• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
LLXX

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!

443 posts in this topic

so whats this do for my 40G drive?

Will it speed things up?

ATA133

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info, guys.

I did notice the 4.0b change, but that's only for internal use, the actual iexpress INF update won't take in account the product version, only the file version.

Edit:

The product version should not be changed, 4.0 means the Win95/98/ME/NT4 line of OSes.

There is no such thing as 4.0b WinOS.

2000 is product line 5.0, XP/2003 is 5.1 and Vista will probably be 5.2 or 6.0 [?].

And the file version must always be newer [larger number] than the previous release [M$ came up with that rule], so the INF installer can overwrite the older file with the newer one.

IMHO, I strongly recommend to use 4.10.2225 [the most compatible so far, and already has all up-to-date patches] to create the 48-bit LBA driver.

The original 4.10.2222 has bugs, which were already fixed by M$ in 4.10.2223, 4.10.2225 + 4.10.2226 [you can leave the last one aside, because that fix applies strictly to IBM portables].

If you patched the buggy 4.10.2222, the fixes implemented by M$ in 2223 + 2225 would be lost, and that's not a good thing. :(

And, besides, proper patching should be cumulative. ;)

So, LLXX, if possible, at your convenience, let me know if you can patch 4.10.2225.

And you can name it whatever you wish, as long as it's above 2226.

Thanks.

Edited by MDGx
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:thumbup excellent work llxx and mdgx it just goes to show there no end to the 98se still alive drive.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please make one for Windows Millenium ? Please please... ? :angel, I have a 160 GB hard drive but don't have 98SE only Millenium...

Here's my ESDI_506.PDR (attached):

Windows ME was going to be next. It's coming :)

4.90.3000 is now fixed and ready for download. That didn't take long :)
So, LLXX, if possible, at your convenience, let me know if you can patch 4.10.2225.

And you can name it whatever you wish, as long as it's above 2226.

Will do. You can manage the versions when you package it, though I recommend 4.10.2230. Edited by LLXX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.1 is now available.

So, LLXX, if possible, at your convenience, let me know if you can patch 4.10.2225.
Done :thumbup
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much, going to test now !!! :D:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LLXX, You've amazed me - not only did you have one version done, but managed to get three different releases working in a short time. Good work. Now if only I had a way to test it, but alas, all my systems run XP or have small hdd's (I have a 98SE box with a bunch of 4-18GB SCSI drives, but not anything over that size).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing the first one was the difficult part, since I had to analyze the existing code and figure out how to integrate the new code. After that, it was mostly copy+paste with a hex editor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so whats this do for my 40G drive?

Will it speed things up?

ATA133

bump

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kartel, no, this is only for drives larger than 132gb and preventing data corruption.

LLXX, great piece of work, now I can get drives bigger 120gb :thumbup

Edited by randiroo76073
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing work. I tested the WIN ME Edition of ESDI_506.pdr on a 6.4GB drive (HP Vectra VL 6/400 with PHOENIX BIOS 4.0), it doesn't cause corruption on drives <128GB as it seems. Everything works fine until now. But i have to try with something bigger than 128GB...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, according to your suggested versioning, I think the following may be appropriate:

4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2227

4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2228

4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2229

4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2230

4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2231

I know I'm probably too late here but I think it would be better to change the version numbers like this...

4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2232

4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2233

4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2234

4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2235

4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2236

Two reasons:

1) there might actually be a 2227 or higher build in the wild that we don't know about so jumping by 10 leaves a gap for safety.

2) the last digit stays the same so you can easily tell what the original version was

Just for reference, there's a wiki page on microsoft version numbering...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Version_Number

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally agree that a 1 version increment is all that is required. (2225 should be changed to 2227 as a 2226 version already exists).

For example:

2186 (98FE)-2187

2225/2226 (98SE)-2227

3000 (ME)-3001

Can you edit the version for 98FE (4.10.2186, same hotfix as 4.10.2225)?

the_guy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally agree that a 1 version increment is all that is required. (2225 should be changed to 2227 as a 2226 version already exists).

For example:

2186 (98FE)-2187

2225/2226 (98SE)-2227

3000 (ME)-3001

Can you edit the version for 98FE (4.10.2186, same hotfix as 4.10.2225)?

the_guy

yea LLXX, let's not forget Win98 FE systems. there are still a few users out there stuck with Win98 first edition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally agree that a 1 version increment is all that is required. (2225 should be changed to 2227 as a 2226 version already exists).

For example:

2186 (98FE)-2187

2225/2226 (98SE)-2227

3000 (ME)-3001

Can you edit the version for 98FE (4.10.2186, same hotfix as 4.10.2225)?

the_guy

I agree with you

Too many versions gonna get confusing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm probably too late here but I think it would be better to change the version numbers like this...

4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2232

4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2233

4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2234

4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2235

4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2236

Two reasons:

1) there might actually be a 2227 or higher build in the wild that we don't know about so jumping by 10 leaves a gap for safety.

2) the last digit stays the same so you can easily tell what the original version was

Just for reference, there's a wiki page on microsoft version numbering...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Version_Number

I've searched the internets, there is no official ESDI_506.PDR version 4.10.2227. That version number is currently used for the fixed 4.10.2222. Fixed version of 4.10.2225 will be 4.10.2230. Adding 5 to the version number isn't that confusing...

BTW I've also fixed 4.10.2001 (Windows 98FE). I haven't found 4.10.2186 yet.

(Someone may want to provide more information on First Edition versioning so an appropriate scheme for the new files can be implemented.)

Edited by LLXX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

version 4.10.2186 is included with kb243450. Direct Download Link here.

Also, I know 4.10.2222 patched is 4.10.2227. Why not make 4.10.2225 patched 4.10.2228? Also, the 98FE version should be made 4.10.2187. Just my opinion.

the_guy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've searched the internets, there is no official ESDI_506.PDR version 4.10.2227. That version number is currently used for the fixed 4.10.2222. Fixed version of 4.10.2225 will be 4.10.2230. Adding 5 to the version number isn't that confusing...

It is extremely confusing because all Microsoft hotfixes are cumulative, it means higher minor version number contains all fixes from the lower version number. The proposed numbering breaks this rule. See

General information about Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition hotfixes

Multiple fixes can be applied to the same component. With a few rare exceptions, these fixes are always cumulative. A change implemented in a given version of a particular component is also included in later versions of that component, along with any additional change implemented in the later versions. (For example, version 4.10.2224 is going to contain the change implemented in version 4.10.2223, as well as the new change.)

The cumulative nature of these changes, combined with the incremented version numbers, means that, with very few exceptions, there is always one current version of a given component that contains all fixes made to that component to date.

General information about Windows Millennium Edition hotfixes

contains the same statement.

My suggestion is to modify version 4.10.2225 only (forget about 4.10.2222, nobody needs it), and name it 4.10.1.2225. 4.10.2226 could be 4.10.1.2226 if anybody needs it. 4.10.2186 could be 4.10.1.2186 and 4.90.3000 could be 4.90.1.3000.

This would clearly indicate different versions branch for drivers with LLXX's patch.

But - it is nice to discuss about the version numbers but nobody verified 100% functionality on different disks and with different chipsets yet. This is much more important.

Petr

Edited by Petr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've searched the internets, there is no official ESDI_506.PDR version 4.10.2227. That version number is currently used for the fixed 4.10.2222. Fixed version of 4.10.2225 will be 4.10.2230. Adding 5 to the version number isn't that confusing...

It is extremely confusing because all Microsoft hotfixes are cumulative, it means higher minor version number contains all fixes from the lower version number. The proposed numbering breaks this rule. See

General information about Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition hotfixes

Multiple fixes can be applied to the same component. With a few rare exceptions, these fixes are always cumulative. A change implemented in a given version of a particular component is also included in later versions of that component, along with any additional change implemented in the later versions. (For example, version 4.10.2224 is going to contain the change implemented in version 4.10.2223, as well as the new change.)

The cumulative nature of these changes, combined with the incremented version numbers, means that, with very few exceptions, there is always one current version of a given component that contains all fixes made to that component to date.

General information about Windows Millennium Edition hotfixes

contains the same statement.

My suggestion is to modify version 4.10.2225 only (forget about 4.10.2222, nobody needs it), and name it 4.10.1.2225. 4.10.2226 could be 4.10.1.2226 if anybody needs it. 4.10.2186 could be 4.10.1.2186 and 4.90.3000 could be 4.90.1.3000.

This would clearly indicate different versions branch for drivers with LLXX's patch.

But - it is nice to discuss about the version numbers but nobody verified 100% functionality on different disks and with different chipsets yet. This is much more important.

Petr

I don't agree about Version numbering not being first priority. We must assist that we don't get any confusing numbering in testing phase.

I didn't know about the extra digit that could also get placed before the buildnumber. I definetely vote for this numbering method :thumbup

About testing. I'm already backing up my stuff right now, before I can run some tests on my system with 250 GB UDMA-6 HDD.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of stupid question but here goes:

#1 What driver version is for 98se?

#2 Is this meant to be integrated into the source?

#3 How can I address the issue in fdisk where there is a limit of @8gigs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know about the extra digit that could also get placed before the buildnumber. I definetely vote for this numbering method :thumbup

There are two occurences of the vesrion number in the version resource.

The first is string type and there may be written anything, including any text details about the build, for example hhctrl.ocx has "5.2.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447)" in this field, and standard Windows 98 SE files have 4.10.2222 here. Maybe we can have here something like "4.10.2227 (LLXX 060722-0001)" to identify clearly the origin and detail version of the file - I think there may be many different builds of the same file.

The second is binary version number and it consists from 4 16-bit number, it means this version number may be in the range 0.0.0.0 - 65535.65535.65335.65335. Standard Windows 98 SE files have 4.10.0.2222 here.

Strange thing is with Windows Me files, most files have binary version number 4.90.0.3000 but some of them don't follow this rule:

4.90.3001.0	1394BUS.SYS
4.90.3001.0 ARP1394.SYS
4.90.3001.0 ATMUNI.SYS
4.90.3001.0 IPHLPAPI.DLL
4.90.3001.0 PORTCLS.SYS
4.90.3001.0 SYSAUDIO.SYS
4.90.3001.0 USBAUDIO.SYS
4.90.3002.0 HIDSERV.EXE
4.90.3002.0 SBP2PORT.SYS
4.90.3002.0 USBHUB.SYS
4.90.3002.0 WIASERVC.DLL
4.90.3003.0 61883.SYS
4.90.3003.0 SSDPAPI.DLL
4.90.3003.0 SSDPSRV.EXE
4.90.3003.0 UPNP.DLL
4.90.3004.0 OHCI1394.SYS

but most of the files in mesp follow the a.m. rule:

4.90.0.3000	VNETBIOS.VXD
4.90.0.3001 CCPORT.SYS
4.90.0.3001 CDFS.VXD
4.90.0.3001 DISKVSD.VXD
4.90.0.3001 DOSMGR.VXD
4.90.0.3001 GDI.EXE
4.90.0.3001 GDI32.DLL
4.90.0.3001 HSFLOP.PDR
4.90.0.3001 IRENUM.VXD
4.90.0.3001 MARSCORE.DLL
4.90.0.3001 MMSYS.CPL
4.90.0.3001 MSConfig.exe
4.90.0.3001 NETDI.DLL
4.90.0.3001 NETPPTP.SYS
4.90.0.3001 PPPATM.SYS
4.90.0.3001 RT.SYS
4.90.0.3001 SCSIPORT.PDR
4.90.0.3001 SYSDM.CPL
4.90.0.3001 SYSTEM.DRV
4.90.0.3001 UDF.VXD
4.90.0.3001 USBMON.DLL
4.90.0.3001 USER.EXE
4.90.0.3001 USER32.DLL
4.90.0.3001 VFAT.VXD
4.90.0.3001 VKD.VXD
4.90.0.3002 CONFIGMG.VXD
4.90.0.3002 KMIXER.SYS
4.90.0.3002 PCCARD.VXD
4.90.0.3002 SERENUM.VXD
4.90.0.3002 SYSTRAY.EXE
4.90.0.3002 VSERVER.VXD
4.90.0.3003 ACPI.SYS
4.90.0.3003 CBSS.VXD
4.90.0.3003 CDVSD.VXD
4.90.0.3003 IFSMGR.VXD
4.90.0.3003 NWLINK.VXD
4.90.0.3003 PCI.VXD
4.90.0.3003 SMgr.dll
4.90.0.3003 VMOUSE.VXD
4.90.0.3003 WDMAUD.SYS
4.90.0.3004 HCUPDATE.EXE
4.90.0.3004 HelpCtr.exe
4.90.0.3004 IOS.VXD
4.90.0.3004 PCHSETUP.EXE
4.90.0.3005 NTKERN.VXD
4.90.0.3007 VPOWERD.VXD
4.90.0.3007 VREDIR.VXD

There in no similar confusion for Windows 98 and 98SE - with one exception only:

4.10.2223.0	RNR20.DLL

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couple of stupid question but here goes:

#1 What driver version is for 98se?

#2 Is this meant to be integrated into the source?

#3 How can I address the issue in fdisk where there is a limit of @8gigs?

Never mind I figured out all 3

#1 had to download 3 packs but I got the right one.

#2 Yup it sure is integrate-able.

#3 SuperFdisk!!! w00t!

I now have a win98 installed on a 200 gig drive from the beginning!

What would be the QUICKEST way to fill 130 gigs of space?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would be the QUICKEST way to fill 130 gigs of space?

Copy stuff over until you reach this point. I usually do tar nearly 2GB of files and then copy it over until I reach the limit I want.

Unfortunately I can't test myself ATM.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My suggestion is to modify version 4.10.2225 only (forget about 4.10.2222, nobody needs it), and name it 4.10.1.2225. 4.10.2226 could be 4.10.1.2226 if anybody needs it. 4.10.2186 could be 4.10.1.2186 and 4.90.3000 could be 4.90.1.3000.

This would clearly indicate different versions branch for drivers with LLXX's patch.

FWIW, I too vote for this method of numbering LLXX's patch. Of all the schemes suggested so far, it is the least presumptuous, the least complicated and the least confusing, given the number of versions ESDI_506.PDR being patched and renumbered (when I say the "least presumptuous", I mean that if an official 4.10.2227 did show up [not likely, I know], then this method easily deals with it and avoids replicated numbering).

At the same time, this method clearly sets apart LLXX's patches from the official versions, but also produces no uncertainty about which patch corresponds to which official version. As Petr again pointed out, maybe the string type field can be used by LLXX to add some kind of identification for his patches, too.

LLXX - thanks, I can't wait to try it. You've done 9x a great turn. :)

Edited by bristols
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
#3 How can I address the issue in fdisk where there is a limit of @8gigs?

Here you can find corrected version of FDISK http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?kbid=263044. I have tried it with 250 GB disk, it works but has a display bug for disks and partitions bigger than 99 GB.

Or you can use any 3rd part too, I use Ranish Partition Manager.

Petr

Edited by Petr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.