issues with replacement 40 GB hard drive in Win Me

[William Bell]

I just replaced an ailing 4 GB HD in my old laptop running Win Me with a
new 40 GB drive. I'm having two issues: 1) Only 7.8 GB is being used of
the 40 GB available (I did select to allow large hard disk support
during Me installation) and 2) Even though I seem to shut down correctly
(selecting shutdown from the Me menu), when it reboots, I keep getting
improper shutdown detected and it wants to scan the drive. How can I
resolve these issues? Thank you!

[98 Guy]

William Bell wrote:

> 1) Only 7.8 GB is being used of the 40 GB available

That is a BIOS issue. Your computer is so old that the bios is only
aware of drive configurations up to 1024 tracks, 255 sides, 63 sectors
per track. That adds up to 7.84 gb as the maximum hard drive size the
BIOS can access.

Your only hope to overcome that is if there is a BIOS update for your
computer.

> 2) Even though I seem to shut down correctly (selecting shutdown from
> the Me menu), when it reboots, I keep getting improper shutdown
> detected

ME apparently had a shut-down bug that may not have been ever fixed, but
this seems to have caused a black screen and possibly the system hangs
at shutdown instead of actually shutting down.

See if the info in these 2 links are useful for your problem:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/273017/scandisk-runs-even-though-windows-shut-down-correctly#!en-us/help/273017/scandisk-runs-even-though-windows-shut-down-correctly

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/152404/scandisk-runs-after-improper-shutdown-or-hard-disk-error#!en-us/help/152404/scandisk-runs-after-improper-shutdown-or-hard-disk-error

When your system restarts and asks you to scan the drive, and for those
times you say YES and let it scan, does it ever find a problem?

[William Bell]

On 02/01/2017 08:27 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
>

>
> Your only hope to overcome that is if there is a BIOS update for your
> computer.

Unfortunately, no BIOS update available beyond the one I have. I was
thinking of trying something like gParted and therefore handling the
issue outside of Win in DOS, or some type of drive overlay software I
was reading about.

>
>
>> 2) Even though I seem to shut down correctly (selecting shutdown from
>> the Me menu), when it reboots, I keep getting improper shutdown
>> detected
>
> ME apparently had a shut-down bug that may not have been ever fixed, but
> this seems to have caused a black screen and possibly the system hangs
> at shutdown instead of actually shutting down.
>
> See if the info in these 2 links are useful for your problem:
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/273017/scandisk-runs-even-though-windows-shut-down-correctly#!en-us/help/273017/scandisk-runs-even-though-windows-shut-down-correctly
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/152404/scandisk-runs-after-improper-shutdown-or-hard-disk-error#!en-us/help/152404/scandisk-runs-after-improper-shutdown-or-hard-disk-error
>
> When your system restarts and asks you to scan the drive, and for those
> times you say YES and let it scan, does it ever find a problem?

I actually solved this on my own, but thanks for the suggestions. It
seems that if I do a restart as opposed to an actual shutdown, then I
get the scandisk screen. Not sure why, but that's what's happening. As
long as I shutdown completely and then restart, I don't get the
scandisk. And when I did let the scandisk complete, it did not find
anything wrong.

>

[Lee]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:01:52 AM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
> On 02/01/2017 08:27 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Your only hope to overcome that is if there is a BIOS update for your
> > computer.
>
>
> Unfortunately, no BIOS update available beyond the one I have. I was
> thinking of trying something like gParted and therefore handling the
> issue outside of Win in DOS, or some type of drive overlay software I
> was reading about.
>

Officially there won't be a solution for some BIOS code, but there are a few nuts out there rewriting old BIOS code knocking these types of bugs down flat. If you'll give your system make and model perhaps I can find those pages again and you may have an unofficial BIOS update already to download. I'll see what info I've got stored away and get back here if I find something relevant.

Lacking fixed BIOS code, all I had to suggest was drive overlay software, but I don't have a software name suggestion going down that road at all, sorry.

[98 Guy]

Lee wrote:

> > > a BIOS update for your computer.
> >
> > Unfortunately, no BIOS update available
>

> there are a few nuts out there rewriting old BIOS code
>

> Lacking fixed BIOS all I had to suggest was drive overlay software

Seriously people.

Think about it.

We're talking about a laptop circa 1999 or 2000. Probably earlier
because this 8 gb drive limitation is really old - like 1995 - 1997.

This laptop is a POS from a hardware pov. The screen will be shit.
Resolution will be shit.

The battery is flat dead. It will need to be plugged in all the time.

It has no wifi. It probably doesn't even have ethernet port.

So you stick a 40 gb drive in it, and can use only 8 gb. And this is
the main point: What are you going to do with an ancient POS laptop
that you're going to need more than 8 gb of hard drive space?

You going to be editing video with it?

Autocad? Graphic design?

I don't think so.

If you like Win-ME, there is much better hardware (motherboards)
available on ebay where you can build a decent desktop PC and connect
tera-byte hard drives no problem.

Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.

[Auric__]

98 Guy wrote:

> Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.

You say that in a group dedicated to an OS that's more than 18 years old.

--
Linus Torvalds jokes about world domination, but Bill Gates *means* it.
-- Eric S. Raymond

(Good sigmonster. Have a cookie.)

[Auric__]

Auric__ wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.
>
> You say that in a group dedicated to an OS that's more than 18 years old.

As an aside, sometimes making "ancient, lame hardware" usable is fun. I'd
love to get my hands on an old VAX.

--
Just be quiet while we treat you.
We won't ask, please don't tell.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 03:10:10 -0000, 98 Guy <9...@guy.c0m> wrote:
[]

>
> We're talking about a laptop circa 1999 or 2000. Probably earlier
> because this 8 gb drive limitation is really old - like 1995 - 1997.
>
> This laptop is a POS from a hardware pov. The screen will be shit.
> Resolution will be shit.

[]

> Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.

What about ancient s/w then Mr 98 Guy??!!

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[98 Guy]

Auric__ wrote:

> > Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.
>
> You say that in a group dedicated to an OS that's more than 18 years
> old.

Kerr Mudd-John wrote:

> What about ancient s/w then Mr 98 Guy??!!

Win-9x/me has a lot in common, through the win32 API, with Win-NT (2k,
xp, etc).

I'm running a version of VLC media player that's maybe 1 or 2 years old
(and only because I haven't bothered to download the most recent
build). I can run Opera 12.02 (what is that, maybe 4 years old?). My
standard browser is Firefox 2.0.0.20 and for what I want to get out of
the WWW it works 95% of the time.

So yes, 98se is 18 years old. But a lot of code in the Windoze line is
recycled and only win-8/win-10 is radically different than even win-7.

In terms of hardware, the difference in performance and features of
hardware circa 1999 vs 2006 is like night and day. You can take
anything made in 2006 (motherboards, even most laptops) and find win-9x
drivers. Some VIA-based motherboards made in 2007/2008 are also win-9x
compatible.

So you get your AGP (and in some cases, PCIe) video card with 256 mb
ram, you get your kernelEx API helper, you get the hack that lets win-9x
handle up to 3 gb ram (yes, there is such a hack) and you've got a
pretty usable system. A version of Windoze that isin't always "phoning
home" to Macro$haft asking if it's still legit. A version of windoze
that gives you complete access to the file system and registry and
doesn't hide shit on you or block you from doing shit with admin
garbage. A version of windoze with true "file-find" ability.

So I stand by my statement running an 18-year-old OS on 18-year-old
hardware is unnecessary torture.

[William Bell]

On 02/02/2017 03:10 AM, Auric__ wrote:
> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.
>
> You say that in a group dedicated to an OS that's more than 18 years old.
>

That's what I was about to say, sheesh. I noticed this in other threads
while I was researching before posting. Tends to try helping at first
and then-- bam-- what the f do you want to do this for. Really nice way
to keep people wanting to come back to the group.

Just for the record, I had been using this old laptop with some ancient
software (no longer available) to do some data logging. I *do* have
several modern laptops and PC's with Win 7 and higher, but when the
Toshiba Satellite 490's hard drive went out and I replaced it, I was
having the initial issues I posted. I certainly don't want to dedicate
one of my modern laptops for the data logging task if I can keep the old
one going and a job it has done for the past 8 years. So that's the
reason, 98 Guy, I wanted to get it going again. Originally it had like
a 4 GB HD, but I had researched this group and came across a post where
some cheap, Chinese Hitachi HD were available so I ordered one. Problem
was that the laptop would only recognize the first 7.? GB and not the
rest. It's certainly not essential to be able to use the rest as the
former drive had done fine all these years, but it would have been nice
to be able to utilize the drive.

Will

[William Bell]

On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, Lee wrote:
>
>>
> Officially there won't be a solution for some BIOS code, but there are a few nuts out there rewriting old BIOS code knocking these types of bugs down flat. If you'll give your system make and model perhaps I can find those pages again and you may have an unofficial BIOS update already to download. I'll see what info I've got stored away and get back here if I find something relevant.
>
> Lacking fixed BIOS code, all I had to suggest was drive overlay software, but I don't have a software name suggestion going down that road at all, sorry.
>

Ok, Lee, thanks. It's a Toshiba Satellite 490XCDT / 4.0 model number
PRI1270U and part # PRI1270U-T2C. If you can find a BIOS rewrite that
would work, that would be great!

Will

[Lee]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:04:28 AM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
>
> Ok, Lee, thanks. It's a Toshiba Satellite 490XCDT / 4.0 model number
> PRI1270U and part # PRI1270U-T2C. If you can find a BIOS rewrite that
> would work, that would be great!
>
> Will

No luck sorry, but it's a better search when you do it anyway.
http://wims.rainbow-software.org/index.php?start=0&count=40
https://www.wimsbios.com/

Mine was easy to find but it was fixed for 60 Gb bug not the earlier one, so not sure if you are up to date on BIOS or not after all. Mine was 1987 and doing 40 Gb, yours should be 2000 at version 8.

http://support.toshiba.com/support/viewContentDetail?contentId=106474

http://support.toshiba.com/support/staticContentDetail?contentId=638373&isFromTOCLink=false

When trying to download the BIOS file my download manager failed to latch onto it with a server error. But default firefox Save As system did get it, just a warning they are using tricks for what ever reason. And first time at Toshiba was zippo, don't know what happened but all of a sudden I get 490X files.

So by the BIOS ID number system you may be able to find a fixed similar version and patch the code in yourself with a hexeditor? That was my plan, but I've never done a thing since finding the above resources anyway. The BIOS string that they are looking for is on the POST, Power On Self Test screen and you may not be seeing it because you might need to press Pause/Break key to halt code long enough for the screen to wake up and show it. Press space bar to resume running code. Best of luck.

[William Bell]

On 02/03/2017 02:14 AM, Lee wrote:
>>
> No luck sorry, but it's a better search when you do it anyway.
> http://wims.rainbow-software.org/index.php?start=0&count=40
> https://www.wimsbios.com/

Thanks, Lee. The problem I seem to be having is trying to find those
BIOS ID numbers. They say to pause the splash screen, but all that
comes up there is TOSHIBA and nothing else. I looked in the BIOS for
maybe a fast/ slow boot setting, but didn't find one.

>
> Mine was easy to find but it was fixed for 60 Gb bug not the earlier one, so not sure if you are up to date on BIOS or not after all. Mine was 1987 and doing 40 Gb, yours should be 2000 at version 8.
>
> http://support.toshiba.com/support/viewContentDetail?contentId=106474
>
> http://support.toshiba.com/support/staticContentDetail?contentId=638373&isFromTOCLink=false
>
> When trying to download the BIOS file my download manager failed to latch onto it with a server error. But default firefox Save As system did get it, just a warning they are using tricks for what ever reason. And first time at Toshiba was zippo, don't know what happened but all of a sudden I get 490X files.
>
> So by the BIOS ID number system you may be able to find a fixed similar version and patch the code in yourself with a hexeditor? That was my plan, but I've never done a thing since finding the above resources anyway. The BIOS string that they are looking for is on the POST, Power On Self Test screen and you may not be seeing it because you might need to press Pause/Break key to halt code long enough for the screen to wake up and show it. Press space bar to resume running code. Best of luck.

Appreciate the links there. My current version was 7.5 so I suppose the
update to 8.0 wouldn't hurt even though it doesn't appear to make any
change to HD specs that I can see.

Will

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <5892A312...@Guy.C0M>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.C0M> writes:
[]

>Seriously people.
>
>Think about it.
>
>We're talking about a laptop circa 1999 or 2000. Probably earlier
>because this 8 gb drive limitation is really old - like 1995 - 1997.
>
>This laptop is a POS from a hardware pov. The screen will be shit.
>Resolution will be shit.
>
>The battery is flat dead. It will need to be plugged in all the time.
>
>It has no wifi. It probably doesn't even have ethernet port.

Well, Will has actually explained that he just wants to continue to use
it for some logging application, so the following doesn't apply, but:
some of us just _like_ getting old things to work. It's not dissimilar
to keeping old valve (UK; toob in US) wireless sets working, or old cars
(with many different definitions of "old").

A few years I enjoyed getting an XP system with a 6G hard drive and very
limited RAM working - not just functioning (it was, just about, though
with a horrendous amount of paging), but actually usable, including
online. It wouldn't play videos, but anything else, it was fine. If
asked why I did it, I really can't say! Other than (a) the challenge of
getting it working at all, (b) the satisfaction of not scrapping it.

I don't think I'd ever call a piece of equipment a POS - unless it was
in the first place.

>
>So you stick a 40 gb drive in it, and can use only 8 gb. And this is
>the main point: What are you going to do with an ancient POS laptop
>that you're going to need more than 8 gb of hard drive space?
>
>You going to be editing video with it?
>
>Autocad? Graphic design?
>
>I don't think so.
>
>If you like Win-ME, there is much better hardware (motherboards)
>available on ebay where you can build a decent desktop PC and connect
>tera-byte hard drives no problem.
>
>Why people get fixated on ancient, lame hardware is a mystery.

There's also the level of "authenticity" one goes for - which is very
much a matter of personal choice. The people who keep old electronics
going - some of them go to the extent, if say a capacitor needs
replacing, of hiding the modern equivalent inside the drilled-out body
of an original one; others remake the original; others just fit modern
capacitors and resistors, being content just to be using the original
valves/tubes. (A few back-fit completely modern innards, though those
tend to be just TV prop companies and the like.) Old car people (I mean
really old!) might or might not insist on using headlights with wicks.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You can be tough without being rude - Nick Clegg, 2014 July

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <o72bnd$9ut$1...@dont-email.me>, William Bell
<no...@anywhere.net> writes:
[]

>Thanks, Lee. The problem I seem to be having is trying to find those
>BIOS ID numbers. They say to pause the splash screen, but all that
>comes up there is TOSHIBA and nothing else. I looked in the BIOS for
>maybe a fast/ slow boot setting, but didn't find one.

[]
Sometimes there's a show/don't show splash screen setting. And/or, the
splash screen itself may include "press X to see behind splash screen",
or similar - though since you've paused it, I guess that's not it in
this case.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Cumulatively, however, they do get my goat, on my wick and up my nose, to the
extent I am angry enough to stick a wick up a goat's nose and to hell with the
consequences. - Eddie Mair, RT 2016/2/27-3/4

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:55:02 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <5892A312...@Guy.C0M>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.C0M> writes:
> []
>> Seriously people.
>>
>> Think about it.
>>
>> We're talking about a laptop circa 1999 or 2000. Probably earlier
>> because this 8 gb drive limitation is really old - like 1995 - 1997.
>>
>> This laptop is a POS from a hardware pov. The screen will be shit.
>> Resolution will be shit.

[]

> A few years I enjoyed getting an XP system with a 6G hard drive and very
> limited RAM working - not just functioning (it was, just about, though
> with a horrendous amount of paging), but actually usable, including
> online. It wouldn't play videos, but anything else, it was fine. If

I'll bet it can't handle all the shi^extraneous flash/script&adverts on a
whole lot of websites these days - (ex)newspaper sites seem the worst.

> asked why I did it, I really can't say! Other than (a) the challenge of
> getting it working at all, (b) the satisfaction of not scrapping it.
>
> I don't think I'd ever call a piece of equipment a POS - unless it was
> in the first place.

It's a hobby, and satisfying.
[]

[Lee]

They often don't put down all the fixes they did though, like adding USB boot capabilities and the like. Best to attempt the latest BIOS version and hope for the best. By that date of version 8 this hard drive issue should have been fixed.

BIOS ID string is there, you may have to 'catch' it at the correct moment is the problem. Which means Pause, Space, Pause, Space again like a guessing game. Another way to find the BIOS ID string is to use a hexeditor on the BIOS file itself, and that should be found on the boot floppy flavor of BIOS version 8. And another issue with BIOS ID string is that screen size is out of bounds, it's there but just off the screen where you can't see it without adjusting that part. And their splash screen might be toggled off by an obscure BIOS setting that is purposely obfuscated in it's name, twined with another vague purpose or placed in a not so obvious location. A Toshiba tech would know how to do it, but us peons can go take a long walk on a short pier.

[William Bell]

On 02/03/2017 08:26 PM, Lee wrote:
> They often don't put down all the fixes they did though, like adding
> USB boot capabilities and the like. Best to attempt the latest BIOS
> version and hope for the best. By that date of version 8 this hard
> drive issue should have been fixed.

I updated to ver. 8 yesterday, but I don't see any differences. The
drive still shows as 7.8 GB and that's it.

>
> BIOS ID string is there, you may have to 'catch' it at the correct
> moment is the problem. Which means Pause, Space, Pause, Space again
> like a guessing game. Another way to find the BIOS ID string is to
> use a hexeditor on the BIOS file itself, and that should be found on
> the boot floppy flavor of BIOS version 8. And another issue with
> BIOS ID string is that screen size is out of bounds, it's there but
> just off the screen where you can't see it without adjusting that
> part. And their splash screen might be toggled off by an obscure
> BIOS setting that is purposely obfuscated in it's name, twined with
> another vague purpose or placed in a not so obvious location. A
> Toshiba tech would know how to do it, but us peons can go take a long
> walk on a short pier.

I may try it again soon, but I think I've pretty much decided that I'm
going to have to be content with just the 7.8 GB of the drive being
used. It is a cheap, Chinese Hitachi that if I had paid $50 for it, I
would have been quite perturbed by now, but for like $12, it's not a big
deal. In fact, I never even thought I'd be able to get this laptop
going again anyway. Sometime tomorrow I guess, I'll restart it's only
task of continuous data logging. Thanks again for trying to help with
this. I knew it was a long shot at best, but a challenge to try and
maybe succeed (or fail).

[Lee]

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:22:25 PM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
>
> I updated to ver. 8 yesterday, but I don't see any differences. The
> drive still shows as 7.8 GB and that's it.
>

I would think you need to start over entirely though. With updated IO.SYS, using 48 bit LBA, etc. It won't just magically fix itself, the old data needs to be overwritten with more better data. If you don't use the fixed for 48 bit LBA windows drivers as well again I wouldn't think much could change.

You could start with a test for 48 bit LBA BIOS capabilities, if they are there then earlier issues should have been slain as well.
Intel used to host this, can't find it there anymore but did find it here.
http://89.223.54.240/Driver/HDD/Test%20BigLBA%20BIOS/48lbachk.exe

Run it in boot to DOS mode.

Use a better FDISK from here
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/263044/fdisk-does-not-recognize-full-size-of-hard-disks-larger-than-64-gb

IO.SYS fix starts here and is modified by rloew PATCHPAR
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/311561/ms-dos-does-not-properly-process-hard-disk-hardware-errors

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/?page=11
Last message there, bottom of page.

So after the above has been done be sure to write out a new partition scheme with your new FDISK, reboot to allow it be re-mounted properly and see if the proper size shows up then?
I think you've quit too early, but you can quit anytime you want to.

[William Bell]

On 02/05/2017 12:18 AM, Lee wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:22:25 PM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
>>
>> I updated to ver. 8 yesterday, but I don't see any differences. The
>> drive still shows as 7.8 GB and that's it.
>>
> I would think you need to start over entirely though. With updated IO.SYS, using 48 bit LBA, etc. It won't just magically fix itself, the old data needs to be overwritten with more better data. If you don't use the fixed for 48 bit LBA windows drivers as well again I wouldn't think much could change.
>
> You could start with a test for 48 bit LBA BIOS capabilities, if they are there then earlier issues should have been slain as well.
> Intel used to host this, can't find it there anymore but did find it here.
> http://89.223.54.240/Driver/HDD/Test%20BigLBA%20BIOS/48lbachk.exe
>
> Run it in boot to DOS mode.

Ok, Lee, since you're kind enough to continue trying to help, I can't
just ignore :). For this, you may have to refresh my memory. When you
say to boot to DOS, will the .exe file automatically start up from the
CD/floppy or do I have to use a command to get it going?

>
> Use a better FDISK from here
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/263044/fdisk-does-not-recognize-full-size-of-hard-disks-larger-than-64-gb

Ok, I could try this, but I'm not quite sure how to implement it. From
DOS, or in Win? Does it matter than I'm using Win Me instead of '98?

>
> IO.SYS fix starts here and is modified by rloew PATCHPAR
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/311561/ms-dos-does-not-properly-process-hard-disk-hardware-errors
>
> http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/?page=11
> Last message there, bottom of page.

After reading these two links, I don't have a clue how they're supposed
to work, where they're supposed to be placed, when to use, etc... any
step by step insight here would be welcome.

>
> So after the above has been done be sure to write out a new partition scheme with your new FDISK, reboot to allow it be re-mounted properly and see if the proper size shows up then?
> I think you've quit too early, but you can quit anytime you want to.

Right. I get the part about using new FDISK (if I could figure out when
and where to use that .exe file) and then rechecking the partition
afterwards, and I think I understand the part about checking out now by
auto? or manually executing 48lbachk.exe in DOS first, but as far as
PATCHPAR and the other, I'm not sure when they are to be used.

[Lee]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 8:57:25 AM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
> On 02/05/2017 12:18 AM, Lee wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 2:22:25 PM UTC-7, William Bell wrote:
> >>
> >> I updated to ver. 8 yesterday, but I don't see any differences. The
> >> drive still shows as 7.8 GB and that's it.
> >>
> > I would think you need to start over entirely though. With updated IO.SYS, using 48 bit LBA, etc. It won't just magically fix itself, the old data needs to be overwritten with more better data. If you don't use the fixed for 48 bit LBA windows drivers as well again I wouldn't think much could change.
> >
> > You could start with a test for 48 bit LBA BIOS capabilities, if they are there then earlier issues should have been slain as well.
> > Intel used to host this, can't find it there anymore but did find it here.
> > http://89.223.54.240/Driver/HDD/Test%20BigLBA%20BIOS/48lbachk.exe
> >
> > Run it in boot to DOS mode.
>
> Ok, Lee, since you're kind enough to continue trying to help, I can't
> just ignore :). For this, you may have to refresh my memory. When you
> say to boot to DOS, will the .exe file automatically start up from the
> CD/floppy or do I have to use a command to get it going?
>

You'll have to use a command to invoke it and that is the filename itself :
48lbachk.exe or 48lbachk for short if you like. You may need to
change to the directory where the file is located too. And all these files will do their best if they are moved first to the hard drive and run from there.
copy a:\48lbachk.exe c:\windows\temp\
c:\windows\temp\48lbachk

results may not be conclusive, I don't recall seeing a passing grade here while I know the system is capable. If you want to try another program to be sure, there is aefdisk /info which will indicate if LBA is usable.

Instructions...
https://github.com/nagydjol/aefdisk/blob/master/aefdisk.txt

Download link - find it, get it. AEFDISK.ZIP
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174152-open-source-aefdisk-on-github/?do=findComment&comment=1103886

Bottom of that message has a download link for the version that shows INT 13h use in Enhanced BIOS (EBIOS) or in other words 48 bit LBA mode. I am not sure if earlier version of aefdisk had this feature or not. Invoke it as follows:
aefdisk /info

> >
> > Use a better FDISK from here
> > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/263044/fdisk-does-not-recognize-full-size-of-hard-disks-larger-than-64-gb
>
> Ok, I could try this, but I'm not quite sure how to implement it. From
> DOS, or in Win? Does it matter than I'm using Win Me instead of '98?
>

Yep it sure does matter -- you don't need the new FDISK at all, it was fixed before ME came out so yours is already fixed.

BUT your io.sys is still broken and does need both MS replacement by the MS knowledge base article below and R Loew's patch after the MS replacement has happened.

> >
> > IO.SYS fix starts here and is modified by rloew PATCHPAR
> > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/311561/ms-dos-does-not-properly-process-hard-disk-hardware-errors
> >
> > http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/?page=11
> > Last message there, bottom of page.
>
> After reading these two links, I don't have a clue how they're supposed
> to work, where they're supposed to be placed, when to use, etc... any
> step by step insight here would be welcome.
>

It gets complicated quickly due to the use of a compressed io.sys in ME only which requires that before you patch it with R Loew's PATCHPAR, you need to uncompress it first with another file from R Loew.

>
> >
> > So after the above has been done be sure to write out a new partition scheme with your new FDISK, reboot to allow it be re-mounted properly and see if the proper size shows up then?
> > I think you've quit too early, but you can quit anytime you want to.
>
> Right. I get the part about using new FDISK (if I could figure out when
> and where to use that .exe file) and then rechecking the partition
> afterwards, and I think I understand the part about checking out now by
> auto? or manually executing 48lbachk.exe in DOS first, but as far as
> PATCHPAR and the other, I'm not sure when they are to be used.

So back at the MS Knowledge Base article
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/311561/ms-dos-does-not-properly-process-hard-disk-hardware-errors
scroll half way down the page to the ME files section and get your language version, I assume it will be the very first one offered under the ME files section being USA english - 311561usam.exe

Boot to Win ME, move the 311561usam.exe to the temp folder and double click it to install the MS update, then reboot to Win ME. It may take more than one boot, it's a critical file best to just get it over with and do it twice.


So a better source for R Loew files is his free files link.
http://rloew.x10host.com/free.htm

download IO8DCOMP and PATCHPAR, unzip them to windows\temp folder.

Both IO8DCOMP and PATCHPAR will run from a DOS box in Win ME but their use still requires some low level DOS operations for example, in order to even
access io.sys one must first run attrib.exe on it to remove system, hidden, and read only attributes of the file. These same attributes MUST be back in place when rebooting or Windows will literally make you reinstall Windows.

Loew's instructions are rather incomplete at best. But you do want to make a backup file of your current io.sys file, c:\windows\command folder is one folder where it can be kept and not get used when renamed to io.bak. There will then be an uncompressed version of the io.sys file and then also a patched version of that uncompressed version of the io.sys file. Kinda complicated so here is a batch file you can use to do this with.

cd \
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
cd windows\command
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
attrib -r -s -h c:\io.sys
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
copy c:\io.sys io.bak
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
c:\windows\temp\io8dcomp io.bak dcompio.bak
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
c:\windows\temp\patchpar dcompio.bak patchio.bak
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
del c:\io.sys
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
copy patchio.bak c:\io.sys
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
attrib +r +s +h c:\io.sys
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul
echo DONE ###########

-------------------
copy and paste the above into notepad.

The line:
choice /c~ /t~,3 >nul

is a time delay of 3 seconds to allow DOS to do it's thing, write files, update directories etc. so the next step is not borked by the batch file running too fast. So if you want to, you can just type in those instructions minus the 'choice' lines and do the same thing manually. All Loew's unzipped files should be in the windows\temp folder for that batch file to work correctly. The saved notepad text file can be placed there too and renamed to iopatch.bat. To run it just double click it in Windows ME and it's best to rename it back to a text file when done.

To insure your system won't revert to a broken io.sys if ever there were serious troubles or a reinstall attempt, c:\windows\options\Cabs\winboot.sys should be overwritten with c:\windows\command\patchio.bak. The file named winboot.sys in the options\cabs folder will become the new io.sys at the first opportunity, it's how the system keeps itself healthy in a perfect world.

So after everything seems to be working fine you can do this:
copy /Y c:\windows\command\patchio.bak c:\windows\options\cabs\winboot.sys

I don't really blame you if don't even want to go there now... lol