Installation questions - 500GB Hard Drive

[98 Guy]

Lil' Dave wrote:

> 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]

Its my opinion. You're entitled to yours. Unlike you, I have not jumped my
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" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D6CF4F.F65BFE93@Guy.com...
> Lil' Dave wrote:
>
>> 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.

 

[BeBopaLula]

<inline>

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D6CDCF.61B898C4@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]

I'll just say that I expressed specific requests and ideas. I appreciated
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" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ufoDw8v6HHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Never said the 137GB obstacles regarding both partition and hard disk
sizes
> 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" <skiddleybop-a-o@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
> news:%23PGGmFq6HHA.3528@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > Short version:
> >
> > 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
t -
> > 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" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
> > news:ekcag0p6HHA.5212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> >> "BeBopaLula" <skiddleybop-a-o@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eTf0oRd6HHA.1052@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>
> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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]

"BeBopaLula" <skiddleybop-a-o@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
news:eScHMf66HHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> inquired in: news:46D6CDCF.61B898C4@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]

Lil' Dave wrote:

> 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]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:01:17 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
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" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> posted info in:
news:990id3d8bm2o71hhml3uitn7gu410s77uv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:01:17 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
> 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.

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]

Here's more reading for ya:

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]

Re: Installation questions - 500GB Hard Drive ...Success

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46DA1F37.70DCB1BD@Guy.com...
> Here's more reading for ya:
>
> 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.

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]

how do i find what my sound card?

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?

"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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

 

[Brian A.]

Re: how do i find what my sound card?

"Joshua" <Joshua@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:23BE4695-F1EA-4551-8C7C-32BF9694F5E1@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/dow...ystemID=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]

Re: how do i find what my sound card?

"Joshua" <Joshua@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:23BE4695-F1EA-4551-8C7C-32BF9694F5E1@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?

http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/opgx240/en/ug/specs.htm#1112520

Ben