Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

137GB limit - ESDI_506.PDR and other limits

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#51
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts
Here are some other sites with some info on 137Gb HDs I've found by searching from Yahoo:

FAQ on Western Digital Hard Drives:
http://shop.store.ya...tron/faqwd.html

LancIT.com Laptop Guide page on hard drives:
http://www.lancsit.c...09lev1sec5.html

Also, check out the 48bitLBA.com FAQ page:
http://www.48bitlba.com/faq.htm

and PCWorld.com's Hardware Tips
: Plan Ahead to Keep Your Big Hard Drive Purring
http://www.pcworld.c...d,120355,00.asp

there are both hardware and software solutions on overcoming the 137GB barrier.

Edited by erpdude8, 01 July 2005 - 10:03 AM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
CLASYS

CLASYS

    Windows installer, chief cook and bottlewasher

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 218 posts
I guess this is the place to add some anecdotal stuff: [Note: All partitions are FAT32.]

I haven't attempted to see if I am corrupting anything on the drive, but I have used some Hitachi 250 GB drives in various configurations. Here's what seems to be working:

1) Using Partition Magic, I am only able to set the max partition size to about 196 GB regardless of position on the physical disk. The entire disk can be referenced by using two or more partitions.

This limit is imposed running Partition Magic 8.02 on Win98SE, WinME or WinXP.

The physical disk has only been accessed from XP if hooked to the IDE connector on the motherboard: Tyan S2466; made no attempt to use from 98SE.

Alternate configurations: USB 2.0 and/or Firewire external boxes. These seem to work everywhere including the DOS Firewire IOmega drivers from Ghost2003. I have tried 32 and 64-bit firewire cards and the IOmega driver works fine from DOS. The similarly-supplied USB driver has lots of problems: Won't support disks bigger than 127 GB at all in DOS, and additionally hates some USB cards entirely.

No problems with Firewire in 98SE, ME, XP, DOS with the IOmega drivers. Works in Sony Vaio laptops, random Via Firewire PCI cards, and even a 64-bit SIIG which runs major-way faster in DOS than when placed in a 32-bit slot on the Tyan S2466 [which has two 64-bit slots and the rest 32-bit.] Thus, the driver likes all of the hardware and any size disk, etc.

Yet, Partition Magic still won't let me make a FAT32 partition bigger than 196 GB, and I generally use two 120-odd ones thus I am avoiding the problem in 9x, so I have no answer about data corruption.

Last configuration is using Promise Ultra-133 TX2 which totally just works for adding plug-and-play non-boot disks using Promise drivers for 9x or XP. If you add the driver for XP into the mini-kernel, you can even install XP on one of the Promise-controlled drives. But with no drivers, DOS can completely access everything, and 9x with the supplied .MPD driver no problems at all. [Note: The Promise card has a BIOS chip on it that does all of this!] It can run in 32-bit mode or double-speed 32-bit mode if you have a double-speed motherboard such as the Tyan S2466. [Note the SIIG firewire card gets the speed not by doubling the bus speed, but rather that card is a 64-bit wide card on this same motherboard, etc.]

So, I am booting to a sub-120 GB disk and the driver talks to the 250 GB disks and I seem to have no problems with any system!

So, if I raise the partition size to beyond 127 GB, I can assume that would break the data and should be avoided?

cjl

ps: Now that I think of it, I did trick FDISK into making a full-size disk by first making a 7.8 MB primary, then extended for the rest of the disk, then a giant logical partition, then used Partition Magic to remove the primary partition, etc. Any attempt to change the size of the remaining partition set off Partition Magic to insist I down the size to about 196 GB.

Additionally, when I hooked this disk up in a USB 2.0 box partitioned that bigger way, Win98SE showed two copies of the drive in My Computer!!! [Yes, i was seeing double!]
"In ten years, OS/2 will be on everyone's desktop"
Bill Gates, 1992

#53
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Not to mention Mr. Loew is in direct violation of MS copyrights + trademark agreements, because...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


come on guys. cut Rudolph Loew some slack. I havent seen anything wrong for what he did or what he was trying to do. hey if Mr. Loew's software solution to the 137gb+ problems requires paying for his software so be it.

It's not hardware problem, you can use 137GB+ disks with any IDE controller since its's invention more than 10 years ago. It's really just software problem, please read my post in 137GB limit - ESDI_506.PDR and other limits thread. BIOS is also software :-)


seriously, BIOS is both the hardware (the chip mounted on the motherboard) and the software (the programs stored on the chip). You need a BIOS that is dated September 2002 or later to use 137Gb & bigger hard drives, as noted at the LancsIT.com site I bookmarked. This applies to any computer, whether it's a desktop, workstation, server or even a laptop.

Version 2.30 of Intel Application Accelerator is not compatible with laptop/notebook computers. Obtain version 2.22 of IAA if using a laptop computer here:
http://downloadfinde.....* Me&lang=eng

#54
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

seriously, BIOS is both the hardware (the chip mounted on the motherboard) and the software (the programs stored on the chip).

It was just IBM decision to put the BIOS to specific chip. CP/M 2.2, the predecessor of MS-DOS, has it's own BIOS loaded to RAM.

You need a BIOS that is dated September 2002 or later to use 137Gb & bigger hard drives, as noted at the LancsIT.com site I bookmarked.  This applies to any computer, whether it's a desktop, workstation, server or even a laptop.

Even earlier BIOSes support 137GB+ disks, I have BIOS dated 04/15/2002 in my GA-6OXE motherboard and it fully supports them, and I remember that it was not the first BIOS with 137GB+ support.

Petr

#55
karlk

karlk
  • Member
  • 1 posts

Windows 98 SE SCANDISK (GUI): won't start (insufficient memory)
Windows 98 SE DEFRAG (GUI): won't start (insufficient memory)


I've come across this problem occasionally on people's computers. Like ack-hh noted, it's caused by third party utilities formatting the partition with a cluster size that scandisk and defrag don't like. So far, using Partition Magic to convert the cluster size to 32K has always corrected the problem.

#56
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Windows 98 SE SCANDISK (GUI): won't start (insufficient memory)
Windows 98 SE DEFRAG (GUI): won't start (insufficient memory)

I've come across this problem occasionally on people's computers. Like ack-hh noted, it's caused by third party utilities formatting the partition with a cluster size that scandisk and defrag don't like. So far, using Partition Magic to convert the cluster size to 32K has always corrected the problem.

I remember being familiar with this MS FORMAT issue if using non-default cluster sizes.
Documented here:
http://www.mdgx.com/...ts.htm#FORMAT-Z

#57
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Not to mention Mr. Loew is in direct violation of MS copyrights + trademark agreements, because...

come on guys. cut Rudolph Loew some slack. I havent seen anything wrong for what he did or what he was trying to do. hey if Mr. Loew's software solution to the 137gb+ problems requires paying for his software so be it.

The context of my post was actually my reaction to Mr. Loew telling Petr that he nor anybody else has the right to post/distribute such information [which Petr obtained from the public domain] on how to theoretically reprogram esdi_506.pdr to support HDs > 137 GB.

Personally I have nothing against Mr. Loew, as long as he doesn't try to monopolize this issue [which would be impossible anyway, due to the fact that the driver is trademarked to MS] and/or discourage somebody else from trying to achieve something similar, without referring to/reverse-engineering/disassembling/hacking/etc his work in any way.

Just my 2 ç ;)

#58
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Few new observations:
GA-586HX (Intel 430HX chipset) BIOS won't boot with WD2000JB enabled, it freezes during disk detection.


There's a known issue with Western Digital HDDs that cause this. Because of being required to change the jumper setting not only to change from master to slave (or vice-versa) but also required to change the jumper based on how many HDDs are on the IDE channel! With Maxtor HDDs and probably the same with Seagate, only required to change the jumper setting on the HDD if you want to change it from master to slave or vice-versa. With Western Digital HDDs, you're required to change the jumper setting if you add or remove a HDD that's on the same IDE channel.
Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!

#59
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Maybe a new free driver should just be written from scratch!
Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!

#60
Lunac

Lunac

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 94 posts
I had to say this. This Rudolph R. Loew has spammed and hit every techie and support board out there. Its usually one or two posts about his patch, and a obligatory link to his site where it can be purchased. I have never seen such shameless self promotion. Its not $10, either. Boot manager is additional $5, which brings up to $15. For that money you could buy a ATA133 PCI IDE controller card. Which would solve any problems with device drivers, lack of BIOS support, and in a general way improve your system performance. No really, check out pricewatch.com, controller cards going for around $15 with free shipping.

I bet Petr talking about creating a free patch got him antsy. Nice scare tactics. I found the part about copyright issues particularly hilarious.

If any of the information you posted was obtained by examining my code, or a patched ESDI_506.PDR file, it could be considered an illegal disclosure of trade secrets. In addition, anyone who uses any such trade secrets to write Software could be found to be in violation of my Copyright even if they personally have not examined my Software.


I just wonder how many copyright laws "dear" Rudolph R. Loew broke, while working on his little hack. Heck, what about the patch as is? He's making profit from a hacked piece of software. One thing industry has demonstrated in the past is that they come down hard on profiteers. You make any money, in any way, from their product, you get hit.

Edited by Lunac, 09 July 2005 - 04:33 PM.


#61
severach

severach

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 163 posts
I had found Mr Loew's patch to enable 48 bit LBA in Windows 98 but I had a suspicion that Mr Loew was not a person I would want anything to do with. Mr Loew's hostile posts here affirm my suspicion and I anxiously await an independant solution from a more amicable author. I eventually solved the 48 bit LBA problem in my own crude way. All I did was to remove ESDI_506.PDR from IOSUBSYS which puts C: into compatibility mode paging then 48 bit LBA support gets inherited from the BIOS. The performance is low but I get long file name support on 48 bit LBA drives. I wasn't trying to win any speed races, I just wanted the ability to move, rename, and perform minimal data recovery on big FAT32 drives from Windows 98.

USB drives are not limited by Windows 9x to 137GB. >137GB drives will not function properly in in older non 48 bit LBA compatible enclosures. Enclosures that are 48 bit LBA compatible are usually labeled as compatible with the largest shipping drive size at the time the advertizing is printed, some size far above 137GB.

48 bit LBA detection has not been perfected between drive manufacturers and chipsets. In rare cases, the enclosure or motherboard chipset will fail to detect more than 137GB. When this occurs you'll expect to see some folders and files scrambled. Any use of SCANDISK or AUTOCHK or CHKDSK in this condition will promptly trash much data. This has been noted with:

Western Digital PATA + ALI Enclosure
Western Digital PATA + VIA based Motherboard

In Windows 2000 & XP, the big drive patch solves this problem. If the motherboard fails to detect >137GB, the 2K/XP PATA IDE driver will do so instead. AUTOCHK runs after the IDE driver detects 48 bit LBA. Misbehaving external drive enclosures need to be powered off and on until 48 bit LBA gets detected properly. I enable the big drive patch on ALL systems so I no longer see this problem in motherboard chipsets.

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters]
"EnableBigLba"=dword:00000001

Rumor has it that XP SP2 slipstream is the first Windows installer that is 48 bit LBA ready. You may install a lower OS as long as the drive is empty so that the initial CHKDSK has no files above 137GB to destroy and all the install files are certain to show up below 137GB until the big drive patch can be enabled after which your system will function properly no matter where most files are placed. This also means that you can't reinstall a lower OS on a partly filled drive because the risk is too great that files will be allocated above 137GB during the install. Due to much data loss, I have found it best to stick with 120GB or less drives for booting. Installers will not damage >137GB data drives as long as you don't try to install to them. Windows 2000 SP4 slipstream is NOT 48 bit LBA ready.

If the Win98 Unofficial SP2 team is able to come up with a 48 bit LBA ESDI driver, it will need to be integrated into the CAB files to allow Windows 98 to be installed to >137GB drives. It's not a feature I require but it would make Windows 98 the second OS that will install to >137GB drives.

#62
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
I realize everyone is into the "137gb HDD barrier" right now, but has anyone done anything on "1gb ram limit" yet, is that on a back burner till this gets solved?

#63
Bob Berry

Bob Berry
  • Member
  • 2 posts
Has eny one used the udma driver for dos and disable the windows one to solves this problem "137gb HDD barrier" ??

"http://freedos.sourc...base/udma2.lsm"

#64
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Has eny one used the udma driver for dos and disable the windows one to solves this problem  "137gb HDD barrier" ??

"http://freedos.sourc...base/udma2.lsm"

Please note that UDMA2 and all similar variants have been replaced by the newer XDMA:

XDMA DOS UATA/UDMA Hard Disk Driver v1.02 16-bit TSR for MS-DOS 5/6/7/8 +
Windows 3.1x/9x/ME allows up to 4 UATA/UDMA Hard Disks to run at full speed in
native DOS:
http://johnson.tmfc....eedos/xdma.html
XDMA 1.02 [30 KB]:
http://johnson.tmfc....le/xdma_102.zip
XDMA works ONLY with UATA/UDMA Hard Disks connected to motherboard built-in
UATA/UDMA controllers, NOT to 3rd party/add-on/proprietary controllers!
XDMA.SYS takes 1 KB of upper DOS RAM if loaded with DEVICEHIGH in CONFIG.SYS
(upper memory manager required in CONFIG.SYS). Example:
DEVICEHIGH=C:\UDMA\XDMA.SYS /O

To my knowledge this driver [and similar ones like UDMA2] only enable int 13h LBA [48-bit] support for large HDs with older BIOSes which don't recognize newer HDs hooked up to internal motherboard based (E)IDE/(U)ATA/(U)DMA HD controllers.
Basically, XDMA creates an interface between the BIOS and the HD controller in native [real] DOS mode.
I don't think it helps the HDs > 137 GB issue in Windows 98SE/ME.
As far as I can tell, no matter what native DOS based driver is loaded in memory, Windows will still "see" only 128 GB [or less], if ESDI_506.PDR [or similar 3rd party driver for AMD, SiS, FIC, VIA etc chipset driver] is not present.

I don't have an older mobo with int 13h non-compliant BIOS, so I can't test this.

Petr:
Do you have an old mobo to test XDMA?

Edit:
Older XDMA has been replaced with newer QDMA:
http://johnson.tmfc....eedos/qdma.html

Edited by MDGx, 23 March 2006 - 12:17 PM.


#65
Lunac

Lunac

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 94 posts
Couldn't this take care of any and all problems?

$17 with free shipping at acortech.

Posted Image

http://www.acortech.....sc/ms/........

Creative I/O SY-SIL-133R Silicon Image ATA133 IDE RAID CARD

According to the manual it supports hard drives with sizes up to 131,072 TB. That's TB as in TeraByte.

Edited by Lunac, 22 August 2005 - 04:51 PM.


#66
shaddam

shaddam

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 72 posts

Couldn't this take care of any and all problems?

$17 with free shipping at acortech.

Posted Image

http://www.acortech.....sc/ms/........

Creative I/O SY-SIL-133R Silicon Image ATA133 IDE RAID CARD

According to the manual it supports hard drives with sizes up to 131,072 TB. That's TB as in TeraByte.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



hmmm... use an silicon image ata controller and have to say ... it works. ..but the flash bios support sucks bad... have to seek LOONG time in internet for an version which works on my socket 7 board... the only one which works for me was an very old without raid support... so be warned

#67
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
I have bought that NEWLink ATA 133 RAID – 2 Port RAID PCI Card at Maplin's store the other day.

Though I have paid £29.99 for it, I see it is way cheaper on the Net. Just £12 here.

I'll be telling you soon (sometimes within the next couple of weeks) whether I can boot and use my 200 GB Drive C to its full capacity with it.

I'll have to force myself thouroughly reading the doc first. Especially about the BIOS as I don't know yet how the BIOS will want to boot the computer from a drive plugged on that card (if it can at all).

Edit : Well I still haven't tried to install that card.

Edited by eidenk, 18 September 2005 - 05:15 AM.

Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#68
F5BJR

F5BJR
  • Member
  • 1 posts
just a comment :

i search at this time to run MSDOS with WIN98 not running with big drives > 128 / 137 Go

on IDE ports or SiliconImage , HightPOint , Promise & .... that is similar

** no problem with some recent computers with & WIN2000 or WINXP & Win98 running normal with good drivers


( note : with WIN98 on failure mode or MSDOS big problem exist .... : dir /s --> sectors not found )

i am a little sorry because i use always old MSDOS softwares and i have sure problems with big drives

also i can install a special machine with the limitation jumper on the drives but ... why not the full capacity ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

informations : with FreeDos only ( not Win98 compatible !! ) no no no no no problem

have you informations for make a little drivers ( as functionnality on FreeDos kernel ) for using MSDOS & or WIN98 failure mode without problem ?

Pierre

Edited by F5BJR, 08 December 2005 - 09:35 PM.


#69
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
I know this topic is old but still very importanty since the capacity of disk drives are increasing fast...

I had to say this. This Rudolph R. Loew has spammed and hit every techie and support board out there. Its usually one or two posts about his patch, and a obligatory link to his site where it can be purchased. I have never seen such shameless self promotion. Its not $10, either. Boot manager is additional $5, which brings up to $15. For that money you could buy a ATA133 PCI IDE controller card. Which would solve any problems with device drivers, lack of BIOS support, and in a general way improve your system performance. No really, check out pricewatch.com, controller cards going for around $15 with free shipping.

I bet Petr talking about creating a free patch got him antsy. Nice scare tactics. I found the part about copyright issues particularly hilarious.

If any of the information you posted was obtained by examining my code, or a patched ESDI_506.PDR file, it could be considered an illegal disclosure of trade secrets. In addition, anyone who uses any such trade secrets to write Software could be found to be in violation of my Copyright even if they personally have not examined my Software.


I just wonder how many copyright laws "dear" Rudolph R. Loew broke, while working on his little hack. Heck, what about the patch as is? He's making profit from a hacked piece of software. One thing industry has demonstrated in the past is that they come down hard on profiteers. You make any money, in any way, from their product, you get hit.

I am a reverse-engineer, and as such I find this matter interesting. Where I am, there are laws *against* the prohibition of reverse-engineering, copyright is not really enforced at all, and as such once I have some time I'll be sure to take a look at Loew's solution. It's probably not going to be too interesting, as I already know what to expect... 32-bit internal LBA getting padded with an extra 2 bytes -> 48-bit LBA and existing commands -> extended commands...

#70
wizardofwindows

wizardofwindows

    Wizard of Windows

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
:thumbup best of luck on that.mr leow is a little lame.

#71
ricardrosen

ricardrosen

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 14 posts

just a comment :

i search at this time to run MSDOS with WIN98 not running with big drives > 128 / 137 Go

on IDE ports or SiliconImage , HightPOint , Promise & .... that is similar

** no problem with some recent computers with & WIN2000 or WINXP & Win98 running normal with good drivers


( note : with WIN98 on failure mode or MSDOS big problem exist .... : dir /s --> sectors not found )

i am a little sorry because i use always old MSDOS softwares and i have sure problems with big drives

also i can install a special machine with the limitation jumper on the drives but ... why not the full capacity ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

informations : with FreeDos only ( not Win98 compatible !! ) no no no no no problem

have you informations for make a little drivers ( as functionnality on FreeDos kernel ) for using MSDOS & or WIN98 failure mode without problem ?

Pierre


I have used a 400GB Hitachi SATA disk with realmode dos 7.1(98se) and have not found any corrupt files. 290GB of the disk is used . I don't run scandisk and replaced it with chkdsk from the latest rom-dos (2005 version).

#72
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts

I have used a 400GB Hitachi SATA disk with realmode dos 7.1(98se) and have not found any corrupt files. 290GB of the disk is used . I don't run scandisk and replaced it with chkdsk from the latest rom-dos (2005 version).

DOS 7.10 accesses the disk using the BIOS Int13x interface which uses 48-bit LBAs, but internally it uses 32-bit sector numbers. It should be good for disks up to 2 terabytes, the limit of FAT32.

The problem is with the Windows pmode driver directly accessing the hardware and only using the 28-bit LBA commands to the drive, truncating the upper 4 bits off the internal linear sector number.

I suppose if you run in the "compatibility mode" filesystem (which involves disk access via BIOS) it should be alright...

#73
RainyShadow

RainyShadow

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

It would take much time anyway. I have to find some easy way how to test what sector was *really* read/written because of possible sector wrapping or shifting.

Petr


Maybe some fellow coder here could make a simple testing utility which performs the following procedures:
1. Write to each sector on the drive its LBA number, starting from LBA sector 0 til the end of the drive.
2. Read each sector and compare value stored in it with the actual LBA value used to adress it (starting from LBA 0 till the last sector)
3. If wrapping is detected (adress and stored value for any sector are not equal) , repeat 1. and 2. but in the range from LBA 0 to the 1st few wrapped sectors ( this is to detect double/triple/... wrappings on very large drives )

Of course, using such a program will erase all data on the drive, but should be very usefull for extended compability testing ;)

#74
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts

It would take much time anyway. I have to find some easy way how to test what sector was *really* read/written because of possible sector wrapping or shifting.

Petr


Maybe some fellow coder here could make a simple testing utility which performs the following procedures:
1. Write to each sector on the drive its LBA number, starting from LBA sector 0 til the end of the drive.
2. Read each sector and compare value stored in it with the actual LBA value used to adress it (starting from LBA 0 till the last sector)
3. If wrapping is detected (adress and stored value for any sector are not equal) , repeat 1. and 2. but in the range from LBA 0 to the 1st few wrapped sectors ( this is to detect double/triple/... wrappings on very large drives )

Of course, using such a program will erase all data on the drive, but should be very usefull for extended compability testing ;)

Which interface do you suggest for doing this? Direct hardware access? BIOS int13ext? DOS int25/26? ESDI_506.PDR (protectedmode) driver calls? A good idea, but how to implement it is the question.

#75
RainyShadow

RainyShadow

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

Which interface do you suggest for doing this? Direct hardware access? BIOS int13ext? DOS int25/26? ESDI_506.PDR (protectedmode) driver calls? A good idea, but how to implement it is the question.

Well, using all interfaces you mentioned can test compability of different PC/OS parts ;)
What i mean:
use direct hardware access to test the HDD controller;
then use BIOS INT13ex to test if BIOS itself supports properly LBA48;
then try DOS interfaces to test DOS-level compability;
and last, use Windows interface to test the actual drivers currently installed on your beloved OS ;)

btw. splitting this to few programs depending on the interface which each use would be fine too, if required.

P.S. I have very little experience coding on x86 platform, so correct me if I'm wrong ( almost all of my coding experience is on Apple 2 clones ;) )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN