[LLXX]

Eck, on Jan 20 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

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

[Telop]

rloew, on May 31 2005, 10:15 PM, said:

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

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Do you realize your answering a 3 year old post?!?!?

[pinecloud]

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

[Analada]

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.

[Analada]

Analada, on Dec 11 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

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! (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?

[Marius '95]

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.

[dencorso]

Hotswapping BIOS chips is not for the faint of heart, though...
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.

[Analada]

dencorso, on Dec 11 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

Hotswapping BIOS chips is not for the faint of heart, though...
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.

[jaclaz]

@Analada

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

Quote

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

[pinecloud]

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.

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

This post has been edited by pinecloud: 13 December 2008 - 10:48 PM

[dencorso]

Analada, on Dec 12 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

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.

[Analada]

dencorso, on Dec 15 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

Analada, on Dec 12 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

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.