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

#151
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined 24-February 06

[
Oddly, in Safe Mode the Primary and Secondary controller drivers now say ESDI_506.PDR but I can't delete the VIA Bus Mastering entry. It says I need to delete its parent device first.


Then do it. To make your system boot normally at least.
I'm really sorry that I dont exactly remember the procedure I used and can't help you in a better way. It's possible that I was forced into safe-mode as well, I don't remember but it's not unusual for me :)
Sometimes when you don't know what to do then it's a good idea to do just what Windows tells you. I do recall exactly the same situation, the right esdi.pdr combined with the wrong busmaster. So trash it all to make windows happy. Then see what comes back, if you're lucky the good drivers. But please don't forget that officially the Via driver cannot be uninstalled as stated by Via. That does not mean that it is always impossible but that the results are unpredictable. If there was a reliable uninstal method for all systems then Via could have offered it.


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#152
DeadDude

DeadDude

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Joined 15-December 06
DO NOT DO THIS UNLESS OTHERS CONFIRM!!!


Try booting into Safe mode, and removing everyything under Hard Drisk Controllers.

If you suspect there is "deeper" corruption, you can try removing everything from your device manager. I have done this before with mixed results; sometimes Windows will reboot and auto-detect all the hardware properly... other times, it just stays dead.

If VIA are the drivers taht are bad, you *should* be able to remove everything VIA-related in safe mode, in dev man, and reboot to initialize the hardware install again...

If it picks the wrong drivers again, DO NOT REBOOT AFTER INSTALL. As long as you DO NOT REBOOT, the system hasn't yet "locked in" the files. Try swapping out your drivers now, then reboot after you select the proper driver... If it doesn't work, boot into safe mode again, remove that piece of hardware in dev man, reboot and try again.


Honestly, it seems to me like you already hit a brick wall... I would try the above, simply because there's nothing to lose now, right?
BUT STILL DO NOT DO THOSE STEPS WITHOUT CONFIRMATION FROM OTHERS!!!
Your particular problem may have an easier solution... I am not familiar with it, sorry...

Edited by DeadDude, 18 January 2007 - 11:09 AM.


#153
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined 17-February 05
http://www.mdgx.com/files/48BITLBA.EXE

That's the direct download link from the mdgx.com page. I don't know if it will work from here but it's on his 98SE fixes page there, and this thread here is the one he links to for further info.

The auto-patcher includes that and installs it by default. I toggled it off as I wasn't using a large hard drive and would rather not change the file if not necessary. But that's the one I would use only because of my personal preference to not change the buttons in the Close Program box to the older, Windows 3.1 style where the buttons don't pop out at you. I don't know for sure, but I think that is the only difference between the exe and LLXX's version. Well. besides needing to install LLXX's from the command prompt only or MS-DOS Mode. The exe just runs by double clicking it in Windows.

Hmm, interesting that the Via driver allows 48 Bit LBA. I think your's were the posts I read telling that it does this, but then I read others and a Via Readme as well that stated otherwise. Someone asked me to find the Via readme once. Heh. It's somewhere. I read it. No, I'm not looking for it!

At this point I don't mind who's correct as I don't use a 686b southbridge board anymore. I wouldn't myself install it into any of my newer boards. Never used Windows 2000 either!
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#154
MalcolmO

MalcolmO
  • Member
  • 9 posts
  • Joined 12-January 07
Gentlemen, I thank you all for your replies and I'll respond to all of you in ONE message:

noguru: I can't remove the parent device because Windows doesn't know what it is (and neither do I). In fact, in Safe Mode, I have 2 copies of everything under Hard Disk Controllers and I can't delete any of them for the same reason.

DeadDude: I did try removing everything. See paragraph above. ;)

Eck: I have yet to try the direct DL of 48bitlba.exe. I don't seem to have any Inet connection when I'm in Safe Mode. :P
Malcolm

#155
RainyShadow

RainyShadow

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined 30-December 05
To manually remove a device, start up Regedit and go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\. Search for exactly the same name you see in Device Manager, and remove the whole key (folder) which contains it. Then reboot to unload the drivers.
For example, to remove my IDE controller i should delete the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\PCI\VEN_1106&DEV_0571&SUBSYS_05711106&REV_06\BUS_00&DEV_07&FUNC_01 key which contains the value "VIA Bus Master PCI IDE Controller", and the child devices in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\MF\

Edited by RainyShadow, 18 January 2007 - 08:23 PM.


#156
MalcolmO

MalcolmO
  • Member
  • 9 posts
  • Joined 12-January 07
Problem solved. Here's what I did....

In Safe Mode, I attempted to install the VIA 4-in-1 drivers. This failed! It went looking for some via file that it and I were unable to find. (I've just now found it in windows\system\CatRoot\{40-char hex string}. Gosh, why didn't I think to look there? :P )

So once it failed and I rebooted, it did reboot normally HOWEVER my high-cylinders partition (D:) was completely hosed. I then used 48bitLBA.exe, which installed 4102225 - not the one I have! And LLXX had said to use the same version number. Attempting to restart had me shutting down eternally. Used the switch. Switched back on and it hung when the systray would be filled. So I put back the original version (which is 4.10.2222).

Came alive again with D: scrambled. Put 4102222 in place and rebooted. VOILA!!! I am a happy camper! And I thank all who assisted here, with a particular tip of the hat to LLXX.
Malcolm

#157
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05
See, this is why I never recommended using an automatic installer in the first place.

There is just too much bloat and overhead associated with such (how hard is is to boot into DOS, copy a single file, and then reboot?), and if something goes wrong, whoever installed it in the first place now has no idea how to uninstall, because you need to have Windows functioning to use the (rather useless IMHO) "uninstall" feature. On the other hand, following my procedure, she would know to copy back the original file, and it is done in DOS which practically runs on every PC in existence.

Also, this is why I recommend replacing your ESDI_506.PDR with the fixed exact same version, and also why I don't recommend using newer versions just because they claim certain benefits. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

#158
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined 17-February 05
Ah! Okay, I see your point completely. I've just been so used to Windows installers and had read MDGx's post where he pushed the newer versions are better message.

Plus, when I had experimented with both using the same version file installed from Command Prompt Only and the exe version that installs that one version regardless of the one it replaces I had no ill effects either way. Both worked fine, but the exe version did not change the buttons in the Close Program box so I liked that better.

Since I had no ill effects with the installer version I had no idea it might have a different, disabling effect on someone else's system. Kind of like Microsoft releasing a Critical Update in Windows Update and then seeing if it messed up peoples systems, and only then fixing and rereleasing it.

I suppose even they cannot test for every possible system configuration and so that's why that kind of stuff happens.

I am happy the problem was fixed up and sorry about the effect the exe version had! Yes it is very easy to just install the correct, matching version number using MS-DOS. I just hadn't realized that having the same version was critical.

Haven't used it in a while as I haven't installed 98SE to a partition over 120GB lately. I even toggled off the installation of the exe version in the auto-patcher as I didn't see the need to install a fix for a problem that wouldn't occur on a smaller partition.
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#159
MalcolmO

MalcolmO
  • Member
  • 9 posts
  • Joined 12-January 07

See, this is why I never recommended using an automatic installer in the first place.

Right! I made the assumption that it was a 'smart' installer; but of course, it's not.
Malcolm

#160
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined 17-February 05
Gosh, I also made a stupid mistake here! The LLXX vs. Anonymous EXE file I had experimented with in the past was not the ESDI_506.PDR fix, but rather the KERNEL32.DLL patch to prevent large file copy/delete problems using Explorer.

I've never installed either version of the ESDI_506.PDR patch.

So, wrong thread, wrong advice, and butting in where more techy (and less confused) heads dare tread!

Good job. Well, I tried. I feel like Emily Litella (Gilda Radner) from Saturday Night Live.

Never mind.
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#161
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,399 posts
  • Joined 04-December 05

and had read MDGx's post where he pushed the newer versions are better message.

This is a forum for an 8-year-old operating system. See the irony :blink:

#162
Telop

Telop

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 15 posts
  • Joined 19-March 08

If anybody objects to "Commercial" code, they can write their own, independently of course. My Patch is not suited for any of the Open Source Business models.

Dear Mr. Loew,
Its amazing to see your posts in this forum, caz we see all here are to help each other, not to sell "commercialized" products. And btw why you yoursellf be not the person to make "Open Source" your work? see, win98SE needs open source now, not commercial anymore.
Sorry if it shocks :)

#163
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,845 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Do you realize your answering a 3 year old post?!?!?

#164
pinecloud

pinecloud

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 17 posts
  • Joined 07-December 08
:sneaky: In seek of a right ICH7 SATA / ATA driver for Windows 9X

My problem is deep rooted and frightening but it is a single problem – Lack of ICH7 SATA driver set for Windows 98SE. I believe that one of software giants has discouraged Intel to further provide Windows 9X drivers for newer chipset. The newer chipset happened to be in my Dell Dimension. With this excessively bitter experience, I may not buy Dell or any newer MS-OS ever again in my life time as longer as Windows 98SE, Solaris and Linux remain strong. In my Dell, Windows 98 is barely surviving without correct driver. USB GEforce and SB Audigy works well because I was able to overcome through cut and paste pci/ven hundreds of time to establish right pci-e root bridge in CPU/motherboard resouce hook.

Windows 9x and Windows NT are built with right and altruistic mind and I can welcome their personalities so to speak and live with them but not with XP or Vista.

I do not want OS itself to get into every operations of computer. OS only should perform launching the programmes and minimal house keeping of memory. I do not expect anything out from it.

I do not want CPU bus bridges (a.k.a., memory controller or multifunction bridge) themselves to get into every operations of computer. Making them emulate sound card, video card and RAID controller are out of question.

My real dream system would pave 10 or so PCI-X slots of 133 or 266MHz bus with at least 18 hardware IRQ allotted. Each card go into these slot has i80303 or better PCI bridge/dedicated IO Controller with embedded CPU with 256 MB on card memory. It means that printer card, mouse card, floppy card, sound card all shoals have own CPU/LPU/MPU and memory subsystem that OS does not even have to know. Give a file name to all such subsystem as memory block.

I did succeed to build a system at leaset a halfway close to this ideal in 2000

Two Xeon CPUs
Intel 80303 on SCSI card 256MB (7 Int13 compatible GDT Logical Volumes formed before OS start)
Motorola 68030 and Emu DSP on Sound Card 64MB
Intel i80960 on Tektronix Printer 64MB
Matrox Millennium 400 (to gain Unix compatibility otherwise GE force GTS is OK)
Another AHA3950 for CD/CDR and scanner

OS supported: Solaris, BSD Unix, Caldera-SCO, Redhat, Suse, O/S2
PC-DOS7. Window 3.1, Windows 95a, Windows 98SE, Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP 1.0

Supported OS means they can co-exist without modifying metafile structure of legacy form NTFS 1.X. System runs XP and Vista fine but they modifies old Windows NT 4.0 basic data volumes exist in extended partitions if you do not manually pre-mark their EPBR ID from 07 to that of an Unix type such as bf. This invasive personality of Vista and XP 2.0 or 3.0 rules out their qualification of compatibility to any of my system. They can even kill their own sister Windows NT 4.0’s partition.

I am not so much affected by LBA28 LBA32 or LBA48 issues since I never have owned any SCSI disk larger than 280GB (Cheetahs 15.5 Series) nor SATA (Barracuda ES2) larger than 0.954TB per single unit. To install any new OS on SATA platform, I temporarily put an Adaptec 39160 with SCSI drive in channel A and DVD or CD rom on channel B for temporary installation then check if OS and driver correctly mount and recognise file system on SATA. Run series of test from there, then ghost new OS partition from SCSI onto SATA and hide original partitions on SCSI after marking newly ghosted partition active on SATA MBR. Believe or not, it is not too much work. I am used to boot Unix OSes from command line with single or double line strings invoking boot loader. You get used to it. The first, I had to develop a mind to comprehend to different device block mapping expressions pointing out OS kernel location in the system such as c0t0d0p1s:a, /dev/sda1, h0,0,1 or multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1). Then lean primitive commands like map, remap, hide, find, offset, root, boot, kernel and setup.

I never knew anything except SCSI because SCSI was easy and friendly due to being shared bus system with its addressing manually setup by controller slot and jumper pins on target. Of course I was charmed by new generation WD VelociRaptor SATA II disks which boot Windows XP faster than 15000RPM Seagate Cheetah 15.5 series drives. But I trust more familiar SCSI a lot more. SCSI has never given me any headache for past 15 years in any OS arising out from driver issue.

Economic interest was not build into hardware enumeration hierarchy until 486 or even early P5. Pci/ven code started to appear in Windows registry after P5 era. Windows block device mapping has no logical relation to physical device mapping e.g., c0t0d0p0s:b (hba ID, target ID, disk ID, partition ID, slice ID) which makes more sense over Windows device vendor signature based mapping perhaps arising from its economic interests.

What a bitter world has it become! It can possibly mean that if a hardware manufacturer wasn’t nice enough to software giants then the hardware manufacturer can be easily killed by deprived of sales unless the manufacturer was independently powerful as Hitachi, NEC, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony, Siemens and like. Sadly IBM, Sun and Apple have slightly lost their level of freedom and power comparable to Sony in the past 8 years. Lets give them chances to restore themselves in the next 8 years!

Long Live the MSFN to succeed in its unbiased altruistic mission!
Long Live Windows NT and 9X!


Pinecloud

#165
Analada

Analada

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Joined 10-December 06
Thanks firstly for the info on this thread.

The BIOS is also a crucial issue AFAICT....

Found a free utility that says it will tell you if your BIOS supports 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA). Not tried it yet, though.

http://www.48bitlba....infodetails.htm

Note the free version is for those with a floppy disk drive which I guess covers most of us here.

#166
Analada

Analada

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Joined 10-December 06

Thanks firstly for the info on this thread.

The BIOS is also a crucial issue AFAICT....

Found a free utility that says it will tell you if your BIOS supports 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA). Not tried it yet, though.

http://www.48bitlba....infodetails.htm

Note the free version is for those with a floppy disk drive which I guess covers most of us here.

HUMM....Just tried the freeware version. Doesn't do much -- just a demo! :realmad: (contrariwise to what appears to be stated on website). But I guess it might be worthwhile to pay for the full version rather than risk an unnecessary BIOS upgrade. What do you think?



#167
Marius '95

Marius '95

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined 12-January 06
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag
Update the BIOS. Only old computers (like K6-2) don't support 48bit LBA.
Just in case you need a backup BIOS, buy another chip and hot-swap it just before writing the new image. ;)

#168
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,017 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Hotswapping BIOS chips is not for the faint of heart, though... :whistle:
There is a definite chance of deep frying both BIOS chips during the procedure!
YMMV, of course, but I think this warning is warranted. Read well about it before atempting it.

#169
Analada

Analada

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Joined 10-December 06

Hotswapping BIOS chips is not for the faint of heart, though... :whistle:
There is a definite chance of deep frying both BIOS chips during the procedure!
YMMV, of course, but I think this warning is warranted. Read well about it before atempting it.


Perhaps someone might know...

BIOS in question is: Award BIOS v6.00PG. Not been able to find out if it supports >137GB.

While I'm on this topic I'm also a bit puzzled about the 137GB fix (software), Esdi_506.pdr, and the version that's installed: File Version 4.10.2230 (product version 4.10.2222). Is that correct for 98SE2ME.

#170
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,657 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
@Analada

Here:
http://www.intel.com...b/cs-009302.htm

Intel® Application Accelerator
48-bit LBA Test Program for Windows* Me/98 SE/98




The MS-DOS*-based 48-bit LBA test program below can be used on systems running Windows* Millennium Edition (Me), Windows* 98 SE, or Windows* 98 to determine if the BIOS is capable of supporting hard drives larger than 137GB (48-bit LBA). The program will provide one of the following results:
PASSED - BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable. No additional steps required.
FAILED - BIOS is currently not 48-bit LBA capable. BIOS update needed.
UNDETERMINED - Test program is not able to determine if BIOS is 48-bit LBA capable.
The 48-bit LBA test program was designed to run in a true MS-DOS environment - not an MS-DOS prompt window. (Instructions for running the program in true MS-DOS can be found at the bottom of this page). Running this test program from an MS-DOS prompt from within Windows Me, Windows 98 SE or Windows 98 may work but you may see some irregularities and formatting issues.
Download the Intel 48-bit LBA Test Program [EXE]
File Name: 48lbachk.exe
Size: 33,860 bytes
Date: 11/14/02


Note: Due to the current BIOS architecture, you will need to have a hard drive larger than 137GB installed on your system before running this test program. Otherwise, the following error message will appear: "We cannot determine whether your BIOS is 48-bit LBA capable, because you currently do not have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed."


jaclaz

#171
pinecloud

pinecloud

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 17 posts
  • Joined 07-December 08
Really looking forward to use UNIATA 9X – Universal ATA & SATA driver Windows 9X version. I know it is much more work than writing a kernel mode driver.

I am very much puzzled by disk controller driver scheme that Windows 9X uses. I am just a photographer/graphic artist and I do not have background and knowledge to solve my problem.

I really wonder what I am doing wrong? Maybe I have incompatible ios.vxd? There are few disk/controller drivers posted in MSFN here but none of them seems to bail my Dell system out from DOS compatibility mode disk access nor can I access DVD Rom either.

I thought that I had to have upgrade files by pair when it comes to disk controller under Windows 9x. User driver core like xxxx.mpd or xxxx.pdr and a modified interrupt hook like ios.vxd or ios.386.

:thumbup Universal ATA kernel mode driver for Windows NT (a.k.a., UNIATA.SYS) really has been a greatest saviour. It solved my problem on Windows NT immediately on my Dell. You do not need *.vxd files for Windows NT that does not have to load from real mode once passed stage 1.5 (ntdetect.com) and stage 2 (ntldr.bin).

This Dell is the first system in my life that come with SATA II/ATA133 bus. I have built at least 25 systems in the past 20 years for myself and friends but always with SCSI bus after 1995. I did use ESDI controllers and disks built by Control Data Corporation until 1995 because ESDI bus was already 16 bit (about 12MB/sec in 1990) whereas SCSI remained 8 bit bus (about 3 - 5MB/sec). Transition from ESDI to Wide SCSI (20MB/sec in 1996) was nothing difficult since both relied on physical jumper pins.

I understand that “You get what you pay for”. SATA and ATA133 controllers comes almost free when you buy a system or motherboard since they are just some “bonus multifunction controller segments” built into south bridge i82801G, GB, GH so called multifunction port 27xx devices compared to hundreds of dollars invest in SCSI HBA.

When I built a computer in the past, typically I used two SCSI controllers per system. One GDT86xx series with an Intel i80303 from Germany and an Adaptec 39160. This type of set-up, you can browse internet, print a digital photo, burn CDR all at the same time without interfering each operation on Solaris or Linux or Windows NT (sometimes have infamous JAVA stall happens on NT just like on Windows XP). You can not do this with Windows XP even on newer Dell with dual core mini-tower machine. The drawback of home built system is very costly, heavy and creates a lot of heat in the summer.

Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 SE have been particularly difficult to install in an USB2.0 and PCI-E system such as this Dell Dimension Dual Core on 945 chipset.

These two OS are most difficult to install on SATA. I had to temporarily set a SCSI card 39160 and put SCSI disk in channel A bus and CDROM in Channel B bus, start with 640x480 old 4 bit VGA colour. Then I transferred on to SATA II Drives. I have succeeded making Nvidia PCI-E card and USB Hub to work successfully both on Windows NT and 98 SE. I still have disk access problem only on Windows 98. Phoenix BIOS is dated 2007 and has no problem on any other operating system except Windows 98.

My problem is particularly deeper since I have to protect other partitions where Windows NT 4.0, Windows XP, BSD Unix 4.3, Solaris 10, Debian Linux and SUSE 11 already installed and working and some of them are sharing applications and data quite competently.

Intel seem to be influenced by at least one of software giants not to provide legacy OS drivers for their newer motherboard/chipset. You can still build up ground work manually to make PCI-E video and USB Hub to install even on 900 Series Chipset using still available 800 Series driver. You do need a Windows 2000 or XP to make screen capture shots of memory address port maps and IRQ displayed on device manager and then PCI/VEN device port codes from Hkey Local Machine Enum MF and PCI branches of registry taken from working Windows 2000 and then manually enter by hand on Windows 98 SE whose ground work already built by lower class drivers (i.e., 845 and 915 classes) up to 945 or 965 class. You also have to disassemble 965 class driver so that you can get PCI/VEN port information such as North 244XX South 27XX. With Brute Force effort, I succeed on Video and USB Hub. I can use USB memory disk both on NT 4.0 and Windows 98 SE.

Dell Dimension Minitower
Intel 945, Socket 775, Dual Core, XP installed at factory
82801GB/GH/GR ATA/SATA II/RAID (I do not care for this kind of fake RAID)
nvidia 6600GT PCI-E
WD VelociRapror 300GB (278GiB) x 2
Seagate Barracuda ES2 1.0TB (954GiB)
Philips DVD-R x 1,
SB Audigy PCI

pinecloud

Edited by pinecloud, 13 December 2008 - 10:48 PM.


#172
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,017 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

While I'm on this topic I'm also a bit puzzled about the 137GB fix (software), Esdi_506.pdr, and the version that's installed: File Version 4.10.2230 (product version 4.10.2222). Is that correct for 98SE2ME.


I answered that question here. If you wish to have a full view of the history behind the version numbers conundrum, and have time for it, do read the whole original LLXX topic.

#173
Analada

Analada

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Joined 10-December 06

While I'm on this topic I'm also a bit puzzled about the 137GB fix (software), Esdi_506.pdr, and the version that's installed: File Version 4.10.2230 (product version 4.10.2222). Is that correct for 98SE2ME.


I answered that question here. If you wish to have a full view of the history behind the version numbers conundrum, and have time for it, do read the whole original LLXX topic.

Many thanks! I guess this is/will be one of the most important updates as smaller capacity HDDs seem to be hard to find now, at least in UK.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users