[Petr]

it_ybd, on Jun 6 2005, 08:47 PM, said:

Quote

Yes, I have tested fully patched system, i.e. with updated FDISK

Is there a link/download avaliable on the microsoft site? Can you post it [link] please?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263044

Petr

This post has been edited by Petr: 06 June 2005 - 01:12 PM

[Petr]

Few new observations:
GA-586HX (Intel 430HX chipset) BIOS won't boot with WD2000JB enabled, it freezes during disk detection. If I disable the disk, big surprise, Windows 98 SE will detect it and shows the right capacity! Strange thing - how can Windows find disabled disk?

Maybe the XBIOS is installed on the HDD? I have no idea. Some information is here: http://support.micro....com/kb/126855/

One problem - since the disk is disabled, BIOS does not set the right timing of the disk. There may be the solution to limit the maximum LBA by WD LifeGuard tools, I have not tested it.

I have also found an explanation of the scandisk for Windows limit: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;184006

The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).

Dskmaint.dll is 16-bit so probably no chance to overcome this limit.

Petr

[randiroo76073]

So, from this, I gather am better off using 120gb hdds and below to avoid possible data corruption from scandisk or defrag?

[Petr]

randiroo76073, on Jun 6 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

So, from this, I gather am better off using 120gb hdds and below to avoid possible data corruption from scandisk or defrag?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your BIOS and disk controller driver support 48-bit LBA, you should just use partition size below 136 GB (127 GiB).

Petr

[randiroo76073]

Petr, on Jun 7 2005, 12:15 AM, said:

If your BIOS and disk controller driver support 48-bit LBA, you should just use partition size below 136 GB (127 GiB).
Petr
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you Petr for further enlightenment

[eidenk]

eidenk, on May 24 2005, 11:54 PM, said:

If you want some more details such as inspecting the FAT, just tell me what I must do to copy it to a file.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have found an easy to use Windows GUI soft that does this (between other things). It is a professional grade forensic software and it is apparently free.

FTK Imager

[azagahl]

I have a 63 GiB partition on a 100 GB drive. This partiton has about 40 GB of files on it. This partition is much smaller than the claimed Scandskw (Windows ScanDisk) limit of 127 GiB.

Scandskw fails with an out of memory error when trying to scan this partition. I have 1 GB of RAM, so this error is bogus. It's Windows ME Scandisk too, since I installed 98SE2ME.

In DOS mode, SCANDISK.EXE works much better.

[Rostock]

A very nice fdisk is here.
I've use this fdisk on a 160Gb hard-disk (Western Digital) without problems. In fact, the complete configuration was: 2x160Gb SATA hd in mirror on an Abit IC7-G motherboard...

[ack-hh]

azagahl, on Jun 26 2005, 08:59 PM, said:

I have a 63 GiB partition on a 100 GB drive. This partiton has about 40 GB of files on it.
This partition is much smaller than the claimed Scandskw (Windows ScanDisk) limit of 127 GiB.

Scandskw fails with an out of memory error when trying to scan this partition. I have 1 GB of RAM, so this error is bogus.
It's Windows ME Scandisk too, since I installed 98SE2ME.

From http://support.micro...b/229154/EN-US/ :

This problem may occur if either of the following conditions is true:
• You are running Windows on a hard disk that is larger than 8 gigabytes (GB)
and that has a cluster size that is smaller than 8 kilobytes (KB).

This configuration may occur if you use a third-party disk tool to create a partition
on a hard disk that is larger than 8 GB and that has a cluster size that is smaller
than 8 KB.

-or-
• You are running Windows on a very large hard disk that has a default Windows
cluster size of 32 KB.

[erpdude8]

Here's a nice FAQ page from the Hitachi Global Storage Technologies web site on 137Gb hard drives:
http://www.hitachigs...ort/hddfaqs.htm

The faq does mention Intel Application Accelerator [IAA]. IAA can only work with Intel Pentium 3 or Pentium 4 CPUs with Intel 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA or 82801DB Controllers as noted in its Readme.txt file. If your system is not using any ONE of the four Intel controllers, then IAA will not work, nor will it get installed.
Latest version is 2.3. Hasn't been updated for a few years.

Intel Application Accelerator v2.3 readme file:
ftp://aiedownload.in.../ENG/readme.txt
Release notes:
ftp://aiedownload.intel.com/df-support/48.../Release_23.htm

[erpdude8]

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.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 01 July 2005 - 10:03 AM

[CLASYS]

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!]

[erpdude8]

MDGx, on May 31 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

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.

Petr said:

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://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df...*%20Me&lang=eng

[Petr]

erpdude8, on Jul 2 2005, 04:27 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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

[karlk]

Petr, on Jun 6 2005, 06:13 AM, said:

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.

[MDGx]

karlk, on Jul 2 2005, 02:07 AM, said:

Petr, on Jun 6 2005, 06:13 AM, said:

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

[MDGx]

erpdude8, on Jul 1 2005, 08:27 PM, said:

MDGx, on May 31 2005, 07:31 AM, said:

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

[RJARRRPCGP]

Petr, on Jun 6 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

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.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Maybe a new free driver should just be written from scratch!

[Lunac]

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.

Quote

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.

This post has been edited by Lunac: 09 July 2005 - 04:33 PM