[maximus-decim]

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...cu210e.zip.html

[Shamgar]

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

[Gape]

Shamgar, on Apr 17 2005, 04:48 AM, said:

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

Look here.

[Gape]

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:

# Solves 512 MB of RAM problem.
# Better Notepad.
# Windows Scripting Host 5.6.
# Microsoft Installer 2.0.
# MDGx's HTML Help Update.
# TweakUI (Optional).
# Command Prompt Here (Optional).
# New Animated Boot Logo (Optional).
# Supports 98lite 4.7.
# Windows 2000/ME desktop icons.
# Windows 2000 color scheme (Optional).
# Shows attributes column in details view on the Windows Explorer.
# Some tweaks (Optional).

[Tihiy]

Gape, you're wrong in some criterias:

Quote

SE SP tries to install only necessary updates for your system, MDCU installs all updates.

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.

Quote

MDCU contains a good generic USB mass storage device drivers from Windows ME.

Adopted from ME. Sometimes even better than ME support.

Quote

MDCU doesn't contain some features of SE SP:

- 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.

[Gape]

Tihiy, on Apr 19 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

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.

Install order. It's tested many times and different from SE SP.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

This post has been edited by Gape: 19 April 2005 - 06:06 AM

[Tihiy]

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.

[Gape]

Tihiy, on Apr 19 2005, 01:04 PM, said:

- DOS driveletter fix

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?

[Tihiy]

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.

[Gape]

Tihiy, on Apr 19 2005, 02:33 PM, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Tihiy]

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

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

[eidenk]

Quote

137 GB HDD limit

Quote

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.

[Tihiy]

eidenk, on Apr 19 2005, 12:39 PM, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

This post has been edited by Gape: 20 April 2005 - 02:07 AM

[eidenk]

Quote

The High Capacity Disk Patch Program patches Windows 98/98SE/ME to provide direct support for Hard Drives larger than 137GB without requiring a controller card or the Intel Application Accelerator which can only be used with some Intel Chipset Motherboards. The Patch installs support for the 48-Bit addressing mode required for Hard Drives larger than 137GB.

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.

[Gape]

eidenk, on Apr 19 2005, 09:12 PM, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[eidenk]

Quote

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.

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.

[Petr]

eidenk, on Apr 20 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Gape]

eidenk, on Apr 20 2005, 03:47 PM, said:

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.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[eidenk]

Quote

The problem is to cross the 137 GB barrier.

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.

Quote

FAT32 supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size. FAT32 uses smaller clusters (that is, 4K clusters for drives up to 8 Gbytes in size), resulting in 10 to15 percent more efficient use of disc space relative to large FAT16 partitions. FAT32 will only work on 512 Mbytes and larger drives. Microsoft’s bundled disc tools (Format, FDISK, Defrag, and MS-DOS based ScanDisk) have been revised to work with FAT32.

[eidenk]

The above quote is from Seagate.

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