Installation questions - 500GB Hard Drive
BeBopaLula
A question about installing and partitioning a 500 GB Western Digital
ATA/IDE Hard Drive in a basic W98se equipped system (plus some). Details
below.
I also wish to apologize in advance for the long post, the myriad
questions - most of which are probably ignorant - as well as my being so
uneducated in such matters.
Platform Configuration:
Dell Optiplex GX240
2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager - BootUS.
(My Dell Optiplex A05 BIOS - the latest and final - will only permit
booting off the Primary Drive Volume as physically cabled.)
System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
BIOS - version A05
Issue:
I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM) model
WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
operational as that primary drive. If OTOH, someone has a more practical
approach and rationale regarding this proposal, I'll consider it. But, if my
initial premise seems sound, then that's probably what I'd prefer to have.
Research: Every WD webpage. Every Intel Webpage. Multitudes of
non-manufacturer type web pages where the issue at hand is discussed. I'm
turning to the MS Newsgroups so as to help me (if possible) decipher the
confusingly round-robin instructions. To place them in terms and sequential
order which a first-time-user-doing-this-sort-of-thing can understand.
Questions:
What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?
Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said operation?
Though I'd still prefer to use W98se as my primary OS as I do now. (I have a
love hate thing with it. *ggg*)
Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as being my
current setup ) ?
Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to have two
distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?
Detailed questions:
The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that a "Overlay" type
thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues (or problems, if one elects to
move the HD-D to another System) with employing such a method to make the
large HD-D operational.
The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type tool as well ?
Same question as above, if it is.
The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed first,
prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
Is that necessary, if the Intel Chipset Identifier and a BIOS tool indicates
that my Dell A05 BIOS will apparently support 48-bitLBA as is, without the
need for a secondary IDE PCI Controller card ?
I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed workarounds) as to
the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format / Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That
in some cases an updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances. Is that true,
or am I mistaken ?
I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an autorun of
Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in this case) will likely
cause possible corruption of Data on that large HD-D. True or not ? If
true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested disabling of Scandisk
autorun in such a crash scenario ?
Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8 -12 GB, and then
several 20 GB partitions and then a few very large partitions(working type
for editing and so-forth), is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party
Partitioning application is required for what I need to do ?
When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does that mean
that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each partition is no larger
than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that the max and only visible/usable size
of a partition on such a setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,
and the remainder - however large - will be useless, inaccessible, invisible
and therefore, lost space and money?
I'm sure I've neglected to ask many important questions. Moreover, I might
be deficient by having supplied less than adequate information to aid you in
aiding me. If so, once again, I apologize for this.
I offer my sincere thanks for any *knowledgeable and experienced help* which
may come my way. I may be a bit "slow" in many technical matters and may
also be slow in replying here to any answers - as I have a lot of irons on
the fire on my homefront. But please be assured, I will respond to all who
help.
Thank you.
98 Guy
> Platform Configuration:
> 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager
> - BootUS.
> System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
>
> Issue:
> I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive
> (OEM) model WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my
> 40GB HD-D withW98se OS operational as that primary drive.
Are you trying to replicate your two-drive setup, by replacing drive-2
with a 500 gb drive? And if so, you want to continue to have drive-2
formatted as FAT-32, with Win-XP on it?
> Questions:
> What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
> Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
> Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?
You mention motherboard and BIOS support for 48-bit LBA below.
Assuming for the moment that your motherboard and BIOS supports 48-bit
LBA, then simply booting your system from a DOS floppy with fdisk and
format on it should allow you to setup the 500 gb drive as FAT-32,
with what-ever partition arrangement you want - even just a single
large partition (you will need to use the updated version of
fdisk.exe).
However, doing that will lead to a situation where you will have large
clusters (allocation units) that are not efficient for handling small
files. Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
more efficient) cluster size. If your goal is to have XP on that
drive, then formatting it with 4kb clusters will work fine, and in my
experience win-98 will be able to see that drive and work with it (but
now you need to consider the 137 gb boundary situation).
Have a look at this:
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm
> Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said
> operation?
XP will not format / create a FAT-32 partition on a new drive larger
than 32 gb. That is an artificial limitation placed on XP by
Microsoft as a way to force you to use NTFS on large partitions.
> Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as
> being my current setup ) ?
I'm not sure if you want to keep your existing drive-1 (with win-98)
and add this new 500 gb drive as drive-2, or if you want the new 500
gb drive to be drive-1 (and put win-98 on it).
> Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to
> have two distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?
I don't think it's useful to divide a drive into 2 partitions with the
intent of using the second partition as a backup. A mechanical or
electrical failure within the drive is just as likely to prevent you
from accessing the second partition as it is the first one.
> Detailed questions:
> The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that
> a "Overlay" type thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues
> (or problems, if one elects to move the HD-D to another
> System) with employing such a method to make the
> large HD-D operational.
There is an overlay driver that can be used if your motherboard
doesn't support 48-bit LBA, but it won't be installed unless you
specifically want it to be (or maybe if the WD software thinks you
need it). But yes, those tools are what you need to prepare the drive
for FAT-32 use using a more rational cluster size.
> The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type
> tool as well ? Same question as above, if it is.
You are referring to this:
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
To be honest, I do recall that the IAA has been mentioned in
conjunction with the 137 gb issue, but they (Intel) don't seem to come
right out and say that the IAA will replace ESDI_506.PDR for win-98.
But that is the crux of the matter. If you have an IDE (Parallel-ATA)
drive larger than 137 gb, win-98 will not function properly with it
when you attempt to read or write beyond the 137 gb sector of the
drive. The root of the problem is the driver ESDI_506.PDR. Why don't
you try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok.
> The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed
> first, prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
> Is that necessary,
I would install the chipset updater.
> I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed
> workarounds) as to the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format /
> Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That in some cases an
> updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
> some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances.
> Is that true, or am I mistaken ?
You need to clarify if you want to create a single 500 gb partition as
FAT-32, and if you want win-98 to be able to perform maintainence on
it or if you want XP to do the maintainence.
My experience is that win-98 tools (even the ME versions of those
tools) will not work if you format the drive with too many clusters.
Again, the number of clusters is a function of volume-size and chosen
cluster-size. Which again takes me back to the first question - do
you want a single 500 gb partition, or several smaller partitions?
> I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an
> autorun of Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in
> this case) will likely cause possible corruption of Data on
> that large HD-D. True or not ?
First, know that there are 2 scandisk programs. One is the DOS
scandisk (scandisk.exe) and the other is windows scandisk
(scandskw.exe / diskmaint.dll).
DOS scandisk does not use esdi_506.DLL (it uses bios int-13 calls) so
if your bios is 48-bit LBA compatible then dos scandisk will not screw
up your drive (but it will take a LONG time to run).
> If true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested
> disabling of Scandisk autorun in such a crash scenario ?
You do not want to install win-98 on the 500 gb drive, or expose the
drive to win-98 until you have tackled the 137 gb problem, which means
replacing esdi_506.PDR with something else.
First, read this:
http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html
Then download a modified esdi_506.PDR from here:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/readme.txt
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001111F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001119F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102001F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102186F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102222F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102225F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102226F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4903000F.ZIP
> Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8
> -12 GB, and then several 20 GB partitions and then a few
> very large partitions(working type for editing and so-forth),
> is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party Partitioning
> application is required for what I need to do ?
If you are going to keep your partitions to less than 32 gb, then you
don't need to use a third-party partitioning tool because the
cluster-size will not be so large to be inefficient.
You're going to end up with a whack of drive letters, but if you're OK
with that, well then to each his own. But you will still be faced
with the 137 gb problem.
> When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does
> that mean that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each
> partition is no larger than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that
> the max and only visible/usable size of a partition on such a
> setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,
It means that when the drive attempts to access a sector beyond the
137 gb point on the drive, it will wrap around back to sector zero
instead, and screw up your MBR or FAT tables.
It doesn't matter that you might have a bunch of small volumes on the
drive, none of them larger than 20 or 30 gb. On a 500 gb drive, there
will be a 137 gb point on it - unless you decide to NOT use most of
the drive and only create a bunch of partitions that take you up to
the 137 gb point (but not past it).
I personally have never attached an IDE/PATA drive larger than 80 gb
to a win-98 system, so I've never seen / experienced first-hand what
actually happens at the 137 gb access point, nor have I verified that
the modified esdi_506.pdr actually works (but those on the msfn.org
forum have).
What I have done is work with 160, 250 and 500 gb SATA drives on
win-98, so I know the extent that win-98 is compatible with those,
along with varying the cluster size and hence the number of clusters
on a given volume.
BeBopaLula
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B...@Guy.com...
> BeBopaLula wrote:
>
> > Platform Configuration:
> > 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> > HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> > Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager
> > - BootUS.
> > System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
> >
> > Issue:
> > I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive
> > (OEM) model WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my
> > 40GB HD-D withW98se OS operational as that primary drive.
>
> Are you trying to replicate your two-drive setup, by replacing drive-2
> with a 500 gb drive? And if so, you want to continue to have drive-2
> formatted as FAT-32, with Win-XP on it?
Yes, my idea was to replace the secondary 20GB HD-D 2 with the WD 500GB
(having XP Pro OS on the first partition ~ 8 GB of that drive; remaining
~10.6 GB was storage) .
And yes, I think I still prefer the notion of having XP formatted as FAT32,
and present on the 500GB Drive.
>
> > Questions:
> > What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
> > Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
> > Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?
>
> You mention motherboard and BIOS support for 48-bit LBA below.
> Assuming for the moment that your motherboard and BIOS supports 48-bit
> LBA, then simply booting your system from a DOS floppy with fdisk and
> format on it should allow you to setup the 500 gb drive as FAT-32,
> with what-ever partition arrangement you want - even just a single
> large partition (you will need to use the updated version of
> fdisk.exe).
Yes, the reports I've gotten thus far are that the MoBo / Chipset (?) / BIOS
allegedly will support a large hard drive.
The MoBo is some Dell PWA Planar (Phoenix I believe it is, according to a
scan. Some info is rather scant and hard to find, especially from Dell.)
Oh, might as well add that this is a Optiplex GX240, if that's of any use.
Continuing, I tried an Intel Tool (LBA CHECKING TOOL), whose instructions
said I must first "install" a Large HD-D for it to check, otherwise it'd
just show some wrror or other. I then removed HD-D 2 (20GB) and put the 500
GB HD-D in it's place. The Intel 48bitLbaChk.exe tool reported thus:
Scanning System for Available ATA/ATAPI Devices:
Searching for Primary Master.....ATA Device Found!
Searching for Primary Slave......ATA Device Found!
Searching for Secondary Master...ATAPI Device Found!
Searching for Secondary Slave....ATAPI Device Found!
ATA Device Results:
Device 0, BIOS reports 37(GB), Device reports 37(GB)
Device 1, BIOS reports 465(GB), Device reports 465(GB)
Intel 48-bit LBA BIOS Test Complete --> PASSED
It appears that your BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable,
and you have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed.
So, that is what the tool said. I also assume that the reported size iof 465
GB s "ok", as it's in Decimal, and not the actual Binary (? is that right ?)
Again - and I have no experience with this - I'd suppose I'd want to have XP
in some partition of say 8 - 10 GB (is that sensible ?), and then some
several 20 GB or so partitions (so as to keep cluster sizes smaller than
that ridiculous 32 KB which my unpartitioned 40 GB FAT32 W98se has
allocated).
So, several/many 20 GB partitions to facilitate usage and aid in
Scandisk/Defragging without taking a lifetime to do so (?) and then a
working partition of some very large size which would generally be kept
empty after whatever work (vid editing/music editing, and so forth ?) was
completed.
So, I wasn't thinking of a more or less unpartitioned 500 GB drive. Wouldn't
that be a maintenance nightmare ?
I believe I have the updated Fdisk.exe (downloaded from MS). I also
understand that if one wants to create a Boot Floppy, or some floppy by
wuich to employ that updated one, one must add that to the Floppy as an
"afterthought" if one doesn't replace the original. Is that right?
Fdisk Does Not Recognize Full Size of Hard Disks Larger than 64 GB
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263044
I also read this:
Working With Large Hard Drives - The issues and the Limits
Source page:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mosaddique/Working%20with%20Large%20Hard%20Drives.html
<paste>
Please note that the above Microsoft fix will add the new Fdisk.exe to the
C:\Windows\Command and C:\Windows\Options directories. So if you are going
to be using an existing boot floppy, you will need to copy the new version
of Fdisk.exe to it. Similarly, if you create a Startup Disk, the new version
of Fdisk.exe must still be copied to the floppy, since the Microsoft fix
does NOT update the directory C:\Windows\Command\EBD, where the files reside
from which the Startup disk is created.
NOTE:
This fix is not designed for 48-bit logical block addressing (LBA) of hard
disks, and it does not support hard disks larger than 137 GB.
</paste>
>
> However, doing that will lead to a situation where you will have large
> clusters (allocation units) that are not efficient for handling small
> files.
So, the "Native" (or even updated) version will leave me only with 32 Kb
cluster size, is that what you mean?
Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> more efficient) cluster size.
I'll go there and check that out. Thanks.
If your goal is to have XP on that
> drive, then formatting it with 4kb clusters will work fine, and in my
> experience win-98 will be able to see that drive and work with it (but
> now you need to consider the 137 gb boundary situation).
Yes, I understand; and that is how it currently is (4 KB clusters on that
second HD-D with XP on it) and the reason why I wanted to remain with FAT32,
so I could use stuff (to whatever limited degree that it allows) within XP
that I could see and access from within 98se. I really like 98se and have
never developed a real liking for XP (that's another subject though. haha)
OK... 137 GB boundary.... yes... where it gets "confusing" and forbodes
doom. lol
>
> Have a look at this:
>
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm
I had done that: Intel® Application Accelerator 48-bit LBA Test Program for
Windows* Me/98 SE/98
that's where I got that 48bit LBA Check Tool from. Had I known you'd later
refer to this as you have now, I wouldn't have wasted your time writing
about it above. Sorry.
>
> > Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said
> > operation?
>
> XP will not format / create a FAT-32 partition on a new drive larger
> than 32 gb. That is an artificial limitation placed on XP by
> Microsoft as a way to force you to use NTFS on large partitions.
Yes. I now understand that (I think) in very simple terms, thanks to you.
So, I had no problem dealing with that non-issue before as the HD-S which
had XP that I was working with was a 20 GB model. Had it been, of say 40 GB
size, then I'd have to have implemeted NTFS ? Is that what you're saying ?
(The ms b******* :-/ )
Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463
>
> > Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as
> > being my current setup ) ?
>
> I'm not sure if you want to keep your existing drive-1 (with win-98)
> and add this new 500 gb drive as drive-2, or if you want the new 500
> gb drive to be drive-1 (and put win-98 on it).
Yes, I *think* (unless someone can show me the fault of my ways; my
thinking) I want to keep the 40 GB -W98se as HD-D 1 Primary and have the 500
GB HD-D as drive 2 (with XP on it).
Reason: My w98se is very customized and I'd hate to have to re-install and
do all I've done to it all over again (Even if I could remember all that
I'd did do in the way of customization). It is also my true primary OS. The
one I "know" and love.
>
> > Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to
> > have two distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?
>
> I don't think it's useful to divide a drive into 2 partitions with the
> intent of using the second partition as a backup. A mechanical or
> electrical failure within the drive is just as likely to prevent you
> from accessing the second partition as it is the first one.
I was thinking to have a W98se OS as a "secondary" (tertiary, actually)
drive on the 500 GB HD-D-2, as a backup to my actual used and useful primary
W98se on HD-D-1. I only use XP for the very few programs which won't run in
98se, and as a 'test bed' fir things which were working in 98se and then
might suddenly have become problematic. So, basically, *one* XP system is
more than enough for me, whereas, a second 98se would be more useful and
important. Does that make any sense ?
Also, I want to make it clear that my intention was to have the 500 GB hard
drive partitioned into quite a few "sub-drives" (Logical something or other;
is that what they're called ?). Again, unless someone thinks that's a lame
idea.
>
> > Detailed questions:
> > The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that
> > a "Overlay" type thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues
> > (or problems, if one elects to move the HD-D to another
> > System) with employing such a method to make the
> > large HD-D operational.
>
> There is an overlay driver that can be used if your motherboard
> doesn't support 48-bit LBA, but it won't be installed unless you
> specifically want it to be (or maybe if the WD software thinks you
> need it). But yes, those tools are what you need to prepare the drive
> for FAT-32 use using a more rational cluster size.
So, if I use the Western Digital Lifeguard tool, and it detects the bottom
line of my hardware is 'all go", then it will go ahead (though it cannot
actually partition, is that right ?) and enable setup/format and won't
necessarily do the Dynamic Drive Overlay thing. Is that right ? It can still
do what it needs to, without necessarily employing the DDO aspect ? That'd
be fine then I guess.
>
> > The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type
> > tool as well ? Same question as above, if it is.
>
> You are referring to this:
>
> http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
Yes, broadly speaking. in a very general sort of way. This one immediately
above (Chipsets) is a general Intel page of great Info (and intimidating and
confusing) and explores in depth the nature of the Intel app/ Chipsets/ and
more. And yes, I've scoped about there and is one reason I'm now asking here
in the MS Newsgroup. <G>
Just to set my own mind stright, the one regarding the Intel Application
Accelerator *test tool* is the link you offered up-top;
here: http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm which is
the 48-bit LBA Test Program for Windows* Me/98 SE/98
Cutting to the chase, the page/item itself I'm actually most closely
referring to is:
Intel® Application Accelerator Product Overview
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-020801.htm
and even more so:
Notice for Customers Using Western Digital* Hard Drives Larger than 137GB
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009319.htm
and any additional sub pages this one might point to. Narrowing in:
Downloads
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/filter_results.aspx?strTypes=all&ProductID=663&OSFullName=&lang=eng&strOSs=18&submit=Go%21
Readme
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/ENG/readme.txt
Release Notes
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/ENG/Release_23.htm
Just for the record, when I look in W98se Device Manager for these Drivers,
it seems they're mostly already present in there.
>
> To be honest, I do recall that the IAA has been mentioned in
> conjunction with the 137 gb issue, but they (Intel) don't seem to come
> right out and say that the IAA will replace ESDI_506.PDR for win-98.
Is that the specific issue/problem at hand ? The crux of it and the
potential for recognizing - or not recognizing - full drive capacity ?
>
> But that is the crux of the matter.
AHA ! <S>
If you have an IDE (Parallel-ATA)
> drive larger than 137 gb, win-98 will not function properly with it
> when you attempt to read or write beyond the 137 gb sector of the
> drive. The root of the problem is the driver ESDI_506.PDR. Why don't
> you try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
> ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok.
I've verged on the edge of soing this sort of thing (both regarding the WD
Lifeguard Tool as well as this Intel App Accelerator, but worried that I'd
mess it up. (Also read that removing the WD DDO could be problematic.
Additionally, I also read about how there are some issues (a DMA checkbox
which gets disabled when Intel App accelerator is installed and doesn't come
back when Intel Application Accelerator is un-installed. A "known issue", as
they put it. There was another issue about things becoming invisible (I
think that was with the WD Lifeguard Tool, if it was removed - if it could
be removed. So, upshot was, I was/am reluctant to just "test" in a chancy
fashion.
However, I also am curious as to which method would best effect a successful
outcome without adding more than I'd actually need.
Having said that.... returning to your point:
<paste>
"...try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
> ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok."
</paste>
OK... and if it doesn't, then what ? <G>
>
> > The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed
> > first, prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
> > Is that necessary,
>
> I would install the chipset updater.
OK... Though most (if not all) related files seem to be present on-board
here already. Also, The latest-latest version is not applicable to W98se.
One must employ an older version IIRC.
>
> > I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed
> > workarounds) as to the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format /
> > Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That in some cases an
> > updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
> > some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances.
> > Is that true, or am I mistaken ?
>
> You need to clarify if you want to create a single 500 gb partition as
> FAT-32, and if you want win-98 to be able to perform maintainence on
> it or if you want XP to do the maintainence.
No... not a single 500GB partition, but several partitions (logical Drives,
is that what they're called ?)
And I generally prefer wotking with W98se as a rule, but admittedly, never
had a reason to employ any Native XP maintenance utilities in any way
whatsoever. My WinXP is pretty sparse and rarely used.
Short version: Unless otherwise recommended - and as my actual working
knowledge of XP utilities are concerned, so limited - I'd just as soon
employ W98se as the workhorse of the two. Again, unless there's a definite
asset/efficacy in having XP do that.
>
> My experience is that win-98 tools (even the ME versions of those
> tools) will not work if you format the drive with too many clusters.
> Again, the number of clusters is a function of volume-size and chosen
> cluster-size. Which again takes me back to the first question - do
> you want a single 500 gb partition, or several smaller partitions?
At least several smaller clusters. Now, what you're saying is that if I
somehow format the 500 GB drive so as the file system basically becomes 4 Kb
clusters, then the number of clusters will be excessive and there will be a
problem - a BIG problem. Is that it ? So, if that's the case, and one can
allocate things to keep beneath that cap (say 8Kb or even 16 Kb sized
clusters), then that is the only way to go. Otherwise, a huge HD-D which
cannot be maintained - or worse still, accessed or data lost - would be less
than a large hard drive. Read: useless.
So, is that what and why you've been querying me about it ?
> > I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an
> > autorun of Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in
> > this case) will likely cause possible corruption of Data on
> > that large HD-D. True or not ?
>
> First, know that there are 2 scandisk programs. One is the DOS
> scandisk (scandisk.exe) and the other is windows scandisk
> (scandskw.exe / diskmaint.dll).
Yes, I believe I understand that.
>
> DOS scandisk does not use esdi_506.DLL (it uses bios int-13 calls) so
> if your bios is 48-bit LBA compatible then dos scandisk will not screw
> up your drive (but it will take a LONG time to run).
Because it must scan 500 GB's ? LOL Pray don't crash !!!!
Incidentally, on that note: When I've used the Windows GUI Scandisk, I've
done so in a "clean-boot" mode, and not in "Safe Mode" as 'safe mode' scan
seemed very slow. Though not exactly related, I can imagine how slow it
might be.
>
> > If true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested
> > disabling of Scandisk autorun in such a crash scenario ?
>
> You do not want to install win-98 on the 500 gb drive, or expose the
> drive to win-98 until you have tackled the 137 gb problem, which means
> replacing esdi_506.PDR with something else.
OK, but the testing of the large 500 GB for the 48Bit LBA BIOS capability in
DOS from W98se was OK though ?
Now, 98 Guy (great handle. <s>), There are many links you've offered below,
and i must inspect those thoroughly to be able to continue onward. I will do
so, though I'd not gotten that far as yet. I hope for two things. 1) That my
mega post here will not be unbearable. 2) that the info i've provided -
along with any clues that I *might be getting it* will be of some use in
coming to a speedy end and solution.
I'll be back. No... wait a minute. I have already been there to that
ite, - at least in part - and downloaded a BIGHDD30.zip file (apparently
the link to BigHDD20 was dead.
>
> First, read this:
I'll re-read. Thank you. :-))
>
> http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html
>
> Then download a modified esdi_506.PDR from here:
>
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/readme.txt
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001111F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001119F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102001F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102186F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102222F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102225F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102226F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4903000F.ZIP
>
> > Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8
> > -12 GB, and then several 20 GB partitions and then a few
> > very large partitions(working type for editing and so-forth),
> > is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party Partitioning
> > application is required for what I need to do ?
>
> If you are going to keep your partitions to less than 32 gb, then you
> don't need to use a third-party partitioning tool because the
> cluster-size will not be so large to be inefficient.
But what about the actual *number of clusters* ? Will that become an issue
in itself ?
>
> You're going to end up with a whack of drive letters, but if you're OK
> with that, well then to each his own.
LOL. I had given that modest (repeat: modest) thought. haha
But you will still be faced
> with the 137 gb problem.
The never-ending 137 GB issue. Will it ever go away ? lol
>
> > When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does
> > that mean that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each
> > partition is no larger than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that
> > the max and only visible/usable size of a partition on such a
> > setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,
>
> It means that when the drive attempts to access a sector beyond the
> 137 gb point on the drive, it will wrap around back to sector zero
> instead, and screw up your MBR or FAT tables.
To make light of such a disaster, that sounds... er... rather
"inconvenient". <sg>.
>
> It doesn't matter that you might have a bunch of small volumes on the
> drive, none of them larger than 20 or 30 gb. On a 500 gb drive, there
> will be a 137 gb point on it - unless you decide to NOT use most of
> the drive and only create a bunch of partitions that take you up to
> the 137 gb point (but not past it).
That would be useless wouldn't it ?
>
> I personally have never attached an IDE/PATA drive larger than 80 gb
> to a win-98 system, so I've never seen / experienced first-hand what
> actually happens at the 137 gb access point, nor have I verified that
> the modified esdi_506.pdr actually works (but those on the msfn.org
> forum have).
But, someone must have ... somewhere ? I always read stuff like "overcome
the 137 GB limit" and people writing of 'success" but it's alwats beeen kind
of cryptic and not so easy to accomplish as what I've been led (mis-led ?)
to believe. :-(
>
> What I have done is work with 160, 250 and 500 gb SATA drives on
> win-98, so I know the extent that win-98 is compatible with those,
> along with varying the cluster size and hence the number of clusters
> on a given volume.
I think I've scoped in on some of those rather arcane and mega posts of
highly technical prowess. Both you and at least two other persons. Franc
Zabkar (I believe) and someone else - whose name I cannot presently recall.
OK... 'nuff said for now...
Thank you very much for the help / ideas / suggestions / links and all
you've offered. Above and beyond that, thank you for having taken of your
time to read and reply (and to sit once again through this one big ___ post
of mine). It was very kind of you.<S>
I'll see what I can do.....
Cheers,
BeBopalula
BeBopaLula
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B...@Guy.com...
>
>.... Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> more efficient) cluster size.
Looked for such an iitem at WD site. Found nothing which goes under that
name. Google search offered some close calls, but nothig exact. That is,
unless you are referring to something like "OnTrack" ?
http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com/hard-drive-software/diskmanager.aspx
If that is not it, and the other google results generally have some
reference to Drivers included in the hit, then may I ask you to provide some
specific ink ?
Thanks.
BeBopaLula
"BeBopaLula" <skiddle...@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
news:%235rxNNh...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B...@Guy.com...
> <snip>
> >
> >.... Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> > of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> > will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> > more efficient) cluster size.
>
Addenda:
Continued searching led me to this page, but I have questions as to whether
it contains the exact item you referred to.
Hard Drive Software Library
http://ftp.abacus.cz/pub/support/testy.sw/hdd/wd/drivers/drives.html
Don Phillipson
> I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM)
model
> WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
> . . . What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
Documented on the maker's web site at
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=533
Your basic decision is whether the BIOS and/or IDE controller
card allow access to more than 137 Gb drive space. (External
drives connected via USB avoid this limitation.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
BeBopaLula
Yes, I'd prefiously read that WD link you offered, but didn't fully
comprehend what the fine points of detail were. I did say I was far less
than technically astute than most denizens of this newsgroup are. I also
asked if anyone could explain in terms a simple person could understand and
the appropriate order of appearance. The WD link offered here does show
numerous 'options', yet never makes it clear whether all the proposals are
required - and if required, what order they should be implemented.
For example:
<paste>
If you have an Intel chipset motherboard listed in Answer ID 1004, you can
install a software package from Intel called The Intel Application
Accelerator version 2.3 to give the system (motherboard) support for hard
drives over 137GB.
</paste>
Yes, I have an Intel Chipset Motherboard (Intel 845). So, does this then
preclude or overide the previously mentioned "Recommendations" of :
<paste>
The Data Lifeguard Tools version 10.0, in conjunction with the proper
drivers for the controller card, will allow Windows 98 Second Edition and
above to utilize this space properly.
</paste>
This - in part - is what I mean by these apparently critical instructions
being somewhat cloaked; arcane; for the complete Computer Geek. The items
mentioned are suddenly mentioned off the cuff (Intel Applicxation
Accelerator, for instance) without specifying the precise role they'd
perform. For example: That *if* the disk is not fully recognized (or
whatever the problematic issue might be) after running the WD Lifeguard
Tool, *then* the use of The Intel Application Accelerator *might* be able to
overcome the problem".
To recap:
I have an Intel 845 Chipset
the Intel 48bit LBA checking tool reports that my BIOS will support a large
Hard Drive.
I then *assume* that an ancillary IDE PCI Controller card is *not needed*
for my system to accept and (effectively ?) employ a large hard drive. So,
can I safely rule out that part of the equation, which comes up again and
again and again?
The onboard Controller (Intel 82801BA Ultra ATA Storage Controller - 244B)
for the Hard Drives claims to be able to support the large hard drive. I
assume that the child components; the Primary and secondary hard drive
controllers also support said large hard drive.
So, given the above reports on my system readiness, does one need to employ
both those tools - WD Data Lifeguard Tool and the Intel Application
Accelerator (and possibly more - such as Chipset Updater, which Intel states
must be installed before running the Application Accelerator Tool) to
achieve success (Though on on hand the Chipset - as is -is claimed to
support the addition of a large hard drive?
This is what I mean when I state that the entire thing is a flustercluck,
not made clear (at least not to me) as to what is and what isn't required
and in what *exact* order they may be / *are* required (or precluded as
being an unnecessary item, *if* such and such is present and is reported as
being in compliance with the basic requirement).
Just for the record, I've looked into this matter for about 1.5 years and
read all sorts of info - much of it contradictory. In the end, I had to
actually get this HD-D to begin to actually try and apply some of the info
garnered, but then hit various roadblocks. Prolly best to just chuck it and
just go for the max size HD-D that can be employed without all the if's,
and, or buts, and arcane "jump through the hoops and hogshead of real-fire".
:-(
Thanks for the detailed help.
Regards.....
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillips...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:%23BncUej...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Don Phillipson
> To recap:
> I have an Intel 845 Chipset
> the Intel 48bit LBA checking tool reports that my BIOS will support a
large
> Hard Drive.
>
> I then *assume* that an ancillary IDE PCI Controller card is *not needed*
> for my system to accept and (effectively ?) employ a large hard drive. So,
> can I safely rule out that part of the equation, which comes up again and
> again and again?
>
> The onboard Controller (Intel 82801BA Ultra ATA Storage Controller -
244B)
> for the Hard Drives claims to be able to support the large hard drive. I
> assume that the child components; the Primary and secondary hard drive
> controllers also support said large hard drive.
>
> So, given the above reports on my system readiness, does one need to
employ
> both those tools - WD Data Lifeguard Tool and the Intel Application
> Accelerator (and possibly more - such as Chipset Updater, which Intel
states
> must be installed before running the Application Accelerator Tool) to
> achieve success (Though on on hand the Chipset - as is -is claimed to
> support the addition of a large hard drive?
Why not:
1. Download beforehand the Intel software the documentation
recommends or says you need. The size of each package
may be a helpful indicator.
2. Save to disk beforehand your BIOS information.
3. Connect and instal the new HDD, then find out
its available capacity (drive space). If about 500 Gb
your task may have ended.
4. If much less than 500 Gb, instal the Lifeguard Tools
(as documented by Intel: e.g. I do not know whether
you need to instal Lifeguard Tools with the drive
connected or disconnected.)
5. Test the new drive capacity. If unsatisfactory, try
other Intel OS software.
BeBopaLula
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillips...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:OOkmGZm6...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
1) I have downloaded *everything* - some time ago - already. *smile*.
2) I have documented - in notepad.txt - the state of the BIOS many times,
including the present current state. ;-))
Incidental FYI regarding BIOS when the *raw /unformatted / non-installed
/un-anythinged* 500GB was placed in hard drive bay:
Primary Drive 0
Model: WD400BB – 75CLB0
Type: Auto
Capacity: 40020 MB
Primary Drive 1
MODEL: WDC WD5000AAKB-00UKA0
Type: AUTO
Capacity: 500 GB
3) Is number two - above - equivalent to number three here ? <S and G> When
you say "Install" does that mean to try to Format (or WD LifeGuard) it ?
4) Further investigation - as provided by a friend - shows this from the
Western Digital web site:
Question: How do I install Dynamic Drive Overlay (DDO) on a hard drive?
IMPORTANT: If your system BIOS is 48-bit LBA compatible, or supports the
capacity of your hard drive by itself, this software will not be needed. The
only purpose of this software is to overcome a system BIOS limitation if
your BIOS cannot recognize the full capacity of the hard drive(s) you wish
to install. Western Digital recommends using the Dynamic Drive Overlay
software only as a last resort. If possible, you should upgrade your system
BIOS or purchase a controller card to obtain the BIOS support you need to
support your new hard drive.
So... I guess I don't need to employ that WD Data Lifeguard DDO, after all.
5) You wrote: "Test the new drive capacity". Was the above a "test" or do I
need to actually go further along ?
I think I need to do something further (like Format ?) so I can actually see
the HD-D in "MY COMPUTER", as it doesn't appear in there at all. The Device
Manager shows it. The BIOS shows it, but as yet, "My Computer" does not.
Thank you for the input and brainstorming.<S>
BeBopaLula
actual status of this W98se equipped Optiplex GX240 Box.
When I bought this PC from Dell (~ Feb 2002), it was WinXP ready. I said I
don't want XP <g>, I want Win98se in it. So, they (removed XP ?)then DELL
OEM installed W98se. I assume that this machine was as XP ready as could be
at the time.
The BIOS at that time was version A02 (which I successfully flashed to A05
about a year ago).
There's only one included hardware device that I know of notwithstanding,
and that was USB 2.0. This machine only had USB 1.1. :-/
I was reminded of the above facts by a dear friend who clearly possesses
greater memory skills than my own (obviously).<g>
Just thought you should know
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillips...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:%23BncUej...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Don Phillipson
> I think I need to do something further (like Format ?) so I can actually
see
> the HD-D in "MY COMPUTER", as it doesn't appear in there at all. The
Device
> Manager shows it. The BIOS shows it, but as yet, "My Computer" does not.
Test the new drive using DOS FDISK. Big hard
drives are usually delivered preformatted FAT32:
the WD documentation should tell you whether
the driive is preformatted or not.
A preformatted drive shows in EXPLORER (My
Computer) as a single large drive with a single
driveletter. If EXPLORER does not see it you
may need to create partitions and logical drives
using FDISK (but see special WD documentationn
concerning Win98: WD may provide some other
tool; FDISK was programmed when 10 Gb was
about the largest hard drive made.)
Recap:
1. What shows in My Computer is only
"partitions" with driveletters, created by FDISK.
If My Computer does not show a drive, either:
1a. It is not connected correctly or,
1b. It contains no logical partitions (driveletters), or
1c. It contains partitions of a type Win98 cannot
use (e.g. Linux or NTFS for WinXP). These can
be removed by FDISK and FAT32 partitions created
(OK for Win98).
2. Every separate partition must be FORMATted
before you can read or write to it (except in Linux).
Don Phillipson
> When I bought this PC from Dell (~ Feb 2002), it was WinXP ready. I said I
> don't want XP <g>, I want Win98se in it. So, they (removed XP ?)then DELL
> OEM installed W98se. I assume that this machine was as XP ready as could
be
> at the time.
> The BIOS at that time was version A02 (which I successfully flashed to A05
> about a year ago).
>
> There's only one included hardware device that I know of notwithstanding,
> and that was USB 2.0. This machine only had USB 1.1. :-/
Win98SE includes drivers for USB version 2.
Device detection on boot implies this PC has
already detected the USB setup and has
installed USB2 drivers.
BeBopaLula
I knew/realized that Win98se had the drivers (That USB 2.0 was 'supported'
in my - and all - W98se OS'es).
But, this exact box was lacking the USB 2.0 hardware. It was definitely USB
1.1 Low-Speed 1.5Mbit/s.
I had to install a USB 2.0 Card to achieve supposed USB 2.0 Hi-Speed 480
Mbit/s (or Full-Speed 12Mbit/s) capability.
As for the 'Device detection on boot", I don't know to what you're
referring. But, 'let's not go there' right now. :-)
I think I was trying to say/ alert whomever might be game to help me, that
this PC was 'unusual' to begin with. That W98se was already nearing it's
'end' (so to speak) as far as what was being sold, and that this machine was
initially set-up by Dell as an XP loaded machine. Therefore, *maybe* some
items in the Hardware dept (Mobo and so forth) were more XP oriented, rather
than 98se oriented, although in the end, they agreed and installed W98se as
I had requested. So maybe this box is a weird hybrid/half-breed and lacks a
true pedigree ?
The above - regarding any potential hardware differences; if any - is just
an uneducated guess on my side. Clearly, I'm no Computer Wizard.
Thanks...
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillips...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:uBi0mho6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
BeBopaLula
I'll address this one in a little while Don. I have an ongoing conversation
with a freind from afar who's also trying to help me (NO, it is not any
other Forum or Help Site, but simply a personal friend). They've made
several inquiries, and I must address them, lest I lose both their patience
and care.
I'll try to return.
Oh, and another thing (directed more towards W98guy) is: Since I already
have an Intel 82801 BA Ultra ATA Controller, doesn't that supersede any
ESDI_506.PDR type drivers ? I prolly cannot replace the existing Intel
82801 BA Ultra ATA Controller driver with the (any) ESDI_506.PDR driver.
Apparently, the driver files of the above Intel 82801 BA Ultra ATA
Controller are similar to - if not identical to those of the Intel
Application Accelerator, though I've never installed that item (as best as I
can recall). I'd bet nearly every dime I have left that I'd never installed
it.
Regardless, the two driver files I currently have are:
INTELVSD.VXD (Smart VSD for Intel ultra ATA storage driver)
version: 5.02.200. 02/16/2001
INTELATA.MPD (Intel ultra ATA storage driver for windows)
version: 5.02.200. 02/16/2001
Anyway, I digress.
Thank you. I'll return ASAP.
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillips...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:OH%23Rmho6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Lil' Dave
I would:
1. Connect the drive up.
2. Boot to XP, and partition/format it NTFS.
98SE is not factor as it cannot "see" NTFS.
I would not:
Allow 98SE access to this drive for many reasons. End reason, it will trash
the drive partition table(s) and file system. No matter how many
partitions, even if a combination of FAT32 and NTFS. Even if one FAT32
partition less than 128GB, rest NTFS. Don't matter if at the end of the
physcal drive or at the beginning with a single FAT32 partition less than
128GB, remainder NTFS. When the total file data accumulated on all the
drive's partitions exceeds 128GB, and 98SE writes additional files, all
kinds of stuff bad happens.
Dave
BeBopaLula
You're saying that anyone who claims to have overcome this 137 GB Barrier
with W98(se) is full of hot air, is that it ? (serious question).
You're saying of your own experience and accord that no matter what anyone
claims, that in fact, W98se and a large hard drive are incompatible. Is that
the bottom line ? (serious question)
As far as the recommendations or prohibitions go, I do appreciate your
input. Of course, NFTS was not at all what I had in mind.
I need not really 'remind you' that this is a W98 newsgroup (clearly, that
is understood by you. *smile*) Where's yer loyalty ? <G>
Point is, I LIKE w98se; I don't particularly care for XP. I only use it -
and extremely sparsely at that - for the very few apps which cannot be
employed through w9x. Therefore, the entire idea of formatting in NTFS would
preclude any use by w98se and is the sole reason I got the drive. W98se is
my workhorse and what I use. To place stuff (whether storage or otherwise)
in WinXP in NTFS would render that stuff (Vids/music) inaccessible - would
it not ? So, then of what value would having a large HD-D be for me ?
I do believe your advice and suggestions are well intended; quite possibly
more than truthful (not verifiable by me, as I know far less than you do)
than I can fathom, and ..........are an extreme blow to my plan. :-|
I won't ask for exact documentation from you for the "many reasons" you
*hinted at*, yet didn't reveal, other than the "End Reason" - which of
course, if certifiably true, is a "major concern".
Thanks. :-)
"Lil' Dave" <spamyo...@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ekcag0p6...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "BeBopaLula" <skiddle...@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
> news:eTf0oRd6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > Hello.
> >
> > A question about installing and partitioning a 500 GB Western Digital
> > ATA/IDE Hard Drive in a basic W98se equipped system (plus some). Details
> > below.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Platform Configuration:
> > Dell Optiplex GX240
> > 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> > HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> > Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager - BootUS.
> > (My Dell Optiplex A05 BIOS - the latest and final - will only permit
> > booting off the Primary Drive Volume as physically cabled.)
> > System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
> > BIOS - version A05
> >
> > Issue:
> > I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM)
> > model
> > WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
> > operational as that primary drive. If OTOH, someone has a more practical
> > approach and rationale regarding this proposal, I'll consider it. But,
if
> > my
> > initial premise seems sound, then that's probably what I'd prefer to
have.
<snipped>
98 Guy
> You're saying that anyone who claims to have overcome this 137GB
> Barrier with W98(se) is full of hot air, is that it ?
Ok BeBop. Here's the scoop.
The problem with win-98 and large hard drive support is ESDI_506.PDR.
That's win-98's protected-mode hard drive driver. It does not
function properly when accessing hard drives beyond the 137 gb point
on the drive.
Note that XP (pre-sp1) and Win-2K (pre-sp3) had the same problem.
However, back in 2002 Microsoft patched XP and 2K, but did not patch
win-98 (even though that time-frame was well within Win-98's support
life cycle).
When it comes to the basic hard-drive partitioning and formatting, DOS
fdisk and format work just fine, and will even partition and format a
500 gb drive as a single volume.
Ok, so what do we do about the ESDI_506.PDR problem? Well,
apparently, this situation was fixed back in 2002 courtesy of Intel
and their IAA. Yes, if you have a motherboard with a certain
hard-drive controller (see below), then the installation of the IAA
will replace ESDI_506.PDR with INTELATA.MPD.
ESDI_506.PDR should turn up when you go to device manager, Hard disk
controllers, Primary (and secondary) IDE controller (properties),
select the Driver tab, select "driver file details".
After installation of the IAA, ESDI506.PDR should be replaced with
INTELATA.MPD.
I installed IAA on one of my win-98 machines running on a SOYO
motherboard (P-4, i845 chipset).
I created a bootlog.txt and sure enough esdi_506.pdr was replaced by
intelata.mpd.
I noticed after installing that I no longer have a DMA check-box in my
drive properties window. However, when I bring up the IAA application
program, it tells me that my hard drive Current Transfer Mode is
UDMA-5 and my DVD burner (Lite-On LH-20A1P) is UDMA-4.
For what it's worth, this might be useful:
http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/harddrive/
I would say that for motherboards with these specifications:
Intel Pentium-3 or Pentium-4 processor
Intel 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA or 82801DB HD controllers
The IAA seems like it will allow you to break the 137 gb hard drive
barrier under win-98. This is absolutely necessary if the hard drive
in question is a P-ATA drive, but as I've said in other posts a large
S-ATA drive under win-98 will usually be ok as long as it is not
mapped as an IDE drive (regardless of the motherboard chipset).
Regarding your partitioning strategy, I wouldn't create partitions any
smaller than 32 gb. I think a good strategy would be to create a
primary partition (32 gb) and then make the rest of the volumes 64 gb
in size. I would use the WD drive tool to create the partitions, and
I would force the primary 32 gb partition to use 4kb cluster size. I
would use 8kb cluster size for all the other 64gb volumes. If you do
that, then you will have more efficient use of the space while
insuring compatibility with defrag and scandisk (but I would still use
win-me versions of those).
To test if this will work, once you partition and format the drive,
start your system with the new 500 gb drive as drive 2, and your
existing win-98 drive as drive 1. When win-98 starts, copy some stuff
to the last volume on the new drive. That location will be beyond the
137 gb point. After you copy some stuff, run scandisk and/or defrag
on that volume. If those operations are performed ok, and the new
drive is still functioning ok and still accessible, then I'd say
you're in business and you could use the 500 gb drive as your primary
drive and install win-98 on the primary 32 gb partition.
BeBopaLula
Had some issues here with this newsgroup and other stuff (as per usual).
Wasn't until I posted my "Testing. Please Ignore" that any new posts - which
is currently limited to my test and your current reply, became visible.
Either this server is "off", or else this W98gendisc group is unbelievably
slow as far as new posts are concerned.
Whatever.... that said: <inline>
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D6410D...@Guy.com...
> BeBopaLula wrote:
>
> > You're saying that anyone who claims to have overcome this 137GB
> > Barrier with W98(se) is full of hot air, is that it ?
>
> Ok BeBop. Here's the scoop.
Heh. OK. :-))
>
> The problem with win-98 and large hard drive support is ESDI_506.PDR.
> That's win-98's protected-mode hard drive driver. It does not
> function properly when accessing hard drives beyond the 137 gb point
> on the drive.
OK. and so I've sort of gathered when examining the MFSN site and their
Unofficial W98se Upgrade/Update packs, Win98se breaking the 137GB barrier,
LargeHDD20 and LargeHDD30 'fixes, and the like.
>
> Note that XP (pre-sp1) and Win-2K (pre-sp3) had the same problem.
> However, back in 2002 Microsoft patched XP and 2K, but did not patch
> win-98 (even though that time-frame was well within Win-98's support
> life cycle).
Typical, I'd suppose. :-/
>
> When it comes to the basic hard-drive partitioning and formatting, DOS
> fdisk and format work just fine, and will even partition and format a
> 500 gb drive as a single volume.
No problem with the basic Native W98se components/files then ?
>
> Ok, so what do we do about the ESDI_506.PDR problem? Well,
> apparently, this situation was fixed back in 2002 courtesy of Intel
> and their IAA. Yes, if you have a motherboard with a certain
> hard-drive controller (see below), then the installation of the IAA
> will replace ESDI_506.PDR with INTELATA.MPD.
I seem to have noticed that. I never had (that I know of, or rather,
recollect) an *operational* ESDI_506.PDR. Yes, I do have one as a file which
resides in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS
ESDI_506.PDR
size: 23.8 Kb (24,406 bytes)
created: (Unknown)
modified: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
File version: 4.10.2222
Description: ESDI_506 Virtual Device (Version 4.0)
MD5: 7E98FAE3D43769BCC0ECC0CDC93B7FDD
But my actual current drivers are the INTELATA.MPD and the IntelVSD.VxD
versions 5.02.2001, 02/16/2001
>
> ESDI_506.PDR should turn up when you go to device manager, Hard disk
> controllers, Primary (and secondary) IDE controller (properties),
> select the Driver tab, select "driver file details".
I suppose it would, if........
>
> After installation of the IAA, ESDI506.PDR should be replaced with
> INTELATA.MPD.
This is what I have - though apparently not the latest, as per IAA version
3.2. I should add that I don't recollect ever having installed any version
of IAA at any time. I could be mistaken in that (as I do make mistakes), but
I swear I don't remember ever initiating an install of it.
>
> I installed IAA on one of my win-98 machines running on a SOYO
> motherboard (P-4, i845 chipset).
>
> I created a bootlog.txt and sure enough esdi_506.pdr was replaced by
> intelata.mpd.
>
> I noticed after installing that I no longer have a DMA check-box in my
> drive properties window. However, when I bring up the IAA application
> program, it tells me that my hard drive Current Transfer Mode is
> UDMA-5 and my DVD burner (Lite-On LH-20A1P) is UDMA-4.
That is a reported "Known Issue" of that IAA, if I recall correctly.
Furthermore, I read that if IAA is un-installed, the DMA checkbox does not
re-appear.
>
> For what it's worth, this might be useful:
>
> http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/harddrive/
I'll check that out. Thanks...
>
> I would say that for motherboards with these specifications:
>
> Intel Pentium-3 or Pentium-4 processor
> Intel 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA or 82801DB HD controllers
I never said, but as things currently stand, I do have a P-4 2.0 GHz CPU as
well as an Intel 82801BA Ultra ATA Storage Controller -244B already .
>
> The IAA seems like it will allow you to break the 137 gb hard drive
> barrier under win-98. This is absolutely necessary if the hard drive
> in question is a P-ATA drive,
The WD5000AAKB 500GB 16MB buffer Hard-drive is a PATA drive.
but as I've said in other posts a large
> S-ATA drive under win-98 will usually be ok as long as it is not
> mapped as an IDE drive (regardless of the motherboard chipset).
I would have gone SATA if .... and so forth. I didn't want to introduce
other factors such as adaptors or controller cards and the like as my MoBo
hasn't any SATA headers. I figured I'd just live with the slower transfer
rate/ read/write, whatever and be happy with what I could get.
>
> Regarding your partitioning strategy, I wouldn't create partitions any
> smaller than 32 gb.
Which would create clusters of approximately what size ?
I think a good strategy would be to create a
> primary partition (32 gb) and then make the rest of the volumes 64 gb
> in size. I would use the WD drive tool to create the partitions,
An interjection if I may: As I now have come to understand things, The WD
Data Lifeguard Tool will be uneccessary in the sense of running/
installing/initiating the DDO level of things (hope I made that clear;
sensible) if it senses that my MoBo, BIOS, etc, will support a *large Hard
Drive*. However, it will still be used as a basic format/partitioning tool.
Although somewhere I recollect reading that the WD Data Lifeguard Tool isn't
really capable as a partitioning application. Do I have that correct ?
Reference to WD Data Lifeguard and DDO
http://snipurl.com/1q417
Western Digital - How do I install Dynamic Drive Overlay (DDO) on a hard
drive?
Answer
IMPORTANT: If your system BIOS is 48-bit LBA compatible, or supports the
capacity of your hard drive by itself, this software will not be needed. The
only purpose of this software is to overcome a system BIOS limitation if
your BIOS cannot recognize the full capacity of the hard drive(s) you wish
to install. Western Digital recommends using the Dynamic Drive Overlay
software only as a last resort. If possible, you should upgrade your system
BIOS or purchase a controller card to obtain the BIOS support you need to
support your new hard drive.
So, do I need that WD DATA LIFEGUARD, or can I employ something else. Like
Partition Magic or something like that ? Even the Basic Native FDisk/Format
, for that matter ? What would you truly recommend, IF WD Data Lifeguard is
in fact (?) superfluous ?
> and
> I would force the primary 32 gb partition to use 4kb cluster size. I
> would use 8kb cluster size for all the other 64gb volumes. If you do
> that, then you will have more efficient use of the space while
> insuring compatibility with defrag and scandisk (but I would still use
> win-me versions of those).
OK, you've answered a question I posed above; thank you..
I also have made use of WinME Scandisk and Defrag for a good number of years
now, and those WinME versions have long ago replaced the Native W98se
utilities. ;-))
Two points I'd like to make here. I actually haven't any huge objection to
projected cluster sizes in the neighborhood of 8 Kb. I'd probably not even
overly object to a 16 Kb Cluster size (even if that seems ignorant.)
My reasoning - if you want to call it that - is as follows: I'm already
'living with' 32 Kb clusters in my meagre Primary 40 GB hard-drive under
W98se (Unpartitioned as one 'big' drive) so even at 16 Kb, that would be an
improvement on the order of 100% over what I now have.
Secondly, as I understand it, if one deals with large files (whatever
constitutes the definition of a Large File), then a larger cluster size is
said to be preferable as far as fragmentation and moving said large file is
concerned. This is what I have heard said.
>
> To test if this will work, once you partition and format the drive,
> start your system with the new 500 gb drive as drive 2, and your
> existing win-98 drive as drive 1.
Sounds good so far.
When win-98 starts, copy some stuff
> to the last volume on the new drive. That location will be beyond the
> 137 gb point. After you copy some stuff, run scandisk and/or defrag
> on that volume. If those operations are performed ok, and the new
> drive is still functioning ok and still accessible, then I'd say
> you're in business
And there would be no issue (as L'il Dave posited), that when I finally
wrote beyond the 128 GB range with W98se, that it'd wrap around and start
overwiting the beginning of the HD-D ?
and you could use the 500 gb drive as your primary
> drive and install win-98 on the primary 32 gb partition.
Would that preclude keeping my current W98se on HD-D 1 / 40 GB Primary ?
IOW, Could I maintain W98se as is where it now resides on 40 GB hard drive 0
(as designated in BIOS) - and not necessarily install it on the 500 GB -
and put WinXP Pro on the 500GB HD-D Drive 1 (as designated in BIOS) ? Hope I
made that clear, and didn't start mixing Apples and Oranges here.
Thank you very much 98 Guy for your extensive and pretty clear cut way of
expressing things. You've made things considerably less foggy for me. Much
obliged. :-)))
Lil' Dave
was not overcome. Was not expressed, or, intentionally implied if you took
it that way. Don't understand where you come from saying that.
My reply was based on a week of various combination of partitions, various
sizes, combinations and singulars of primary and extended partitions/logical
drives on a 200GB PATA WD hard drive. Don't believe I overlooked any
possibility in the partitioning realm. The onboard bios was 48bit lba
capable. The results were always the same. Same hard drive worked find if
not accessed by 98SE, only XP, when the total data on the hard drive
exceeded 128GB. No matter the partition combination. No matter the file
system.
I told you what I would do. If you choose otherwise, that's okay with me.
And my opinion of your choice is of no consequence.
My allegiance to 98SE still exists to some extent. My comfort regarding
potential problems regarding any MS OS that was due to lose its MS support,
is low. And, I believe MS was well aware of what you are trying to do now
as a potential problem many years ago. Said nothing SPECIFIC (symptoms)
regarding what to look for when encountering this, and did nothing. I noted
those symptoms to you. It was not specifically aired out until the last 2
years in MS newsgroups like this one. This newsgroup has specifically
chased these problems of hard drive capacity, partitioning, OS system file
system tools (defrag and scandisk), fdisk bit wrap, and so on.
My philosophy regarding 98SE is to use the OS as is. No mods. Introducing
3rd party fixes may present other problems, in my opinion, overlooked. So,
I have and continue to shy away from those. Winme file system tools are
okay. 3rd party partitioning is okay. That is my philosopy, my opinion.
Should not play into whatever you decide to do. Make your own choices. I
encourage that.
Dave
"BeBopaLula" <skiddle...@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
news:%23PGGmFq...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
98 Guy
> LargeHDD20 and LargeHDD30 'fixes, and the like.
I haven't been following the HDD20 and HDD30 items so I'm not exactly
sure what they refer to (have they done more work on the ESDI_506.PDR
patching recently?)
> > When it comes to the basic hard-drive partitioning and
> > formatting, DOS fdisk and format work just fine, and will
> > even partition and format a 500 gb drive as a single volume.
>
> No problem with the basic Native W98se components/files then ?
If you are referring to defrag and windows-scandisk, no, they will not
break or corrupt a large hard drive as long as ESDI_506.PDR is taken
care of first. What the windows tools are not compatible with is a
volume with a large number of clusters, which can happen if you use
something like the WD software is used to prepare a drive and you
force it to use a small cluster size. The win-98se versions of
scandisk and defrag can't handle a volume with more than 4 million
clusters, but the windows-ME versions can (but I don't know what their
upper limit is). The DOS version of scandisk can handle a very large
number of clusters.
> I could be mistaken in that (as I do make mistakes), but
> I swear I don't remember ever initiating an install of it.
Maybe the IAA came pre-installed by Dell. In your C:\Program Files
directory, do you have an Intel subdirectory? If so, in that
directory do you have an "Intel Application Accelerator"
subdirectory? If so, what is the date of that directory?
> > Regarding your partitioning strategy, I wouldn't create
> > partitions any smaller than 32 gb.
>
> Which would create clusters of approximately what size ?
Normally, the DOS format program would use a cluster size of 16kb for
a volume of 32 gb. It would switch to 32kb on volumes between 32 gb
to 128 gb.
A 32 gb partition formatted with 4kb cluster size would result in 8
million clusters.
> The WD Data Lifeguard Tool will be uneccessary in the sense of
> running/ installing/initiating the DDO level of things (hope
> I made that clear; sensible)
You don't want to use the DDO, and I don't think that any motherboard
made by anyone with a Pentium-4 would require the use of a DDO.
> if it senses that my MoBo, BIOS, etc, will support a *large Hard
> Drive*. However, it will still be used as a basic format/
> partitioning tool. Although somewhere I recollect reading that
> the WD Data Lifeguard Tool isn't really capable as a partitioning
> application. Do I have that correct ?
The Data Lifeguard tools are fundamentally designed to prepare a new
hard drive for use, so yes the ability to partition and format a hard
drive is a fundamental aspect of it's functionality.
> So, do I need that WD DATA LIFEGUARD, or can I employ something
> else.
If you want to format your volumes using a non-standard cluster size
(and I have pointed out the benefits and caveats of doing so) then
yes, the WD software will allow you to do that. The DOS format
program will not - it will select the cluster size based on it's own
internal rules. The WD software has an advantage in that it will
perform the partitioning and formatting process faster than using DOS
fdisk and format.
> Like Partition Magic or something like that ? Even the Basic
> Native FDisk/Format, for that matter ? What would you truly
> recommend, IF WD Data Lifeguard is in fact (?) superfluous ?
I've tried Partition Magic, and maybe my recollection is hazy, but I
think I wasn't able to set the cluster size to what I wanted it to be
during the partitioning/formatting of a new drive. So for that reason
again I prefer the WD software.
> I'm already 'living with' 32 Kb clusters in my meagre Primary
> 40 GB hard-drive under W98se (Unpartitioned as one 'big' drive)
> so even at 16 Kb, that would be an improvement on the order of
> 100% over what I now have.
I would argue with your 100% number, but ok, continue -
> Secondly, as I understand it, if one deals with large files
> (whatever constitutes the definition of a Large File), then a
> larger cluster size is said to be preferable as far as
> fragmentation and moving said large file is concerned. This
> is what I have heard said.
Well, NTFS sticks to 4kb cluster size regardless of the size of the
volume. I suppose if you knew ahead of time that a particular volume
was going to be used predominantly for large files then you can use
large clusters on that volume. There's also an argument that the use
of a cluster size that matches the drive's native sector size is
optimal from a performance point of view.
> And there would be no issue (as L'il Dave posited), that when
> I finally wrote beyond the 128 GB range with W98se, that it'd
> wrap around and start overwiting the beginning of the HD-D ?
Yes. If you can correctly manipulate, move, copy, and delete files on
that portion of the drive that lies beyond the 137 gb point, and such
manipulation doesn't mess up the drives MBR or FAT tables or otherwise
cause a raft of logical drive errors, then that would indicate
compatibility with win-98.
> > and you could use the 500 gb drive as your primary
> > drive and install win-98 on the primary 32 gb partition.
>
> Would that preclude keeping my current W98se on HD-D 1
> / 40 GB Primary ?
No. I thought that perhaps you wanted to use the 500 gb drive as your
only hard drive, or maybe use it as your primary drive (drive-1) and
continue to use your XP drive as drive-2 - in which case you'd install
98se on the new drive on the primary partition (32 gb, formatted with
4kb clusters as I mentioned above).
> IOW, Could I maintain W98se as is where it now resides on
> 40 GB hard drive 0 (as designated in BIOS) - and not
> necessarily install it on the 500 GB - and put WinXP Pro
> on the 500GB HD-D Drive 1 (as designated in BIOS) ?
It's up to you. It doesn't matter.
98 Guy
> My philosophy regarding 98SE is to use the OS as is. No mods.
Well, that's your hang-up, and its an unnecessary handicap.
I've described how win-98 can be made compatible with volumes larger
than 137 gb. Sometimes that involves using the IAA (and if you call
that a mod, well you're really narrow in your thinking). Other times,
the use of a SATA drive requires no "mods" at all.
> Introducing 3rd party fixes may present other problems,
> in my opinion, overlooked.
I'd hardly call using Intel software such as the IAA a "third-party"
fix, expecially when they are the manufacturer of the chipset and
hard-drive controller.
> Winme file system tools are okay.
And you don't call that a "mod" ??? Strange.
Lil' Dave
bandwagon about your opinions. Or your 98SE works on some specific hardware
flagwaving. Nor will I clip and snip your posts to take easy potshots. I
am not in competition with you about swaying an OP originator. If that's
your motive, you are in error. Have nice day.
Dave
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D6CF4F...@Guy.com...
BeBopaLula
"98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D6CDCF...@Guy.com...
> BeBopaLula wrote:
>
> > LargeHDD20 and LargeHDD30 'fixes, and the like.
>
> I haven't been following the HDD20 and HDD30 items so I'm not exactly
> sure what they refer to (have they done more work on the ESDI_506.PDR
> patching recently?)
Not very savvy about it actually, but had scoped about over there to see
what was going on and what they had in the offing. I think that the HDD20 is
hard to find now; links are dead. Probably available somewhere, but I
couldn't locate one. Contents of HDD20 were:
BigHDD 2.0
-------------------
esdi_506.pdr - LLXX version 4.10.2225 (up to version 4.10.2230)
defrag.exe - Windows Me
dskmaint.dll - Windows Me
scandskw.exe - Windows Me
format.exe - Free Format 0.91v
fdisk.exe - Free Fdisk 1.21
Documentations and Installation
HDD30 info can be found at:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=92864
The ESDI_506.PDR in HDD30 has remained as it was in HDD20.
23.8 Kb (24,431 bytes)
Modified: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:38:32 PM
File Version: 4.10.2230
MD5: 2871158D96E4DA8E227C655C783264EE
At any rate, there are a number of 'disputes' as to version numbering;
perhaps you'd make more sense of it than I. <s>
The major motions seem to focus on the Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=cd876debb095d584f8dfd274ac05282f&showforum=91
>
> > > When it comes to the basic hard-drive partitioning and
> > > formatting, DOS fdisk and format work just fine, and will
> > > even partition and format a 500 gb drive as a single volume.
> >
> > No problem with the basic Native W98se components/files then ?
>
> If you are referring to defrag and windows-scandisk, no, they will not
> break or corrupt a large hard drive as long as ESDI_506.PDR is taken
> care of first.
In my case, having Intelata.mpd and Intelvsd.vxd seems to have precluded
having any ESDI_506.PDR at all. Is that to be considered as having "taken
care of it" ? :-D
What the windows tools are not compatible with is a
> volume with a large number of clusters, which can happen if you use
> something like the WD software is used to prepare a drive and you
> force it to use a small cluster size. The win-98se versions of
> scandisk and defrag can't handle a volume with more than 4 million
> clusters, but the windows-ME versions can (but I don't know what their
> upper limit is). The DOS version of scandisk can handle a very large
> number of clusters.
As long as there's one way or another to manage that and not have a disaster
occur, then that's as good a scenario as I could hopr for. There's probably
a downside somewhere, but one must juggle things and do the best with the
option on hand.
>
> > I could be mistaken in that (as I do make mistakes), but
> > I swear I don't remember ever initiating an install of it.
>
> Maybe the IAA came pre-installed by Dell. In your C:\Program Files
> directory, do you have an Intel subdirectory? If so, in that
> directory do you have an "Intel Application Accelerator"
> subdirectory? If so, what is the date of that directory?
No such precise directory, but it is related to some drivers from Dell, and
an additional thing from Intel; that I did find out. Two directories of
Alphanumeric names, in The C:\Dell\Drivers, both dated May 30, 2003. One
Directory in C:\Program Files\Intel\Ultra ATA Storage Driver, dated
Wednesday, February 06, 2002 which has an IntelATA.exe. Looks quite like
what I expect the IAA to look like.
Don't ask me precisely what they are about, as the dates place their
creation roughly at the very beginning of my 'computer life'. I know only a
bit more now that I did then. *ggg*
>
> > > Regarding your partitioning strategy, I wouldn't create
> > > partitions any smaller than 32 gb.
I suppose I can give that a shot.
> >
> > Which would create clusters of approximately what size ?
>
> Normally, the DOS format program would use a cluster size of 16kb for
> a volume of 32 gb. It would switch to 32kb on volumes between 32 gb
> to 128 gb.
OK, that corresponds to what I have just learned at an Intel webpage and
equals the cluster size of my 40 GB. It's consistent with the fact. ;-)
>
> A 32 gb partition formatted with 4kb cluster size would result in 8
> million clusters.
Which has now exceeded native W98se maintenance tools abilities by double.
And that was only for 32 GB. heh
>
> > The WD Data Lifeguard Tool will be uneccessary in the sense of
> > running/ installing/initiating the DDO level of things (hope
> > I made that clear; sensible)
>
> You don't want to use the DDO, and I don't think that any motherboard
> made by anyone with a Pentium-4 would require the use of a DDO.
The more I read of it, the less I like it. But the WD Tool has more
features/functionality than I suspected. If the DDO can be avoided but the
other features of WD Lifeguard can be used, then it seems not bad at all. On
that note, It was the Intel App Accelerator which I was getting confused
with;. It's the IAA which doesn't manage partitioning.
>
> > if it senses that my MoBo, BIOS, etc, will support a *large Hard
> > Drive*. However, it will still be used as a basic format/
> > partitioning tool. Although somewhere I recollect reading that
> > the WD Data Lifeguard Tool isn't really capable as a partitioning
> > application. Do I have that correct ?
>
> The Data Lifeguard tools are fundamentally designed to prepare a new
> hard drive for use, so yes the ability to partition and format a hard
> drive is a fundamental aspect of it's functionality.
As a friend, and now you, have assured me.
>
> > So, do I need that WD DATA LIFEGUARD, or can I employ something
> > else.
>
> If you want to format your volumes using a non-standard cluster size
> (and I have pointed out the benefits and caveats of doing so) then
> yes, the WD software will allow you to do that. The DOS format
> program will not - it will select the cluster size based on it's own
> internal rules. The WD software has an advantage in that it will
> perform the partitioning and formatting process faster than using DOS
> fdisk and format.
Seems to be 2 persons in favor of WD Data Lifeguard then (and It's beginning
to get my vote as well.) <g>
>
> > Like Partition Magic or something like that ? Even the Basic
> > Native FDisk/Format, for that matter ? What would you truly
> > recommend, IF WD Data Lifeguard is in fact (?) superfluous ?
>
> I've tried Partition Magic, and maybe my recollection is hazy, but I
> think I wasn't able to set the cluster size to what I wanted it to be
> during the partitioning/formatting of a new drive. So for that reason
> again I prefer the WD software.
Interesting.
>
> > I'm already 'living with' 32 Kb clusters in my meagre Primary
> > 40 GB hard-drive under W98se (Unpartitioned as one 'big' drive)
> > so even at 16 Kb, that would be an improvement on the order of
> > 100% over what I now have.
>
> I would argue with your 100% number, but ok, continue -
You have my permission to (and math - amongst other things - was never my
strong suit). <g>
>
> > Secondly, as I understand it, if one deals with large files
> > (whatever constitutes the definition of a Large File), then a
> > larger cluster size is said to be preferable as far as
> > fragmentation and moving said large file is concerned. This
> > is what I have heard said.
>
> Well, NTFS sticks to 4kb cluster size regardless of the size of the
> volume. I suppose if you knew ahead of time that a particular volume
> was going to be used predominantly for large files then you can use
> large clusters on that volume.
Not sure if I can plan that far ahead; it involves an exact purview... and
math.
There's also an argument that the use
> of a cluster size that matches the drive's native sector size is
> optimal from a performance point of view.
I'll look that up. heh
>
> > And there would be no issue (as L'il Dave posited), that when
> > I finally wrote beyond the 128 GB range with W98se, that it'd
> > wrap around and start overwiting the beginning of the HD-D ?
>
> Yes. If you can correctly manipulate, move, copy, and delete files on
> that portion of the drive that lies beyond the 137 gb point, and such
> manipulation doesn't mess up the drives MBR or FAT tables or otherwise
> cause a raft of logical drive errors, then that would indicate
> compatibility with win-98.
That's a *big if*, but if it passes the test you mention, then I'll soon
find out is what I'm supposing. Won't do more than to test by *copying*
stuff there, that's for sure. And then do try what you said about defrag and
scandisk. And then, still leave things alone as far as critical moves until
a test/ break in period has come to pass. (Perhaps one month might be kind
of safe, I'd suppose).
>
> > > and you could use the 500 gb drive as your primary
> > > drive and install win-98 on the primary 32 gb partition.
> >
> > Would that preclude keeping my current W98se on HD-D 1
> > / 40 GB Primary ?
>
> No. I thought that perhaps you wanted to use the 500 gb drive as your
> only hard drive, or maybe use it as your primary drive (drive-1) and
> continue to use your XP drive as drive-2 - in which case you'd install
> 98se on the new drive on the primary partition (32 gb, formatted with
> 4kb clusters as I mentioned above).
I'll bat that around for a day or so.... see what I can decide on.
But I surely will be keeping both drives. I'll probably still keep 98se as
is, where it is - on the 40 GB.
IF, I can get past the hurdle of this one time - which is extremely
intimidating for me - then I'd have greater confidence (and willpower) to
change things if something revealed itself as being less than ideal.
>
> > IOW, Could I maintain W98se as is where it now resides on
> > 40 GB hard drive 0 (as designated in BIOS) - and not
> > necessarily install it on the 500 GB - and put WinXP Pro
> > on the 500GB HD-D Drive 1 (as designated in BIOS) ?
>
> It's up to you. It doesn't matter.
That's the best news I've heard all week 98 Guy ! :-))
I want to say thanks for taking all the time, getting into quite a bit of
detail - and showing considerable patience with me - on all this. I'm
deeply indebted to you for that.
It might take a day or so for me to truly get underway. If you're
interested, I'll post results (positive; it's to be hoped) in this thread.
Thanks again. (I've saved all these details you've provided for handy
reference.)
Cheers,
BeBop...........
BeBopaLula
your direct approach and no-nonsense way of replying, and I did say that I'd
welcome ideas if someone had any they thought better. This you did, and I
don't fault you for that. ;-)
My only 'gripe' would be that since you didn't really address anything in
specifics (as far as details go) other than to assert about partition sizes
and File Systems (FAT32/NTFS) and all of those were negative, it gave me the
distinct idea that it - the large drive install - was destined for failure.
Other ideas posited focused on using XP; and that was about the only useful
thing you made of it. though it totally ignored the direction in which I was
aimed.
Anyway, I'm too tired now to deal with the details you offer *now*, when I
had clearly asked for some help in having someone explain in understandable
terms from the get-go.You can regard me as being lazy and ungrateful if you
like, but it would have been different had you spent as much time at the
outset as you have now - explaining the foibles, doubts, etc. of W98.
Again, this is not intended as a critcism. I didn't come here to do that.
You've placed considerably more energies in this current post to which I'm
replying, but the content still misses the point I was aiming at.
You've said you did a week of testing various combinations; all ending up in
failure. That's a shame. I wonder why it didn't work out ?
Anyway, I thank you for your help just the same. :-)
Cheers.
"Lil' Dave" <spamyo...@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ufoDw8v6...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
BeBopaLula
>
> "98 Guy" <9...@Guy.com> inquired in: news:46D6CDCF...@Guy.com...
> > BeBopaLula wrote:
> >
> > > LargeHDD20 and LargeHDD30 'fixes, and the like.
> >
> > I haven't been following the HDD20 and HDD30 items so I'm not exactly
> > sure what they refer to (have they done more work on the ESDI_506.PDR
> > patching recently?)
>
I forgot to add this readme from bhdd30e, and here's a screenshot of
contents in a Zip File GUI.
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2029/bhdd30enw6.jpg
***************** BHDD 3.0 *****************
The collection of programs patches Windows 98SE to provide direct support
for hard drives larger than 137GB.
In this complete set free development LLXX from forum MSFN is used,
And also updates utilities from Petr from forum MSFN are used.
REQUIREMENTS
BIOS support for hard drives >137GB
INSTALLATION
Run _INSTALL.BAT. (This copy the patched ESDI_506.PDR to
WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS; replace the SCANDSKW.EXE, DSKMAINT.DLL,
DEFRAG.EXE, add CVTAPLOG.EXE; copy other file to WINDOWS\COMMAND\BIGHDD.
Reboot.
Use FDISK for create a partition and FORMAT for formats a disk.
These utilities are located in the directory WINDOWS\COMMAND\BIGHDD.
NEW WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS
If you are doing a clean install of Windows into a Computer where any of the
drives has a partition extending above the 137GB limit you must install the
patched ESDI_506.PDR before Windows has a chance to use it's unpatched
driver.
Corruption may occur before you can complete the installation otherwise.
If the Windows partition itself is above the 137Gb limit it will DEFINTELY
CRASH.
1. Place the patched ESDI_506.PDR on a Bootable DOS Floppy Disk.
2. Perform the Windows installation until the FIRST reboot.
Do not leave the Computer unattended in case Windows reboots without
prompting.
3. Insert the Floppy Disk before Windows Reboots. If Windows Reboots
without
warning, insert the Floppy Disk as soon as the Screen goes Blank.
Ignore any instructions to remove any Floppy Disks.
4. Let Windows Reboot if it doesn't Reboot automatically.
5. When DOS finishes Booting, copy the patched ESDI_506.PDR to
WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS;
6. Remove the Floppy Disk.
7. Press the Reset Button or CTRL-ALT-DEL.
8. Continue the Windows Installation.
9. When installation will end, run _INSTALL.BAT.
If you install a Windows update (MDCU or Unofficial Service Pack) that
replaces the ESDI_506.PDR file and have Partitions defined that extend above
the 137GB limit there is a possibilty of data loss anywhere on that drive.
This is due to a flaw in the original version of the ESDI_506.PDR file that
misinterprets sectors above the 137GB limit as being sectors below it.
If in doubt, rerun the patched ESDI_506.PDR driver BEFORE allowing Windows
to Reboot. If the Computer Reboots before you can run the Program, make it
boot in Safe Mode, run _INSTALL.BAT and Reboot again.
Or add a line
COPY/Y C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND\BIGHDD\ESDI_506.PDR
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.PDR >NUL
in the AUTOEXEC.BAT before the beginning of installation a Windows update.
After end of installation a Windows update this line can be removed.
HARD DRIVE SIZE LIMITS
The patched ESDI_506.PDR provides support for Hard Drives up to the
32 Bit Addressing Limit of 2048GB. Possible DOS, BIOS or Windows flaws may
limit support to 1024GB or less. Raw Disk access tools may have their
own limits.
PARTITION SIZE LIMITS
The size of individual Partitions are subject to additional limitations due
to FileSystem design and Partition management tools.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BeBop..........
98 Guy
> Its my opinion.
And opinions can be debated, supported, examined, and deconstructed.
Especially on usenet.
> Unlike you, I have not jumped my bandwagon about your opinions.
Not sure I understand the phrase "jumped my bandwagon" and what it
means in the current context.
> Or your 98SE works on some specific hardware flagwaving.
That you claim the use of the IAA puts someone on some thin edge of
system stability or legitamacy takes you out of the realm of opinion
and into a statement of fact, and puts the onus on you to support such
a fact, lest your opinions be taken for garbage.
> Nor will I clip and snip your posts to take easy potshots.
Naturally. You're a top-poster. Top-posters are known for poor
usenet etiquette when it comes to editing and constructing their
responses. Adding comments in-line (as I am doing) is the proper and
original method for usenet posts. Most people that use Micro$oft
software (such as OE) to experience usenet are ignorant of this.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Ok, so what do we do about the ESDI_506.PDR problem? Well,
>apparently, this situation was fixed back in 2002 courtesy of Intel
>and their IAA. Yes, if you have a motherboard with a certain
>hard-drive controller (see below), then the installation of the IAA
>will replace ESDI_506.PDR with INTELATA.MPD.
FWIW, I found these bits of info:
http://www.partitionsupport.com/advancednotes.htm
"Intel Application Accelerator (disk drivers) reporting version
2.2.0.2126 in "About" does not correctly support disks larger than 128
GB in Windows 98 SE. A version reporting 2.3.0.2160 seems to do. May
apply to other Windows versions too. With the earlier version the disk
size is reported correctly, but read above 128 GB fails."
http://www.partitionsupport.com/partitionnotes.htm
"Disks larger than 32 GB and 128 GB cannot be considered reliable in
Windows 95/98/ME, due to the Windows (or Windows disk driver) 32 GB
and 128 GB problems. The 32 GB problem can be reliable detected using
the GB32 program. The only situation I know of, where disks larger
than 128 GB should be in the system, is if the chipset is Intel, and a
recent version of Intel Application Accelerator is installed."
http://www.partitionsupport.com/gb32-14.zip
http://www.partitionsupport.com/utilities.htm
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
BeBopaLula
"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> posted info in:
news:990id3d8bm2o71hhm...@4ax.com...
Always good to receive more fine points surrounding this issue, even though
that means my days of reading heady web pages hasn''t neared its end.
Thanks. :-D
Just for the record, Intel claims this for WD Hard Drives of 137GB+ :
Intel® Application Accelerator
Notice for Customers Using Western Digital* Hard Drives Larger than 137GB
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009319.htm
"If you are using large Western Digital* hard drives that are larger than
137GB, it is recommended that you install version 2.3 of the Intel®
Application Accelerator.
Using a version of the Intel Application Accelerator prior to 2.3 with
Western Digital hard drives larger than 137GB may result in a blue screen
error and the inability to boot your system. These issues were resolved in
version 2.3 of the Intel Application Accelerator."
This info from Intel, regarding version (v.2.3.0.2160 ) claims to address
some BSOD problem, but unfortunately doesn't necessarily make any
reassurances as to its ability, reliabilty, or accuracy for large Hard
Drives.
98 Guy
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=65735&pid=486779&st=40&
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46752&pid=332326&mode=threaded&start=
If there is a post somewhere on MSFN saying that IAA has been tested
with a large IDE hard drive ( > 137 gb) then I can't find it.
BeBopaLula
I'm "read-out" . :-D
But here's the scoop... (in case you're still about this thread).
DONE ! <S>
Had some issues and was very slow to proceed with things, but in the end, it
all has worked out.
Employed your Cluster Guidelines and Partitioning Strategy. XP Pro in
Primary/Active 1 / 32 GB partition / 4 Kb clusters. Other partitions (7
more) are ~ 62 GB with 8 Kb Clusters.
I first cloned my 98se setup to another old drive and worked with that to
see what would happen. Didn't want to risk ruining my OEM long-established
(and full) 98se setup.
Had to use the DOS (Floppy) version of WDLG Tools 11.2 and had success. The
Windows version of WDLG 11.2 failed. It stated that my System didn't support
>> 137 GB. That was baloney, as proven by the successful application using
the DOS version of the same.
After sucess formatting and partitioning, I tested by writing about 27 MB
data to partitions << 137 GB as well as Partitions just beyond 137 GB; and
in the last partition, well beyond 137 GB (prolly about 450+ GB). Then ran
ME versions of Scandisk and Defrag on all those and that was fine. (but
might not have been a large enough data size for an accurate test ??).
Anyway, I re-booted the 500 GB drive with XP on it and it booted fine. All
data stored was still present in all locations. I also tested it as the
Primary 0 and the Primary 1 drive as well. Both alone (only one drive
installed) and in conjunction with the 40 GB HD-D with 98se on it.
Everything appears to work as hoped (thus far). Have *copied* lots of data
from various locales/ drives/ flash drives / old Hard Drives and so far, so
good.
So, thanks for your help 98 Guy (and all who came forth and tried or did
offer assistance.) :-))
BeBopalula
Joshua
an arm and a leg to find out how i need to find out what sound card is in
this Dell Dimension desktop optiplex GX240?
"BeBopaLula" wrote:
> Hello.
>
> A question about installing and partitioning a 500 GB Western Digital
> ATA/IDE Hard Drive in a basic W98se equipped system (plus some). Details
> below.
>
> I also wish to apologize in advance for the long post, the myriad
> questions - most of which are probably ignorant - as well as my being so
> uneducated in such matters.
>
> Platform Configuration:
> Dell Optiplex GX240
> 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager - BootUS.
> (My Dell Optiplex A05 BIOS - the latest and final - will only permit
> booting off the Primary Drive Volume as physically cabled.)
> System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
> BIOS - version A05
>
> Issue:
> I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM) model
> WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
> operational as that primary drive. If OTOH, someone has a more practical
> approach and rationale regarding this proposal, I'll consider it. But, if my
> initial premise seems sound, then that's probably what I'd prefer to have.
>
Brian A.
news:23BE4695-F1EA-4551...@microsoft.com...
> im just trying to get sound on my computer at work at its like i have to sell
> an arm and a leg to find out how i need to find out what sound card is in
> this Dell Dimension desktop optiplex GX240?
Dell™ OptiPlex™ GX240 Systems User's Guide
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/opgx240/en/ug/specs.htm#1106346
Drivers and Downloads
http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/driverslist.aspx?os=W98&osl=EN&catid=-1&impid=-1&servicetag=&SystemID=PLX_PNT_P4_GX240&hidos=WW1&hidlang=en
or if the line wraps/breaks: http://tinyurl.com/2n6j92
--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Ben Myers
> an arm and a leg to find out how i need to find out what sound card is in
> this Dell Dimension desktop optiplex GX240?
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/opgx240/en/ug/specs.htm#1112520
Ben