free stuff you get:

1. A limited selection.

2. Most are low value unmarketable products.

3. Incomplete or buggy programs.

4. Little or no support or updates.

5. Adware, spyware, spam or other scams.

6. Come-ons for paid products or services.

7. Illegal copies.

Porting an undocumented Driver would be a lot more work.

Maybe, or maybe having a "C based" tool, would make it easier. :unsure:

I wrote my VxDs in pure Assembly to make them more streamlined and efficient. There is no reason that a small Assembly module cannot be combined with C Code to make a VxD. The original examples from Microsoft, I used to start writing my VxDs, are mixed C and Assembly Code.

Using C for a larger project would be easier, but most of the work in porting an existing Driver is reverse engineering the undocumented binaries.

Edited by rloew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With free stuff you get:

1. A limited selection.

2. Most are low value unmarketable products.

3. Incomplete or buggy programs.

3. Little or no support or updates.

4. Adware, spyware, spam or other scams.

5. Come-ons for paid products or services.

6. Illegal copies.

Well, NO. :realmad:

With SOME free stuff you may get that, with some other you can get MUCH more than with paid for solution: it's not the marketing model that makes the difference, it is the quality of the programs and the dedication of the programmers that make a difference.

Using C for a larger project would be easier, but most of the work in porting an existing Driver is reverse engineering the undocumented binaries.

But we do HAVE NTFS drivers with source: NTFS-3G, and the good guys at ReactOS before or later will release a working NTFS driver.

And exFAT is not that different from FAT32, for which driver source is available.

Sure it won't probably allow INSTALLING Win9x on such systems, but that would be rather pointless anyway.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With free stuff you get:

1. A limited selection.

2. Most are low value unmarketable products.

3. Incomplete or buggy programs.

4. Little or no support or updates.

5. Adware, spyware, spam or other scams.

6. Come-ons for paid products or services.

7. Illegal copies.

Well, NO. :realmad:

With SOME free stuff you may get that, with some other you can get MUCH more than with paid for solution: it's not the marketing model that makes the difference, it is the quality of the programs and the dedication of the programmers that make a difference.

I should have inserted "and/or" in the list. #3 does not apply to all programs.

The marketing model does determine whethger and how you pay for the product.

There are very few people creating quality free products without the other considerations I listed, so #1 still applies.

Using C for a larger project would be easier, but most of the work in porting an existing Driver is reverse engineering the undocumented binaries.

But we do HAVE NTFS drivers with source: NTFS-3G, and the good guys at ReactOS before or later will release a working NTFS driver.

And exFAT is not that different from FAT32, for which driver source is available.

Sure it won't probably allow INSTALLING Win9x on such systems, but that would be rather pointless anyway.

jaclaz

If it can't be installed, why write a driver for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the NTFS for Win98 Winternals V2 any good?

I really don't expect to write anything to a NTFS drive but you never know.

The read-only may be good.

I've been using version 2 for a while now and it works pretty well. You can copy/read files perfectly. You can even empty the recycle bin, no error yet.

Unlike version 1.x, it accepts XP files as dependancies. However, I've only been able to run the included checkdisk with NT files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wsxedcrfv
NEWS FLASH:

Microsoft introduced FAT64 (exFAT) (Extended File Allocation Table) file system for Windows XP/2003/Vista/2008/7 similar to FAT32/FAT32X, but without

the boot sector, cluster size, directory entries or file size limitations that plagued FAT32/FAT32X, designed for SSD + USB Flash drives and compatible with hard drives:

Cluster size limitation?

What exactly is that?

- largest hard/SSD/Flash disk/partition size 16 EB (ExaBytes) (theoretical limit);

- largest file size 16 EB (ExaBytes) (theoretical limit);

- largest cluster size 32 MB;

16 EB is hyperbole (even if true). I still don't trust any drives over 500 gb for reliability at this point.

And explain what exactly is the attraction of large cluster sizes - beyond 32 kb?

Why is the fallacy still being put forward that FAT32 volumes are limited to 2 to 4 million clusters? There is no such FAT32 limitation. I've run win-98 on volumes with 40 and even 120 million clusters (a 500 gb drive formatted as a single FAT32 partition with 120 million 4kb cluster-size).

- > 1000 files per directory;

Only 1,000? Doesn't fat32 allow for up to 64k files per directory - depending on the number of characters in the file name?

- Transaction-Safe FAT File System (TFAT) support;

What exactly is that?

Disadvantages:

- no file system journaling support.

That's not a disadvantage. With journaling, data already written to open files is usually wiped out back to the last checkpoint. Any time my NT4 server goes down, I can count on that day's IIS log file to be wiped out. Thanks for the journalling. And thanks for the extra wear and tear on the drive itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cluster size limitation?

What exactly is that?

...

I meant cluster size [smallest 4 KB -> largest 32 KB]:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768180.aspx

I've being collecting this info for years, and posted all here:

http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm#FAT32

Why is the fallacy still being put forward that FAT32 volumes are limited to 2 to 4 million clusters? There is no such FAT32 limitation. I've run win-98 on volumes with 40 and even 120 million clusters (a 500 gb drive formatted as a single FAT32 partition with 120 million 4kb cluster-size).
Source:

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

You may want to take this up with the people @ NTFS.com. ;)

- Transaction-Safe FAT File System (TFAT) support;
Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Please e-mail me if there is some eroneous info @ this Wikipedia page, so I can correct it asap.

Please e-mail me with any corrections, so I can update the web page.

Thanks for your time + concern.

Edit:

Updated my page with latest Wikipedia info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is the fallacy still being put forward that FAT32 volumes are limited to 2 to 4 million clusters? There is no such FAT32 limitation. I've run win-98 on volumes with 40 and even 120 million clusters (a 500 gb drive formatted as a single FAT32 partition with 120 million 4kb cluster-size).
True. FAT32 is very flexible and has wide limits. But going above 26 million clusters limits its usability because most of the available programs to give it maintenance weren't written to support so many clusters, as discussed elsewhere:
...and you'd surely have read this post and the ones it links to, so you wouldn't be surprised, as ScanDskW and Defrag (both from Win ME, provided one also uses DiskMaint.dll from Win ME) are known to work OK with up to slightly above 850 GB partitions (= 26,389,392 clusters of 32 kiB ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But some1 with driver level programming skills who can afford to spend a lot of time developing + testing this can probably make a native DOS driver, or even adapt the XP one [EXFAT.SYS], or at least make a VXD driver compatible with 9x OSes. [?]
As often happens, OFF-TOPIC, but not much :

How much money do you think these guys are making nowadays from selling this?:

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/index.htm

at US$ 429 apiece?

http://www.techsoftpl.com/vxd/order.htm

Single user license for VxDWriter 2.0 costs US$429.00
Maybe if they would decide to "let go" that software or provide a "complimentary copy" a C programmer willing to take the challenge could even be found.

jaclaz

Well, if the VXD model is not a viable solution [those guys sell their developer package waaaay too expensive, something I had no idea about because I am not a programmer], how about the SYS driver format [WDM, introduced in WinME + 2000]?

The complete 98 DDK is still available [and free]...

http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#DDK

respectively here:

http://www.mdgx.com/spx/98DDK.RAR

BTW: WinXP + 2003 DDK packages include all that is needed for Win98/ME programming, so one needs XP or 2003 to work on 98 SE/ME drivers, in case 98DDK [run from within Win98/ME] is not an option.

About the native DOS driver model...

I know 2 DOS low-level/driver programmers who might be able [and hopefully willing] to do this, I just haven't had time to write them yet, and I was actually waiting for some positive feedback from you guys @ MSFN.

1. Jack Ellis [makes free native DOS drivers for the FreeDOS.org project]:

http://johnson.tmfc.net/dos/driver.html

2. Bret Johnson [makes free generic USB drivers for native DOS]:

http://www.bretjohnson.us/

[All I'm saying is that FAT64 should be implemented in 9x OSes if possible *and* feasible.

And I know it's possible, we just need to find some1 who agrees to do this for free. ;)

Edit:

According to this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

one needs a Microsoft license to distribute FAT64 software/drivers/etc. :(

I have not checked to see if this license is free or not.

If any1 knows more on this subject, please post here.

Thanks.

HTH

Edit #2:

Unfortunately MS charges fees for distribution, therefore not feasible nor affordable to develop independent exFAT driver. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×