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

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
442 replies to this topic

#26
kartel

kartel

    Cartel Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined 18-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
so whats this do for my 40G drive?

Will it speed things up?

ATA133
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX (BIOS 1208) AMD Phenom II X6 1090T G.Skill F3-10666CL7-4GBXH 16GB Sapphire Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 HT Omega Claro Plus Windows 7 x64 ADSL 6Mbps APC Back UPS XS1000 CPU validated GPU validated


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
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, 20 July 2006 - 12:15 PM.


#28
wizardofwindows

wizardofwindows

    Wizard of Windows

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Joined 17-June 05
:thumbup excellent work llxx and mdgx it just goes to show there no end to the 98se still alive drive.

#29
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

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


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, 20 July 2006 - 12:56 PM.


#30
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

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

#31
n7Epsilon

n7Epsilon

    Currently Learning: C#, JavaScript, PHP

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Joined 11-February 05
Thank you so much, going to test now !!! :D :D

#32
jimmsta

jimmsta

    computer janitor

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined 04-May 05
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
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).
Creator and Maintainer of BootZilla.org

#33
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

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

#34
kartel

kartel

    Cartel Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined 18-October 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

so whats this do for my 40G drive?

Will it speed things up?

ATA133



bump
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX (BIOS 1208) AMD Phenom II X6 1090T G.Skill F3-10666CL7-4GBXH 16GB Sapphire Radeon HD 6970 2GB GDDR5 HT Omega Claro Plus Windows 7 x64 ADSL 6Mbps APC Back UPS XS1000 CPU validated GPU validated

#35
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Joined 18-February 05
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, 21 July 2006 - 01:31 AM.


#36
Guest_ABC32_*

Guest_ABC32_*
  • Guests
  • Joined --
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...

#37
krick

krick

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined 25-October 04

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...._Version_Number

#38
the_guy

the_guy

    Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined 15-July 05
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
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
Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack.

#39
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

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.

#40
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#41
LLXX

LLXX

    MSFN Junkie

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

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...._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, 21 July 2006 - 02:34 PM.


#42
the_guy

the_guy

    Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined 15-July 05
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
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
Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack.

#43
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Joined 15-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 22 July 2006 - 02:53 AM.


#44
Acheron

Acheron

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined 28-June 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag


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.
Say no to bloatware. Download Nero Lite!

#45
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,845 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
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?

#46
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Joined 15-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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

#47
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,845 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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?

#48
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05

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.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#49
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined 24-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 22 July 2006 - 07:17 AM.


#50
Petr

Petr

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Joined 15-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

#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.micro...spx?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, 22 July 2006 - 09:15 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users