250 GB drives - please help

[98 Guy]

Nim Rod splorged:

That url does tho, ****wit.

Like a child that chatters incoherently while pointing to the sky,
little Rod similarly chatters while pointing to a URL.

What is it, little Nim Rod, that you see in the URL?

What is it that you're trying to tell us?

 

[Eric Gisin]

First, understand that there are 2 scandisk's. One is the DOS
scandisk (scandisk.exe) and the second is Windows scandisk
(scandskw.exe + diskmaint.dll). Then there is defrag (AKA windows
defrag).

The windows scandisk and defrag have problems when the number of
allocation units (AKA clusters) exceeds a certain number (I think it's
4 million but it could be 6 or 8 million). The windows ME versions of
scandisk and defrag have a higher limit (and most people recommend you
use them on your win-98 system for other reasons anyways).

Win 98 GUI scandisk and defrag are 16-bit, and limited to 16MB.
The FAT has to be resident, so the cluster limit is under 4M.
I don't know about Win ME. You could look up the MS KB article on these.
This topic was discussed 5 years ago, google groups has it.

The DOS version of scandisk (the one that sometimes runs at startup
when a bad shutdown was detected) actually doesn't have a limit from
my own tests, so it's quite robust in that regard.

The idiot (Rod) is claiming there is some other issue regarding large
hard drives and win-98, but he refuses to describe it.

The obvious problem is the MS IDE drive is not LBA-48,
so 128GB is a hard limit unless there is an alt driver available.

And by the way, you don't need PM to prepare a large hard drive for
win-98. What you need is simply the updated version of fdisk.exe (may
2000 I think). It will correctly partition a large drive (250 gb or
larger) and then you use format.com to format it.

Correct, or you could use freeDOS fdisk.

 

[98 Guy]

Win 98 GUI scandisk and defrag are 16-bit, and limited to 16MB.
The FAT has to be resident, so the cluster limit is under 4M.

There is a KB that explains it - the limit being 4.177 million
clusters - at least that's how MS explains it for the DOS scandisk.
The reality is that if himem.sys is loaded, then DOS scandisk can
process FAT's with much higher cluster counts (perhaps assuming that
you have some arbitrarily large amount of memory - 128, 256 or 512
mb).

The ME versions of Scandskw and defrag can handle a volume with more
than 4 million clusters.

So the solution for win-98 is either (a) don't create partitions
larger than 128 gb, or (b) obtain the ME versions of scandskw.exe,
diskmaint.dll, and defrag.exe. (this assumes you've already overcome
the issue with ESDI_506.PDR).

The obvious problem is the MS IDE drive is not LBA-48,
so 128GB is a hard limit unless there is an alt driver
available.

Like I've said already here, the solution to that issue is

a) use SATA (not PATA) - either SATA on the motherboard or
SATA expansion (PCI) card

b) use Intel Application Accelerator (only good for specific
chipsets) - it replaces ESDI_506.PDR with something else

c) use the MSFN hacked / fixed version of ESDI_506.PDR

d) Pay for the Loew version of ESDI_506.PDR.

e) obtain an IDE (PATA) controller card (PCI) and hope it has
it's own replacement for ESDI_506.PDR.

All of the above requires that the motherboard BIOS performs 48-bit
sector handling (vs 32 bit). But if you have a SATA motherboard, it
most certainly will satisfy that criteria, as will any P-4 (or higher)
motherboard.

There is actually one more option:

f) rename or remove ESDI_506.PDR and force win-98 into "DOS"
compatibility mode for hard drive access (where it uses
BIOS function calls to access the hard drive).

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
can ever manage. Pity it fools absolutely no one at all, ever.

 

[Lil' Dave]

Would appreciate an MS weblink to the more updated form of fdisk.exe noted
by the respondent (actually OP per my newsreader).
The one and only version of fdisk that was an update many years ago has a
limit of 128GB parition size limitation. Original is 64GB.

--
Dave
Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
More profound is we made it to the top of the food
chain per our reasoning abilities.
Most profound is the denial of why we may
be on the way out.

 

[98 Guy]

Would appreciate an MS weblink to the more updated form of
fdisk.exe noted by the respondent.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263044

 

[Adam]

There is a KB that explains it - the limit being 4.177 million
clusters - at least that's how MS explains it for the DOS scandisk.
The reality is that if himem.sys is loaded, then DOS scandisk can
process FAT's with much higher cluster counts (perhaps assuming that
you have some arbitrarily large amount of memory - 128, 256 or 512
mb).

The ME versions of Scandskw and defrag can handle a volume with more
than 4 million clusters.

So the solution for win-98 is either (a) don't create partitions
larger than 128 gb, or (b) obtain the ME versions of scandskw.exe,
diskmaint.dll, and defrag.exe. (this assumes you've already overcome
the issue with ESDI_506.PDR).

Option (a) is not a problem ... I don't see a real need to
have partitions anywhere near 128 GB.

Downloaded ScanDisk and Defrag from ...
http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=775763

DEFRAG EX_ 213,296 11-12-07 9:16a defrag.ex_
SCANDSKW EX_ 5,104 11-12-07 9:16a scandskw.ex_
DISKMA~1 DL_ 0 11-12-07 9:35a diskmaint.dl_

File size of "diskmaint.dll" doesn't seem right though.
Is there a better place to download ME versions of these files?

In my case, connecting HDDs larger than 120 GB via
the Maxtor Ultra ATA/133 PCI Adapter Card seems to
circumvent the problem with ESDI_506.PDR.
I definitely do not have a ESDI_506.PDR that
can handle HDDs larger than 120 GB ...

ESDI_506 PDR 24,406 04-23-99 10:22p ESDI_506.PDR

 

[Adam]

Option (a) is not a problem ... I don't see a real need to
have partitions anywhere near 128 GB.

Downloaded ScanDisk and Defrag from ...
http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=775763

DEFRAG EX_ 213,296 11-12-07 9:16a defrag.ex_
SCANDSKW EX_ 5,104 11-12-07 9:16a scandskw.ex_
DISKMA~1 DL_ 0 11-12-07 9:35a diskmaint.dl_

File size of "diskmaint.dll" doesn't seem right though.
Is there a better place to download ME versions of these files?

In my case, connecting HDDs larger than 120 GB via
the Maxtor Ultra ATA/133 PCI Adapter Card seems to
circumvent the problem with ESDI_506.PDR.
I definitely do not have a ESDI_506.PDR that
can handle HDDs larger than 120 GB ...

ESDI_506 PDR 24,406 04-23-99 10:22p ESDI_506.PDR

Got around to backing up and then doubling the boot partition size.
Partition size is now around 16 GB. Cluster size was and still is 4 KB.
Still no problems so far.

If I ever have problems with ScanDisk or Defrag,
I'll install WinME from MSDN to extract the necessary files.

"98 Guy", thanks for your help. Really appreciate it.

 

[Splork]

Option (a) is not a problem ... I don't see a real need to
have partitions anywhere near 128 GB.

Total disk data size, that is the actual data on the drive,
once exceeding ~128GB mark will cause data corruption in
unforseen areas of the drive if ESDI_506.pdr is not upgraded.

No partitioning method will overcome this.

If you experience such corruption, scandisk will fail as well.

Folders and file names will look like asian newspaper copy and
heiroglyphics. Often in a partition other than the one data is
being loaded into.

A promise card did not change this behavior for me. It was the
interface I was using at the time.

Everything was fine until the data ceiling was passed.

use the MSFN hacked / fixed version of ESDI_506.PDR as others
suggest. Perfect advice.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

98 Guy wrote in news:[email protected]

That is a URL. If there are "other problems" then describe them, or
cut and paste them into this thread.


Win-NT-4 had the 8 gb primary partition limitation. Not win-98

The MBR boot code has. It uses plain Int13 which is limited to CHS.
The partition bootsector that it calls has to be within the 8GB limit.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Rod Speed wrote in news:[email protected]

 

[Lil' Dave]

Its the 128GB (formatted capacity) I already mentioned.... See the
following note in your enclosed weblink:

"NOTE: This hotfix is not designed for 48-bit logical block addressing (LBA)
hard disks, and it is not supported on hard disks larger than 137 GB."


--
Dave
Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
More profound is we made it to the top of the food
chain per our reasoning abilities.
Most profound is the denial of why we may
be on the way out.

 

[98 Guy]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263044

Its the 128GB (formatted capacity) I already mentioned.... See
the following note in your enclosed weblink:

"NOTE: This hotfix is not designed for 48-bit logical block
addressing (LBA) hard disks, and it is not supported on hard
disks larger than 137 GB."

That is another example of Meekro$oft dis-information.

The following is part of a post I made back in February. READ IT and
then tell me what you think about the MS statement you quoted above.

---------------------------------

Subject: Update 4: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:49:46 -0500
From: 98 Guy <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion

Fdisk (dated May 18, 2000 - not april 23, 1999) was used to create
a single primary partition on a new 250 gb SATA Western Digital hard
drive. The computer was started in DOS via a win-98 boot floppy
(note: himem.sys was loaded as part of the boot).

A single primary partition was created using all available space on
the drive. I didn't check the details as to what fdisk reported as
the total drive capacity (fdisk is known for not reporting correct
on-screen numbers such as volume size or total drive size).

I then ran format, with the /z:n switch as follows:

format /z:8 c: /s (format the drive with 4kb cluster size)

I got this message:

"you have specified a cluster size that is too small for
this drive. Use a larger cluster size and try again"

I then tried this: format /z:12 c: /s

and got this:

"Parameter value not in allowed range - /z:12

I then tried format /z:16 c:/s and got the "cluster size too small"
message. Same thing with /z:32.

I tried /z:48 and got the "not in allowed range" error. I then tried
/z:64 and it worked.

Formatting 41,86.65M
Format complete.
Writing out file allocation table
Complete.
Calculating free space (this may take several minutes)...
Complete
System tranferred

Volume label (11 characters, ENTER for none)?

238,414.41 MB total disk space
360,448 bytes used by system
238,414.07 mb available on disk

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit.
7,629,249 allocation unites available on disk.

Ok, looks good. Let's try chkdsk c:

244,136,352 kilobytes total disk space
244,135,968 kilobytes free

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit
7,629,261 total allocation units on disk
7,629,249 available allocation units on disk

Ok, still looks good. Let's try Scandisk c:

Scandisk ran just fine, performed all checks except surface scan.

Running scandisk without himem.sys being loaded results in this
message:

"Scandisk is unable to check a drive because there
is no extended memory driver loaded on your computer.
To check this drive, make sure that you have a
HIMEM.SYS file on the disk from which you are starting
your computer (...)"

Ok, so there you go. You can use standard tools like fdisk and format
to prepare drives at least up to 250 gb in size and set them up for
windows-98se installation.

 

[MEB]

It may be time [or rather past time] to think about using the hard drive
manufacturer tools rather than MS fdisk and format for ANY drive
manipulation.
The manufacturers newest tools all now have NTFS abilities built-in [some
more than others - of particular interest to dual booters], large drive
abilities, and if you bother to think about it, at least they are STILL
SUPPORTED and updated ...

There are other tools still being supported, such as BING, SuperFdisk and
others [such as FreeDos, Linux, BSD, etc], which also are being updated [or
were]. So this *traditional use* of MS fdisk and format isn't very
intelligent when there ARE other tools available which can deal with the
newer OSs, AND, newer disk formats, access routines, and capacities..

Plainly, it doesn't really make much sense to continue to use tools which
are seriously outdated when dealing with one of the more important elements
of your computer, its storage and from where the OS will run.

Want to use larger drives?
Then consider: a newer mother board [or a used board that supports larger
drives]; a hard drive adapter card [with its own controller/BIOS override];
one of the purported esdi_506 replacements [but your BIOS is still going to
need to support the drive]; USB enclosures {and proper drivers}; stay within
the design limits of the OS and its tools [unless your testing]; or don't
come crying when the disk errors out or the 9X OS craps out. At least until
there are well documented answers available.

MINIMUM MS TOOLS for larger drives:

DEFRAG.EXE 4.90.3000 = from WinME Setup CD
SCANDISK.EXE = from WinME Setup CD
SCANDSKW.EXE 4.90.3000 = from WinME Setup CD
dskmaint.dll = 4.90.3000 from the WinME Setup CD
cvtaplog.exe = 4.90.3000 from the WinME Setup CD

These can be obtained via various sources, example:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm
http://erpman1.tripod.com/w98meupd.html
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84886
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581
http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm#FDPT
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm

Try Searches for scanfrag.exe {contains scandisks and defrag, check the
dskmaint.dll for the right version}.

optional:
oformat.com = from WinME Setup disk cab - XP ResKit - XP setup disks - other

Then you may need some updates to the system itself, such as:
272621usa8.exe - negative numbers shown
243450USA8.EXE - drives larger than 32 gig
273017USA8.EXE - cache write delay
4756US8.EXE - shutdown supplement
and maybe a few others...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


| Its the 128GB (formatted capacity) I already mentioned.... See the
| following note in your enclosed weblink:
|
| "NOTE: This hotfix is not designed for 48-bit logical block addressing
(LBA)
| hard disks, and it is not supported on hard disks larger than 137 GB."
|
|
| --
| Dave
| Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
| of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
| More profound is we made it to the top of the food
| chain per our reasoning abilities.
| Most profound is the denial of why we may
| be on the way out.
| > Lil' Dave wrote:
| >
| >> Would appreciate an MS weblink to the more updated form of
| >> fdisk.exe noted by the respondent.
| >
| > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263044
|
|

 

[98 Guy]

Did you actually write data to the entire disk? I've seen it
reported that some people have seemingly formatted large disks
but the data was corrupted when they went over the 137GB mark.

THAT IS UNRELATED TO THE USE OF FDISK AND FORMAT !!!!!

For those of you that are confused (like Alan) read this:

(1) You can use the DOS tools FDISK.EXE (version May 2000) and
FORMAT.COM (April 1999) to prepare a large hard drive for use with
windows-98. By large hard drive, I mean anything larger than 128 gb,
including 160 gb and 250 gb, and *probably* 320, 400, and 500 gb as
well. There is some indication that FDISK and/or FORMAT will not work
on drives over 500 gb.

(2) Windows-98 normally uses it's default driver (ESDI_506.PDR) to
perform protected-mode, "32-bit" access to all hard drives connected
to a system's IDE ports. That driver has a known fault (that I have
personally never experienced or tested) that makes it incompatible
with hard drives larger than 128 gb. There are several remedies for
this situation, such as (a) two third-party (non-Microsoft)
replacement versions of ESDI_506.PDR, (b) the use of the "Intel
Application Accelerator (for systems with certain Intel chipsets), (c)
the use of an add-on (PCI) hard drive controller card (that comes with
it's own driver), (d) the use of a SATA hard drive (if the system
motherboard has SATA ports), and (e) the use of an external hard drive
(USB or Firewire).

Any more questions?

 

[98 Guy]

It may be time [or rather past time] to think about using the
hard drive manufacturer tools rather than MS fdisk and format
for ANY drive manipulation.

As I've posted in the past, I favor the use of manufacturer-provided
tools because they usually allow a drive to be FAT-32 formatted with
non-standard cluster sizes. But for most people it's not necessary -
FDISK and Format will suffice.

The manufacturers newest tools all now have NTFS abilities built-in
[some more than others - of particular interest to dual booters],

I think there's a good case to be made to install Win-2k or XP on a
drive formatted as FAT-32 as opposed to NTFS. Even if the system is
not dual-boot. The advantages of NTFS are largely lost on most
single-user or SOHO users. It is easier (and cheaper) to diagnose,
fix, detect and remove malware on a FAT-32 drive than it is for NTFS.
The reliability and performance of FAT-32 is highly under-rated. And
if the system is dual-boot, then both OS's have access to all files on
all volumes.

Want to use larger drives?
Then consider: a newer mother board [or a used board that supports
larger drives];

For those that may not know, any motherboard that has a Pentium-4 or
Celeron CPU (technically, socket 478 or newer) will have the necessary
support for large hard drives, and in some (many?) cases a BIOS update
is available for motherboards with Pentium 3 CPU's.

 

[Alan Peake]

That is another example of Meekro$oft dis-information.

The following is part of a post I made back in February. READ IT and
then tell me what you think about the MS statement you quoted above.

Did you actually write data to the entire disk? I've seen it reported
that some people have seemingly formatted large disks but the data was
corrupted when they went over the 137GB mark. I partitioned and
formatted a 160GB disk with the FDISK and FORMAT that is on my W98SE
boot disk but apparently, I will still have the data corruption problem
if I try to go beyond 137GB.
alan

 

[MEB]

I'll try this again,,,
I REALLY suggest you and others CAREFULLY read Microsoft's explanations,
articles, and KBs on the 5+ NTFS/Fat filing aspects.
The NATIVE filing system layer [always running whether being used or not]
is NTFS. Fat [fastfat.sys] is just another driver *added ON TOP of* [not
*used instead of*] that NATIVE NTFS layer. Take particular note of
ATTRIBUTES used by/within the NTFS/FAT, and how files are ACCESSED and
STORED.... everything done in 5+ NT fat is run THROUGH the NTFS native layer
[and ALWAYS prepped for potential conversion to NTFS].....

I realize how difficult it is to divorce one's self from old DOS
ideas/facts, but the two types of filing systems are, now, completely
FOREIGN to each other [which I've been trying make people understand for a
few years now] ...

And that happens to be WHY I suggest the use of manufacturer tools [NT 5+
aware] or other new style NTFS aware tools, and NOT the old MS fdisk and
format [or old DOS/early NT tools] WHICH HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THE
NEW FILING SYSTEMS, particularly if NTFS was used.

Read to BEGIN understanding XP's filing systems:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c13621675.mspx
Check ALL the other NT5+ stuff then;
Jump over to the WinHex forums and other like hard drive specific sites when
you think you've got it scoped out ... [bet you don't]]]]]

 

[Rod Speed]

MEB wrote

It may be time [or rather past time] to think about
using the hard drive manufacturer tools rather than
MS fdisk and format for ANY drive manipulation.

As I've posted in the past, I favor the use of manufacturer-provided
tools because they usually allow a drive to be FAT-32 formatted
with non-standard cluster sizes.

Which have their own downsides. And thats a stupid way to
describe them, its better to describe them as non Microsoft tools.

But for most people it's not necessary - FDISK and Format will suffice.

The manufacturers newest tools all now have NTFS abilities built-in
[some more than others - of particular interest to dual booters],

I think there's a good case to be made to install Win-2k or
XP on a drive formatted as FAT-32 as opposed to NTFS.

You're wrong.

Even if the system is not dual-boot. The advantages of
NTFS are largely lost on most single-user or SOHO users.

Wrong when they cant even write the large files that are now
so common with the systems used as PVRs and media players.

It is easier (and cheaper) to diagnose, fix, detect and
remove malware on a FAT-32 drive than it is for NTFS.

And proper backups are a MUCH better way to handle that stuff.

The reliability and performance of FAT-32 is highly under-rated.
And if the system is dual-boot, then both OS's have access to
all files on all volumes.

Only a fool bothers to dual boot 98 and XP.

Want to use larger drives?
Then consider: a newer mother board [or a used board that supports
larger drives];

 

[98 Guy]

The NATIVE filing system layer [always running whether being
used or not] is NTFS. Fat [fastfat.sys] is just another
driver *added ON TOP of* [not *used instead of*] that NATIVE
NTFS layer.

What kind of crack are you smoking?

When you take a FAT-32 formatted drive and install 2K or XP on it, you
don't have NTFS. Period. If 2K/XP wants to reformat it as NTFS prior
to installation, you tell it no.

everything done in 5+ NT fat is run THROUGH the NTFS native
layer [and ALWAYS prepped for potential conversion to NTFS]

You are on drugs. NT is FAT-32 aware and it is NTFS aware. It may
not seem natural to install and run NT on a FAT-32 volume, but it can
be done and there is no trace of any NTFS "layer".

I realize how difficult it is to divorce one's self from old DOS
ideas/facts,

This has nothing to do with DOS. DOS is not FAT-32, FAT-32 is not
DOS.

DOS is "aware" of and compatible with FAT-32. So is Win 98, and so is
every version of NT. You're the one with the hangup, trying to equate
DOS with FAT-32.

but the two types of filing systems are, now, completely
FOREIGN to each other

Where have I ever said they were SIMILAR to each other? Of course
they're not. I don't know where you're going with that line of
thinking.

And that happens to be WHY I suggest the use of manufacturer
tools [NT 5+ aware] or other new style NTFS aware tools,
and NOT the old MS fdisk and format [or old DOS/early NT
tools] WHICH HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH THE NEW FILING
SYSTEMS, particularly if NTFS was used.

I'm saying that NTFS is bullshit and I'd rather install 2K or XP on a
FAT-32 prepared drive, which means I don't necessarily have to use the
manufacturer's brand of On Track's Disk Manager to format the drive
for single-boot or multi-boot use.