LLXX

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!

443 posts in this topic

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

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.