[Mijzelf]

xrayer, on Mar 19 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Mijzelf, on Jan 12 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

Did you know that the 1.44MB floppy size is 1.44 * 1024 * 1000 bytes?

I think foppy size is derived from its physical geometry, so you should write 80*18*2*512 = 1474560 instead meaningless 1.44*1024*1000 even if the result is same.

1.44*1000*1024 is not meaningless. It's historical grown. The predecessor was a 720kB (720*1024) floppy. This floppy size was exactly doubled, making a 1440kB floppy, in short 1.44MB. This should have been 1.406MB, of course, but how could the marketor say he doubled the size of the '720', and then sell you a floppy which is not twice as big?

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Mijzelf, on Mar 20 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

1.44*1000*1024 is not meaningless. It's historical grown. The predecessor was a 720kB (720*1024) floppy. This floppy size was exactly doubled, making a 1440kB floppy, in short 1.44MB. This should have been 1.406MB, of course, but how could the marketor say he doubled the size of the '720', and then sell you a floppy which is not twice as big?

Uh... The 1.44 meg floppy is actually 1.38MB, not 1.40. That of course, if you're not using a hacked filesystem.

[Mijzelf]

?
A standard 1.44MB floppy has 2 sides, 18 sectors/track, 80 tracks and 512 bytes/sector. This gives 2*18*80*512 bytes = 1474560 bytes, which is 1.40625 MiB.
Maybe it has a formatted size of 1.38 (MB? MiB?), but the used filesystem is not a part of the floppy specification.

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Mijzelf, on Mar 20 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

?
A standard 1.44MB floppy has 2 sides, 18 sectors/track, 80 tracks and 512 bytes/sector. This gives 2*18*80*512 bytes = 1474560 bytes, which is 1.40625 MiB.
Maybe it has a formatted size of 1.38 (MB? MiB?), but the used filesystem is not a part of the floppy specification.

Yes, the formatted size is 1.38MiB (FAT12). Maybe it's not part of the spec, but since when did we care about anything but usable capacities of our drives?

It's the same as saying that a 305GiB drive is actually 320GiB (the marketed capacity).

This post has been edited by Th3_uN1Qu3: 21 March 2008 - 04:06 PM

[jkenterprises]

awergh, on Jan 10 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

my though about GB instead of GB was that Seagate got sued recently, but maybe they haven't put the right amounts yet.

well i did have a bsod about vmm or something recently so I'm not sure i re cloned the drive from the GB, and i decided to do what i intend which is 120gb partion and 29gb for other os or something, but I'm only at 9gb full of 20gb because i decided not to use MAKE2GB for some reason

I hope this doesn't cause any trouble. But just for informational purposes, as follows. When you format a 160 Gig hd, E.G., it takes approx.. 10 Gigs to format it. And yes windows does use the method where it looks as disk space the same as memory, i.e. : 1024 instead of 1000. Which as was stated earlier reads space as smaller than if you read it from DOS, which uses the actual byte size. Also if you use NTFS (XP not the older ver.s, it uses 2k clusters. NTFS used to use 64k.) So if you put a 1k file in a 2k cluster it takes up 2k. Fat32 uses 32k clusters if the partition is over 16 Gig.s. So if you put a 1k file there it = 32k. on the HD. Only 1 file will fit in a cluster. You can make the cluster size littler with fat32 but if you exceed the DOS limits of to many clusters, there will be problems with data, scandisk, ext. I don't want to sound like a know it all, I AM NOT!!! The longer I work on computers the more I learn. I have been working on computers since the before original Intel 80086 chip came out. I still have computers with these chips. (They were called XT computers instead of AT.) I also still have "Billy Boy Gates" original DOS (Ver.1) He purchased DOS from another programmer for $5,000. He had to adapt it to work with the Intel chips. He named it DOS for Disk Operating System. He licensed DOS to IBM before he even knew of the OS. He went & found DOS after he licensed it. He is the worlds greatest salesman!!! (For the true story of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, MS & Apple read the book "Fire in the Valley", or watch the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, which was made from the book, as a "T.N.T. original" (Ted Turner's Turner Network Television.) If you've read this far I am sure you have guessed I am "Older than Old". (I am 49 years old, & have a loving wife of 20 years, & a 15 year old daughter.) I work mainly on networking & trouble shooting computers, mainly for commercial accounts. New computers are as "disposable as BIC lighters". I am writing this message on a 2000 HP Vectra Business computer with a 650 MHz. PIII. It works as good as the day I bought it. (I paid $2000 for the computer, monitor, mouse, speakers, ext.) It will still be working 20 years from now. (I have several 20 year old computers that still function perfect.) Once again I am not a know it all. I have paid my dues though. I learned computers in 1979 at our local community college. (There were only mainframe computers then, no PC.s) The "state of the art OS was Unix, which of course is what Linux was derived from. There is not much call for Unix or Linux programmers these days. Anyway, enough nostalgia! I hope to be a valuable part of this forum & to keep learning from all of you! I think this is a nice forum! I am happy to have found it. Cheers to all!

This post has been edited by Gape: 24 March 2008 - 11:45 AM

[dtamonis]

I want to fill my 320 gig hard drive with that copy2gb utility, but the download link is broken. Where can I get it (or a similar utility)?

On the other hand, maybe I don't need it? I partitioned this drive into three partitions - 100, 100, 120 gigs, respectively, and copied all the data from the old 80 gig drive. Now, as I understand, the whole E: partition is beyond the 137 gig limit and it is filled with more than 40 gigs of data. Scandisk runs on the whole three partitions without any error. Of course, it's best to fill the disk completely just to be sure.

One more thing: I installed version 2226 because this was the latest version, but I noticed now that it's for IBM laptops, and I'm on a desktop PC. Does that mean I installed the wrong version and I should replace it by 2225?

[galahs]

mate Gapes service pach has the 2225 fix in it
http://www.msfn.org/...A-1-t61749.html


yes you should be using 2225


Don't even use the 2nd partition before adding the patch. You will get data corruption!!!

[dtamonis]

galahs, on Mar 30 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

yes you should be using 2225

I wonder, what's the difference between 2225 and 2226? I installed 2226 because it was the latest and had the most downloads. So far, it seems to be working fine, I have nearly 70 gigs of data written on my 3rd partition which is all beyond the limit, and no data corruption occured. Drive C: now is 100 gigs large with 15 gigs filled, so it should have been affected if 48bit LBA wasn't working properly.

However, if you say that 2225 should be used, I'll download that and replace the 2226 version with it.

Quote

Don't even use the 2nd partition before adding the patch. You will get data corruption!!!

Thanks for the warning, I appreciate that, but there's no need to worry as I still have all my data on the old drive put safely on the shelf. I really value my data, that's why I've been reading this forum for two years and only now decided to upgrade the HDD. I first applied the patch while I still was on my old drive, then and ONLY then I installed the new drive.

[galahs]

Wait a sec, do you have LLXX's 2226 patch installed?

If so you would most likely be ok, but if its the standard Microsoft 2226 update, you will get data corruption.

[dtamonis]

galahs, on Mar 30 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

Wait a sec, do you have LLXX's 2226 patch installed?

Yes, LLXX's 2226 patch that is attached to the first post in this thread. Now I'm pretty sure that everything is fine, here is the screenshot:

http://img260.images...531/testyl4.jpg

As can be seen, drive E: is filled with more data than C: can hold, and Scandisk detects no errors in C:.

Now, just one more question. I think I know the answer, but it's better to double check. Most probably, I'll have to reinstall Windows sooner or later, so, if the primary partition (C:) is less than 137GB and if I skip the Scandisk check during the installation with the command line parameter, the installation shouldn't touch the other partitions, right? So, during the first reboot, I press Shift + F5 to go to comand prompt, replace the PDR file, edit MsDos.sys to disable automatic Scandisk check and let Windows load. Are these steps enough to make the installation safe?

I don't want to install to another hard disk, but if the above steps are unsafe I'll have to consider it.

[E-66]

It says on the first page of this thread to only use the 2226 patch on IBM portables with removable disks, and to use 2225 on all other PCs/portables.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&...st&p=534910

[xrayer]

I use 500GB HDD few months and didn't find problems with DOS version of scandisk on large partitions (I have 2x192GB FAT32 there). Under DOS it's used INT13h BIOS extension - no any ESDI_506.PDR or other driver. So I think you don't need to wory about it. Just replace ESDI_506.PDR before windows first boot.

[galahs]

Yep, if you cancel scandisk you'll be fine.

Alternatively,

copy your windows cd to your hard disk
add the patched ESDI_506.PDR into the WIN98 folder
burn the files back to a cd

and it will slipstream in the new patched version of ESDI_506.PDR

This post has been edited by galahs: 31 March 2008 - 12:58 AM

[briton]

galahs, on Mar 31 2008, 01:57 AM, said:

Yep, if you cancel scandisk you'll be fine.

Alternatively,

copy your windows cd to your hard disk
add the patched ESDI_506.PDR into the WIN98 folder
burn the files back to a cd

and it will slipstream in the new patched version of ESDI_506.PDR

Didn't we already discuss that, in order to slipstream it, the file has to be written into the CAB file? Forgive my aged memory if I am wrong - I can't find the reference in the thread but perhaps some able-memoried person can refresh that for us please.

And if you can't slipstream (or don't want to), as far as installing is concerned, if you stop at the first reboot and replace the file (with the correct version of course - 2226 only for the IBM portables) after that you are good to proceed as normal.

[dtamonis]

I copied the installation from CD to hard disk like 7 years ago - much more convenient (don't have to put the CD every time Windows needs some CAB). Slipstreaming is a great idea, replacing the file in the CAB is very simple. Will put 2225 there, then.

I still wonder in what exactly 2226 differs from 2225, still 2226 is being used (keep forgetting to replace it) but no ill effects.

[galahs]

Just for the record, you don't have to include it in a CAB file.

Any file in your WIN98 folder will be used instead of those in your CAB files.

This is a simple way of slipstreaming files where a direct replacement of a file is all that is needed (it doesn't work for adding additional files to your Windows installation)

[rloew]

The difference between the 2225 and 2226 versions is as follows:

Several routines were moved from the PCOD Segment to the LCOD Segment so they would be preloaded.

A Power Handler is registered that allows the Virtual Power Management Device to flush the Driver.

[RetroOS]

Thanks for the technical input.

The 2226 driver update stated that it was only for old IBM portables with removable disks.
I figured that there should be no reason why it would not work on any PC...
I was running 2226 for some time before I rolled back to 2225, since most people seem to think 2225 would be more stable/compatible.

So, Mr. Loew, what's your expert opinion on 2226 verses 2225 on any PC?
Are there any disadvantages when running 2226 over 2225?
I would have thought that it was a good thing that the power management could flush the driver?

Also, based on Microsoft's versioning model, 2226 should be an update to 2225, but apparently not really.
More of a parallel driver version...

EDIT: Oops, sorry, I spelt your name wrong!

This post has been edited by RetroOS: 05 April 2008 - 03:47 AM

[rloew]

Quote

So, Mr. Leow, what's your expert opinion on 2226 verses 2225 on any PC?
Are there any disadvantages when running 2226 over 2225?
I would have thought that it was a good thing that the power management could flush the driver?

I haven't experimented with it so I don't know if the power management handler causes any problems.
In normal operation it should have no effect. It might make a difference when suspending or hibernating.
Of course it is larger and uses slightly more resources.

Quote

Also, based on Microsoft's versioning model, 2226 should be an update to 2225, but apparently not really.
More of a parallel driver version...

It is an update. All changes made between 2222 and 2225 are present.

[Abitfreak]

Hello,

my W98SE works fine with one 250GB ond one 400GB Seagate HDD and the LLXX patch.

Defrag and Scandisc will not work! I need Defrag and Scandisc from ME. It's in the file from this post:

Post#56

But the link in this post is dead.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!!!



Sorry, my English is bad. Hope, anyone can understand my.

This post has been edited by Abitfreak: 14 April 2008 - 06:31 AM