 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Performance / September 2007Hard drive larger then 120GB question
Hello: I know that there is a limitation in Win98SE with regard to hard drive size greater then 120GB. My question is, if I put a 320GB hard drive in an SE box but only create a partition of 120GB or less, will I still run into problems? TIA | Hello: | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | TIA some information; http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php try rhis place too for information http://www.48bitlba.com/  SignatureJon Hildrum Jon_Hildrum@msn.com www.hildrum.com > > | Hello: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > some information; > http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php Thanks for the links guys.... ... so, I guess as long as I don't create more then one partition and make it less then 127GBs in size, Win98SE should have no problems...in theory .... I'll post back once I get the drive. > try rhis place too for information > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> some information; >> http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php Check whether the drive has a jumper to make it look like a 120Gb driver regardless of the actual size. SignatureJeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) > Thanks for the links guys.... > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> some information; >>> http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php Where does it say that you can't partition a 240 GB drive into two valid 120s? a 360 into 3 ea 120s? also, we use defrag from win 98 Me, are there other Me files we can use on win 98SE? ssome > Thanks for the links guys.... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >> some information; > >> http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php You can use Partitions smaller 137 Gb! If you want to run Win98,you must install it on the partition at the beginning of the Disk space. ssome schrieb: > Where does it say that you can't partition a 240 GB drive into two valid > 120s? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>>>some information; >>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php So partitioning a big drive and assigning it to D and E (and F) would be fine with win 98 SE on another C: drive. If the new drive was the only drive then win would have to be installed on the first partition, to recap. it would seem wrong to get a big (200+ GB) drive and only use the first 120 GB of it and let the rest go unused as suggested by the above msgs. An interesting point here. i bought a new P5, 2.6 GHz machine and win 98SE would not let the old fdisk work on the new drive. i had to go to the WD HD site and get 2 utils that let me fdisk and format the new 80 GB drive. One was a DOS file if there wasn't win 98 already in that machine and the other file was a win 98 file that would setup the new HD if win 98 was already installed. i hope other HD mfgrs also do this. i got a new fdisk and win 98Me defrag. ssome > You can use Partitions smaller 137 Gb! If you want to run Win98,you must > install it on the partition at the beginning of the D iskspace. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >>>>some information; > >>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php I've tested it. On my 250 GB drive and my 80 GB drive Fdisk runs. I wonder why it runs not at your system. ssome schrieb: > So partitioning a big drive and assigning it to D and E (and F) would be > fine [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >>>>>>some information; >>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php i now have the new fdisk, maybe that will work. the orig fdisk didn't work on an new WD 80 on a new P5, 2.6 MHz machine until i dwnlded the WD util from their site. When you partitioned the 250 in half, were both partitions then viable HDs with win 98SE? ssome > I've tested it. On my 250 GB drive and my 80 GB drive Fdisk runs. I > wonder why it runs not at your system. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >>>>>>some information; > >>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php On the first Partition runs Win98 Se. Because Win98 Se not runs on the second Partition (not bootable),I have insalled WinXP Pro. ssome schrieb: > i now have the new fdisk, maybe that will work. > the orig fdisk didn't work on an new WD 80 on a new P5, 2.6 MHz machine [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] >>>>>>>>some information; >>>>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php i just went online shopping for a 250 GB WD HD. most places it was about $80, but WALMART charged $137! Tiger Direct had it for $80 with a $20 rebate. i will keep my 80GB HD in C: with win98SE already on it and place the new HD fdisked into 2 partitions on D and E of 125GB each. should work. i'll have another 40 GB HD on F: ssome > On the first Partition runs Win98 Se. Because Win98 Se not runs on the > second Partition (not bootable),I have insalled WinXP Pro. [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > >>>>>>>>some information; > >>>>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php $80 is a normal price for it. The Hd's are all IDE? If so,you can install the new Hd just,if you have an additional Hd-controller or you have a S-ata slot,but then you must buy a S-ata HD instead of an IDE Hd. Reason: You can install not more than two HD's on an IDE slot. ssome schrieb: > i just went online shopping for a 250 GB WD HD. most places it was about > $80, but WALMART charged $137! Tiger Direct had it for $80 with a $20 [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] >>>>>>>>>>some information; >>>>>>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive apps. the big question is: after partitioning the 250 into, hopefully, 2 ea 125's will both partitions work in win 98 SE or will only the first partition work and the remaining part of the new HD go to waste until i install Vista? Win is installed on a sep drive, C: drive, the 80GB. ssome > $80 is a normal price for it. The Hd's are all IDE? If so,you can > install the new Hd just,if you have an additional Hd-controller or you [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] > >>>>>>>>>>some information; > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php Every partitions are readable. ssome schrieb: > i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE > [quoted text clipped - 190 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>>some information; >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php > i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE > > i run the 3rd HD on the secondary cable along with the CDR; slower this > way, but extra mem is worth it. use it for storage and not interactive > apps. [] I thought that bit about "same cable as CDR makes it slower" was only true for IDE, not EIDE? (If not, then what _is_ the "enhancement" the E stands for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs have been EIDE for many years.] By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable will have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD. CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks. Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6 GHz machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited by the old transfer speed of the HDs ssome > > i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs have > been EIDE for many years.] > By slower, i mean that the calls to that 3rd HD on the secondary cable > will > have to wait for any CDRW function to complete before addressing the HD. > CD operations are thousands of times slower than HD seeks. Ah, yes, that would still be true, even with EIDE devices. > Another speed realization is when i went from a 266MHz machine to a 2.6 > GHz > machine i expected blazing speed. And, i get it for RAM and same HD > operations, but when Moving data from one HD to another HD we are limited > by > the old transfer speed of the HDs [] Yes; I often have to despairingly tell people that buying a faster PC won't make much difference to most of what they do, and know they don't believe me. (Especially since it _will_ appear faster to start with when it hasn't got anything on it - but they could get the same effect on their present system by starting from scratch again.) For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE hard drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for the controller card enable large drive support in the operating system, while the card itself provides the hardware support needed for the PC to recognize the full drive capacity. WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max. the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again. ssome > > i'm running 3 HDs on two machines now, both with win 98SE > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for?) [True IDE-only drives are years ago - I am pretty sure even CDRs have > been EIDE for many years.] > For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE > hard [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > recognize > the full drive capacity. Interesting, thanks. > WD Lifeguard s/w and Fdisk only let me create a partition of 137 GB max. > the rest of the HD goes to waste. screwed by the mfgrs again. [] (I am now wondering: is the 128G [137 if you're a drive mfr.] limit in older OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the market?) > > For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE > > hard [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the > market?) ...and that 30% of all computers still run win 98 SE because it is fine for them since they are not into Gaming or Video or have 20 users on the system and that they can easily load it into their other machine and can clean reload and can add h/w and s/w to them without having to ask MSoft for permission. i bought another 512 mb of RAM (for 1 GB now) changed the system.ini file $25 and bought a Sabrent HD cntrlr PCI card $20 that i hope will see the whole 250 GB HD and allow me to partition it into 2 ea 125GB drives that will then be used by win 98 SE. i got the newer fdisk file. this will allow me to add up to 4 more HD type devices in addition to the 3 HD and one CDR i have now. Hope 120 GB drives drop in price fast. add to pro 98 SE list: and can run their DOS apps ssome > > For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE > > hard [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OSs the reason there are still quite a few _new_ 40 and 80 G drives on the > market?) The whole story We bought 60 and 80 GB HDs and couldn't get win 98 SE to Fdisk them. Store didn't know or want to tell us how to correct the problem. i got on NGs and the web for HD mfgr sites asking questions and found that WD HDs, Western Digital, had 2 utils for win 98 - one for a new HD in a new computer where DOS had to be used. and one for a new HD in a win 98 system up and running. this was the key to Fdisk, format and use. Until ... Your machine's BIOS also has to be updated to accept HD larger than 32 GB, an earlier limit. Once this is done then you can work with HDs up to the win 98 limit of 137 GB. But, i found a HD that is 250 GB for only $60 - so, how to make that work. i figured i could partition (Fdisk) the 250 into 2 ea 125 GB partitions that would then be within the 137 GB limit. this was a waste of hours. the secret was to buy a $20 PCI card that is a HD Controller that has no virtual limit. then i tried to partition it again pwrd thru this card ...and that was again a mistake. the new cntrlr can let win 98 'see' the whole 250 GB as one partition. And, ... that worked. it took a little doing to get the right drivers for the card in spite of them providing an install CD; got 2 driver files from their site that helped. you can now install 8 ea HD devices like: 6ea 500 GB HDs, CDRW and DVDRW on win 98 with virtual unlimited mem storage. Now, you can try it without going down the wrong pathways. ssome > For Windows 98SE and ME, you need a PCI controller card to use an EIDE hard > drive larger than 137GB without risking data corruption. The drivers for the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > have > > been EIDE for many years.] Addendum 250 GB, filled half way, 119 GB scandisk ran out of room and win ME defrag did too looks like although you can write to all 250, these two utils only see 119/120 not 119/250 is there a win 98 ME scandisk dwnld that is better than SE ver? ssome > The whole story > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > have > > > been EIDE for many years.] Where is Shep? is there a win 98 ME or other scandisk dwnld that is better than SE ver? > Addendum > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > > have > > > > been EIDE for many years.] Tried moving 25 GB of data out of the 250 GB drive, and re-scandisk/defrag on it (91 GB/250) didn't work, either need better (free) scan and defrag for win 98 SE that will work with HDs over 137 GB ssome > The whole story > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > have > > > been EIDE for many years.] No data is safe on a HD over 137 GB using Windows 98/98SE. That is to say, no partition that is accessible by those OSes should extend beyond that limit. SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com > Tried moving 25 GB of data out of the 250 GB drive, > and re-scandisk/defrag on it (91 GB/250) [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> > have >> > > been EIDE for many years.] Although, i couldn't initiate scan disk, SCANDISK.EXE, at all on the 250GB, when the machine crashed and i powered back up it auto ran another ver of scandisk and that HD was successfully scanned. What is that exe or com called so i can bring it up on purpose? ssome > Tried moving 25 GB of data out of the 250 GB drive, > and re-scandisk/defrag on it (91 GB/250) [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > > have > > > > been EIDE for many years.] It's Scandisk.exe, and you can't run it in Windows. Only in DOS/Command Prompt Only mode. The one that runs in Windows is called SCANDISKW.EXE SignatureGary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User www.grystmill.com > Although, i couldn't initiate scan disk, SCANDISK.EXE, at all on the > 250GB, [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >> > > have >> > > > been EIDE for many years.] "ssome" <ssome@juno.com> wrote in message > Although, i couldn't initiate scan disk, SCANDISK.EXE, at all on > the 250GB, when the machine crashed and i powered back up it auto > ran another ver of scandisk and that HD was successfully scanned. > What is that exe or com called so i can bring it up on purpose? > It's Scandisk.exe, and you can't run it in Windows. Only in > DOS/Command Prompt Only mode. The one that runs in Windows > is called SCANDISKW.EXE Himem.sys must be loaded for (DOS) scandisk to function properly. Win-98 version of Scandisk (scandskw.exe) and Defrag may not (or does not) function on volumes larger than 137 gb, but Windows-ME versions do. Specifically, you need to obtain the windows-ME version of dskmaint.dll and defrag.exe and copy them to your win-98 system. If your win-98 system is using the original protected-mode hard drive driver (ESDI_506.PDR) then you will have problems with drives larger than 137 gb. There is a modified version available that should fix the problem. If your drive is a SATA drive, then if you use it in RAID mode you will by-pass the ESDI_506.PDR problem. I have the 98 Me defrag files, still won't work on the 250 GB HD, but haven't updated the orig scandisk file(s) i have ESDI_506.PDR file in the issubsys dir http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243450 installed, time reboot not SATA > "ssome" <ssome@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If your drive is a SATA drive, then if you use it in RAID mode you > will by-pass the ESDI_506.PDR problem. rebooted neither works scandisk with update still won't start 98 Me defrag still can't get by 10% i wish MSoft would realize that since 30% of all computer users still use 98, and refuse to buy Me, 2000, XP and certainly not Vista, that there is a market for a 98 SE update that fixes the bad things and leaves out the snooping things. > "ssome" <ssome@juno.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If your drive is a SATA drive, then if you use it in RAID mode you > will by-pass the ESDI_506.PDR problem. To recap: win98SE will only see 120GB max, but you can get a 250 to work if you get the PCI HD cntrlr card, $20. But, you can't use ScanDisk or win 98Me Defrag on it. What to do? i'm thinking, rather than buying XP or Vista which have more important problems, of getting another 250+ 'B' HD for $60 to dump my 250'A' HD data folders to, then using the cntrlr card s/w to format the 250A drive clean, then moving the folders back (assuming that the folders would then be compacted by the Copy process to B) from the 250B drive leaving a scanned and formatted A drive with defragged folders, and then clean out the slave 250 B drive. machina or better yet, get Msoft to clean up win 98 SE, add to it with good new limits and protection without adding any of the spy stuff. Yea, sure. But, don't they realize that 30% of all computers still use win 98? i'd buy the new version for $40. ssome > So partitioning a big drive and assigning it to D and E (and F) would be > fine [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > >>>>some information; > > >>>>http://www.hexff.com/w98_hd.php > To recap: > win98SE will only see 120GB max, Windows 98 will have a problem with hard drives larger than 127 gb in size only if it uses it's standard driver to access the drive. That driver is ESDI_506.PDR. If the drive in question is connected to the system via a SATA or RAID controller, then there is a good chance that the system can be setup such that the ESDI_506.PDR driver ->will not be used<- for drive access, and hence the use of drives larger than 127 gb is possible. Some have modified or fixed the ESDI_506.PDR file to remedy the situation. Read here for more information: http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html >> To recap: >> win98SE will only see 120GB max, [] > Some have modified or fixed the ESDI_506.PDR file to remedy the > situation. Read here for more information: > > http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html Unfortunately, when attempting to download the new file(s) from the links in that article, one is denied access. >>http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html > > Unfortunately, when attempting to download the new file(s) from the > links in that article, one is denied access. I just tried it, and it works fine. This is the link for the Win-98 SE version: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=197e4847855bed6315eeb16963fe4a6f&act=attac h&type=post&id=13558 You are probably being blocked by your own AV software or some other browser protection mechanism. You need to turn that off (probably). >>>http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You are probably being blocked by your own AV software or some other > browser protection mechanism. You need to turn that off (probably). No, the link to 4102226F.ZIP - the one that goes to a URL ending in id=13558 - takes me to http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=ca92dffa0a5dc7bd361a81f9ab9a08ae&act=attac h&type=post&id=13558. Both that and the link you posted bring up a different page, from MSFN, titled "Board Message", and containing (start extract) Board Message Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information. The error returned was: Sorry, but you do not have permission to use this feature. If you are not logged in, you may do so using the form below if available. You are not logged in, you may log in below Your account username Your account password (end extract) (I don't know how that's come over; I thought I was writing plain text, but OE thinks different!). Anyway, the indication is that it is definitely MSFN, rather than anything local to me, that's blocking the access. Is it possible that you are a trusted person (or IP) by MSFN, and thus not getting the message? Given the tiny size (~14k!) of the files, maybe someone could post them somewhere else? > Given the tiny size (~14k!) of the files, maybe someone could > post them somewhere else? Try this: 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 >> Given the tiny size (~14k!) of the files, maybe someone could >> post them somewhere else? > > Try this: > > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/readme.txt [etc.] Thanks for those. I had to smile, when I tried the readme.txt, and got Access to this resource has been blocked to all users in compliance with company policy. (I got it for one other I tried too.) Forwarded to home ... (-: OK, here it is it can't be done w/o MSoft updating 98 SE 98 simply does not 'see' beyond 120 GB, non addressable. when i arranged to format in win 98 SE a 250 GB HD, i ran into scandisk and defrag problems right away; and when i started to fill up the HD beyond 120 GB and ran out of 98 addressable space, it over-wrote the old Saved files with the new Saved files. Thus, making life difficult. get the PCI HD extender card and a bunch, 6, of 120 GB HDs if you want space and 98 SE. if you use a HD >120 GB just format it to 120 GB and think of it as being usable later when MSoft reduces its price, cleans up and protects an OS beyond 98. 30% of all computers still run win 98; why doesn't MSoft realize this and revamp it leaving out the spy and phone-home crap? I'd pay $25-35 for such a CD. ssome > >> Given the tiny size (~14k!) of the files, maybe someone could > >> post them somewhere else? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Forwarded to home ... (-: > OK, here it is > it can't be done w/o MSoft updating 98 SE > > 98 simply does not 'see' beyond 120 GB, non addressable. You are wrong. I've installed 98se on a 160 gb SATA hard drive, formatted as a single partition, with 4 kb cluster size (resulting in 40 million clusters, way beyond the stated maximum of 4.17 million clusters). You are right about windows defrag and scandisk - but you can get the windows-me versions of those and they work just fine on win-98. Dos scandisk works ok as well on a 160 gb drive. Once I installed win-98 on a 160 gb drive, I repeatedly copied a 40-gb directory tree containing 1 gb DVD vob files until I filled the drive. So I want past the 128gb point on the drive and no corruption occurred. This is because the drive was attached to SATA port-0 and controlled by the on-board SATA controller and NOT re-mapped as an IDE drive. If Win-98se is using it's native ESDI_506.PDR to control your hard drive, then you can't use a drive larger than 128 gb. That means any IDE drive larger than 128 gb won't work unless you obtain a modified ESDI_506.PDR. If you have a SATA drive, then the drive must be used in "SATA" or "RaID" mode, not re-mapped as an IDE drive. it was IDE and i do have problems i did uninstall a couple of free trials of video editing s/w i have the win Me defrag and it doesn't work with the 250, Western Digital i did use their s/w to format the HD beyond 120 GB the DOS scandisk does seem to work, more complete testing needed i have win 98 SE installed on a 80 GB HD, the 250 is for data. so, where do we get a modified ESDI_506.PDR? i've scanned many times for a vir*us > > OK, here it is > > it can't be done w/o MSoft updating 98 SE [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ESDI_506.PDR. If you have a SATA drive, then the drive must be used > in "SATA" or "RaID" mode, not re-mapped as an IDE drive. > it was IDE > and i do have problems Rename your esdi_506.pdr to esdi_506.pd_. It is located in c:\windows\system\iosubsys. You will then be able to work with a 250 gb IDE drive. But you will be doing so in 16-bit, DOS-compatability mode. > i have the win Me defrag and it doesn't work with the 250, > Western Digital You need to obtain the windows-ME version of dskmaint.dll. You shouldn't run any drive tools on an IDE drive larger than 128 gb until you solve the ESDI_506.PDR situation. > so, where do we get a modified ESDI_506.PDR? > i've scanned many times for a vir*us 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 First, i'd like to be able to Partition the 250 into 2 ea 125's > > it was IDE > > and i do have problems [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102226F.ZIP > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4903000F.ZIP > First, i'd like to be able to Partition the 250 into 2 ea 125's Yea - that's not a problem. Boot into DOS from a floppy with fdisk and format on it. The fdisk should be dated May 18, 2000 (not april 23, 1999). Use fdisk to create your 2 partitions, then use format. Then you're ready to install 98. Mine is dated 5-18-00, but i'm fairly sure i tried that ver to partition the 250 and it wouldn't work. The fdisk on the boot disk, at least the top one on a stack of them was the old ver. and the WD util to partition and format would only allow one partition, 125 or the whole 250, take my pick. i'll move all data from the 250 to other HDs and try again. thanks, > > First, i'd like to be able to Partition the 250 into 2 ea 125's > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then you're ready to install 98. Can you offer any help here? my scandskw is 4-23-99 where can i find a better one? defrag is Me 9-12-03 ssome > > First, i'd like to be able to Partition the 250 into 2 ea 125's > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then you're ready to install 98. > Can you offer any help here? > > my scandskw is 4-23-99 where can i find a better one? > defrag is Me 9-12-03 I'm not sure about your version of defrag (9/12/03). Maybe someone else can confirm that there was such an updated version for ME - or not. I have uploaded some files to fileden.com as follows: http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/fdisk.ex_ http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/defrag.ex_ http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/diskmaint.dl_ http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/scandskw.ex_ I had to rename them from .exe to .ex_ (and from .dll to .dl_) for fileden to accept them. Download those files, and rename them to .exe and .dll. fdisk.ex_ updated version of fdisk.exe (for windows 98/me) defrag.ex_ Windows ME version of defrag.exe diskmaint.dl_ Windows ME version of diskmaint.dll scandskw.ex_ Windows ME version of scandskw.exe Also: I attached a brand-new 250 gb WD SATA hard drive to my Asrock motherboard, booted a win-98 floppy into DOS, and ran fdisk. (note: I made sure that himem.sys was loaded as part of the boot. Maybe it's necessary, maybe it's not.) I created a single primary partition using all available space on the drive (I didn't check the details as to what fdisk thinks is the entire drive capacity). 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" That's when I left the computer (running at my office). I wasn't going to hang around for an hour while it formatted the drive. I'll check back later today and see how it finished the job. Conclusion: The /z:n format switch is a piece of sh.t and other tools must be used to perform a custom format job with a more rational cluster size. ... > 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 tried /z:48 and got the "not in allowed range" error. I then tried > /z:64 and it worked. > > Conclusion: The /z:n format switch is a piece of sh.t and other tools > must be used to perform a custom format job with a more rational > cluster size. I don't think there's any way you could format a 250GB drive with less than 32KB clusters, FAT32 has a limit of how many clusters the FAT can contain, which is why you must increase the size with bigger disks to keep the number of clusters down. IIRC 4KB can only be used up to 8GB (or possibly 16GB?). Beyond 64GB, I'm pretty sure 32KB clusters are mandatory. > I don't think there's any way you could format a 250GB drive > with less than 32KB clusters, FAT32 has a limit of how many > clusters the FAT can contain, Please have a look at this: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_frm/ thread/45de94e6422dbab2/0e0e53eea1ce2fbf?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#0e0e53eea1ce2fbf (or try this link: http://tinyurl.com/2zy2jx) It's a link to a google archived thread in this newsgroup with the subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32 Options As I point out, I've already seen that win-98 can run on a large hard drive (160 gb, partitioned as a single volume) and with 4kb cluster size to boot. FAT-32 does not have to increase cluster-size with increasing volume size. That is a choice made by the win-9x and ME format tool, to keep the total number of clusters under 4 million (and in most cases under 2 million). I believe that strategy was designed so that scandisk could run on a system with the specified minimum requirements that Microsoft spelled out for windows 98, which was 16 mb of system memory. Given a system with that amount of memory, scandisk could not load in a FAT table containing more than 4 million clusters. Given a system with more than 4 million clusters (in my case, I've tried up to 40 million) I've seen scandisk handle a drive scan with no problems (ie - scandisk will use all available system memory, not just the first 16 mb). Others say that 4-million cluster limit was rooted in the idea that Windows must load the entire FAT table as part of it's normal startup and use, so having a large FAT table would consume inordinate amounts of available system memory. I countered that argument by saying that there is no evidence from looking at system memory usage that windows loads the entire fat table during normal operation, and it really doesn't have to. It only needs to load the fat entries for the files that it opens. > "Formatting 41,86.65M" > > That's when I left the computer (running at my office). > I wasn't going to hang around for an hour while it formatted > the drive. I'll check back later today and see how it > finished the job. Ok, here's the result: Formatting 41,86.65M Format complete. Writing out file allocation table Compete. 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 up to 250 gb in size and set them up for windows-98se installation. From this point on, I don't want to hear any lusers out there in some future post say something like "uh, I don't think that fdisk works on drives larger than 50 gb, or maybe it's 64" or "I seem to recall that you can't use win-98 format to format a drive larger than 80 gb" or some other such nonsense. And to Ssome (the OP who I think started this thread in microsoft.public.win98.performance) - I hope this helps... >> "Formatting 41,86.65M" >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > And to Ssome (the OP who I think started this thread in > microsoft.public.win98.performance) - I hope this helps... Good for you. I have been using up to 160G drives for several years now with no problems with scandisk. I also have a raid 5 system set up on W98se with 5 x 160G WD drives - 600+G combined space partitioned into 5 sections. So far, again over 2 years, no problems other than one drive failing. At that time I rebooted on a broken array and ran normally until the replacement drive was ready and let the system rebuild the broken array over the weekend. That happened about 2 months after setting up the system and it has been flawless since. I run 2 old W95's, they do what they did well then to this day, 2 W98se with one as the server & 2 W2k's as workstations doing the grunt work. Soon a couple of the other L-OS machines will be added to perform additional grunt type jobs. No significant problems in over 2 years other than the one physical drive failure. Just lucky I guess. BTW you did a great job explaining to those new to disk allocations & if you know of a place describing why there should be some smaller partitions in addition to some larger ones for the purpose of improved disk space usage this would be a good place to direct them to it. I have not had the need to search for an article but if you do not have one available I will try to find one and add the link here. Good proof of concept. James File Not Found > > Can you offer any help here? > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > must be used to perform a custom format job with a more rational > cluster size. > File Not Found > > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/fdisk.ex_ > > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/defrag.ex_ > > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/diskmaint.dl_ > > http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/scandskw.ex_ They are there. When you copy or click on the above links, note that there is a "_" at the end of each file name. Like this: /files/2007/5/26/1113604/fdisk.ex_ Maybe you're not seeing that or copying it correctly. short of getting the 48bit LBA to handle the space above 137GB, win 2000 and up. WD site has a DOS and Win98 free s/w for their >137GB win 98 customers. get dlgsetup11_win.zip it handles fdisk, format and partitioning easily if win 98 is up and running on another HD use the DOS ver of this file for a new HD in a new computer. don't forget to get the ATA100/133 disk drive controller card, PCI, $19, to plug the 4 ea >137 HDs into. with the new MSoft fdisk, i was able to fdisk the whole 250. or, you need to cut it back to create an extended and then logical drives to create partitions. the WD s/w does it all easily, just select the additional drive that is not the boot drive, select Partitions and move a slide bar to get the size of your first partition, clik on Add Partition to create more partitions and move the slide again. i created 2 ea 125GB partitions. all is well as i can now scandisk and defrag the partitions where i could not use these MSoft utils on the whole 250 GB HD. i can live with 120 GB HDs, many of them. hope this helps ssome > File Not Found > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > must be used to perform a custom format job with a more rational > > cluster size. The next logical step was to see if the WD s/w for > 137GB will work on other mfgrs HDs. i tried it on a Maxtor 30 GB HD by partitioning it into 2 parts. It worked. It did give a disclaimer about a diff mfgr when i selected the HD to be worked on. ssome > File Not Found > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > must be used to perform a custom format job with a more rational > > cluster size. > The next logical step was to see if the WD s/w for > 137GB will > work on other mfgrs HDs. i tried it on a Maxtor 30 GB HD by > partitioning it into 2 parts. It worked. It did give a > disclaimer about a diff mfgr when i selected the HD to be > worked on. The software in question is usually some version of On Track's Disk Manager that has been customized for a given manufacturer's drives. I have some Samsung 160 gb sata drives, and the WD or Seagate versions of Disk Manager (AKA Disc Wizard) refused to work with the Samsung drives. Seems that Maxtor was merged/bought by Seagate. Which means that the Seagate Disc Wizard would probably work on large Maxtor drives. For $60, you can buy the real thing (for use on any drive) http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com/hard-drive-software/diskmanager.aspx Probably available on a torrent too. I loaded Win 2000 Pro, so that i could buy h/w and s/w that works.(not as bad as XP) kept the old computer 98 SE. it was an interesting tech challenge trying to force things to work in 98SE ssome > > The next logical step was to see if the WD s/w for > 137GB will > > work on other mfgrs HDs. i tried it on a Maxtor 30 GB HD by [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Probably available on a torrent too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.