Large Hard Drive on Promise Card Doesn't Work

You're talking partition size and access to these on current large
200/300/400/500GB hard drives. I'm talking total data file storage capacity
of 98/98SE on one physical hard drive, not partition. 2 entirely different
things.

And yes, I went round and round with 200GB WD trying all different ways to
be able to exceed the 128GB total file storage limitation on the entire hard
drive. Multiple partitions all less than 128GB, and a hidden and used NTFS
partition for the difference between the a 111GB FAT32 partition and the
remaining hard drive capacity. I can make the whole drive one FAT32
partition, more than one FAT32 partition, hidden NTFS partition, various
sizes of all. Tried the latter day fdisk, PM, and partition program that
came withe system commander. The bios is 48 lba capable. It turns out just
like the 48bitlba site indicates, data corruption results when the total
stored data exceeds 128GB irregardless the partition(s) and their sizing.
What they DON'T mention its not the partition size that's the limitation
that causes data corruption, and leaves the reader assuming that. And I'm
not going through all that again to prove to myself what I've already proved
to myself.

Made the 200GB all NTFS type 3 for XP use. No problems to date. Has a
month's worth of weekly DI 7 and DI 2002 image files on it as I had planned
to begin with, with exception of not using FAT32 using multiple partitions.
98SE can't see it, so it can't break it.

Will continue to warn people at this site of my observations. I will
respond to anyone who addresses what I'm talking about. But, I will ignore
in the future any intentional misdirection talking about partition sizing or
bios 48bit lba capability. That's not my issue, and I assume all that's
done when the subject comes up. That's NOT what I'm warning about.

In the future, please don't assume my experience level, both hands-on and
studied, with this issue. Thanks.
--
Jonny
"Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
...
Jonny wrote:

[..snips...]

In the end, you can only store 128GB of data on the hard drive before
data corruption results. This a problem with Win98/98SE. Not
partitioning or a bios problem. Due to this, a 120GB hard drive
is the largest capacity available in today's market that can be fully
utilized by Win98 for file storage.

This is totally untrue in today's world with options to dissolve that old
limitation
and make it totally obsolete John.
You have been explained the simple details about this situation John
within the last
few days in your other reply elsewhere, but for whatever reason you keep
saying the
same thing, however it is simply not true and the truth of the matter is
"with the
proper ingredients" W98 fat 32 has no limitations with large HD's anymore.
Obviously you don't have one installed then, but I for one out of
thousands? am
'currently at this moment running' 250GB hard drives and am running W98SE
on it with
absolutely no limitation or access to the full amount of GB to each or
combined
partitions !

I'll just copy/past my other reply in here again to you here.

In thread context it's an immutable truth that All of the HD's size can be
fully
utilized if you use a bios which supports 48-bit LBA as well as keeping
all
partitions under 128 GB, then you will get Full capacity utilization of
All
partitions. ...iow, with 48-bit LBA support if anyone installs a 500 or
even a 1000
GB HD and as long as they partition it up keeping all partitions under 128
GB, then
Yes you will have Full functionality and utilization of each and every
partition, and
all of W98's appropriate utility tools will work perfectly (using the
updated
scandisk, defrag, fdisk, etc)

This controller card has 48-bit LBA support and as well using a controller
card has
excellent performance advantages. I recommend the latest version of the
Promise
ULTRA133 TX2, and here's just one of many places to buy one:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-007&depa=0
(needs an available pci slot of course)

It's best to keep your FAT32 OS primary partition(s) under 8GB not only
for
best 4k cluster size efficiency, but it's so much faster to defrag it,
etc; you don't
need anymore than 8GB anyway for the OS partition. Then you take all of
your Non-OS
partitions and that is where you would make all those just under the 128
GB size and
label and use them for storage partitions.

Rick



--
Jonny

Did you try Rudolph Loew's system patch, as referenced in one of the links
on the 48bitLBA site? I investigated it, but didn't actually get it, since
I wasn't ready to try it at the time.

But from what I have read of people working with this problem, it *does*
seem to go away if you use a card with a 48bit LBA capable BIOS, *but* there
is still a need for patching W98, and most such cards have a 'driver' you're
supposed to load which takes care of the W98 problem. Loew's patch does
that for people who have a 48-bit LBA compliant BIOS, but no 'driver' from
using a card, such as the Promise cards.

Very interested to know if you have tried it . . .

Joe
"Jonny" wrote in message
...
You're talking partition size and access to these on current large
200/300/400/500GB hard drives. I'm talking total data file storage
capacity
of 98/98SE on one physical hard drive, not partition. 2 entirely
different
things.

And yes, I went round and round with 200GB WD trying all different ways to
be able to exceed the 128GB total file storage limitation on the entire
hard
drive. Multiple partitions all less than 128GB, and a hidden and used
NTFS
partition for the difference between the a 111GB FAT32 partition and the
remaining hard drive capacity. I can make the whole drive one FAT32
partition, more than one FAT32 partition, hidden NTFS partition, various
sizes of all. Tried the latter day fdisk, PM, and partition program that
came withe system commander. The bios is 48 lba capable. It turns out
just
like the 48bitlba site indicates, data corruption results when the total
stored data exceeds 128GB irregardless the partition(s) and their sizing.
What they DON'T mention its not the partition size that's the limitation
that causes data corruption, and leaves the reader assuming that. And I'm
not going through all that again to prove to myself what I've already
proved
to myself.

Made the 200GB all NTFS type 3 for XP use. No problems to date. Has a
month's worth of weekly DI 7 and DI 2002 image files on it as I had
planned
to begin with, with exception of not using FAT32 using multiple
partitions.
98SE can't see it, so it can't break it.

Will continue to warn people at this site of my observations. I will
respond to anyone who addresses what I'm talking about. But, I will
ignore
in the future any intentional misdirection talking about partition sizing
or
bios 48bit lba capability. That's not my issue, and I assume all that's
done when the subject comes up. That's NOT what I'm warning about.

In the future, please don't assume my experience level, both hands-on and
studied, with this issue. Thanks.
--
Jonny
"Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
...
Jonny wrote:

[..snips...]

In the end, you can only store 128GB of data on the hard drive before
data corruption results. This a problem with Win98/98SE. Not
partitioning or a bios problem. Due to this, a 120GB hard drive
is the largest capacity available in today's market that can be fully
utilized by Win98 for file storage.

This is totally untrue in today's world with options to dissolve that
old
limitation
and make it totally obsolete John.
You have been explained the simple details about this situation John
within the last
few days in your other reply elsewhere, but for whatever reason you keep
saying the
same thing, however it is simply not true and the truth of the matter is
"with the
proper ingredients" W98 fat 32 has no limitations with large HD's
anymore.
Obviously you don't have one installed then, but I for one out of
thousands? am
'currently at this moment running' 250GB hard drives and am running
W98SE
on it with
absolutely no limitation or access to the full amount of GB to each or
combined
partitions !

I'll just copy/past my other reply in here again to you here.

In thread context it's an immutable truth that All of the HD's size can
be
fully
utilized if you use a bios which supports 48-bit LBA as well as keeping
all
partitions under 128 GB, then you will get Full capacity utilization of
All
partitions. ...iow, with 48-bit LBA support if anyone installs a 500
or
even a 1000
GB HD and as long as they partition it up keeping all partitions under
128
GB, then
Yes you will have Full functionality and utilization of each and every
partition, and
all of W98's appropriate utility tools will work perfectly (using the
updated
scandisk, defrag, fdisk, etc)

This controller card has 48-bit LBA support and as well using a
controller
card has
excellent performance advantages. I recommend the latest version of the
Promise
ULTRA133 TX2, and here's just one of many places to buy one:


http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-007&depa=0
(needs an available pci slot of course)

It's best to keep your FAT32 OS primary partition(s) under 8GB not only
for
best 4k cluster size efficiency, but it's so much faster to defrag it,
etc; you don't
need anymore than 8GB anyway for the OS partition. Then you take all of
your Non-OS
partitions and that is where you would make all those just under the 128
GB size and
label and use them for storage partitions.

Rick



--
Jonny

Jonny wrote:
You're talking partition size and access to these on current large
200/300/400/500GB hard drives. I'm talking total data file storage
capacity of 98/98SE on one physical hard drive, not partition. 2
entirely different things.

I took your previous mention of your subject in the other thread and this one, on my
first read misleading to the posts common sense context and even taking it out of
context, but now that you've clarified I understand what you are saying and your
point is taken; however, even though Promise does state that it supports it but may
not elaborate specifics, I have no intention on advising or ever using W9x on a
larger Single or divvied Multi partitioned hard drive of any size 'that it can see'
partitioned that is over 128 GB - it would be unadvisable to do so since the tools
provided with 9x like Defrag and Scandisk will not support it and balk, if not
corrupt, anything they see above 128 GB.. ..and so to put anyone in that position
would be ill fated and is why I always give the info to the right ways to do it.
The standard is to not use W9x connected to any single/multiple partition that it can
see above 128 GB period, otherwise below 128 yes of course by all means use a 500 GB
HD if that's ones pleasure and I whole heatedly support it and support the info on
how to do it.

Rick



And yes, I went round and round with 200GB WD trying all different ways
to be able to exceed the 128GB total file storage limitation on the
entire hard drive. Multiple partitions all less than 128GB, and a
hidden and used NTFS partition for the difference between the a 111GB
FAT32 partition and the remaining hard drive capacity. I can make the
whole drive one FAT32 partition, more than one FAT32 partition, hidden
NTFS partition, various sizes of all. Tried the latter day fdisk, PM,
and partition program that came withe system commander. The bios is 48
lba capable. It turns out just like the 48bitlba site indicates, data
corruption results when the total stored data exceeds 128GB irregardless
the partition(s) and their sizing. What they DON'T mention its not the
partition size that's the limitation that causes data corruption, and
leaves the reader assuming that. And I'm not going through all that
again to prove to myself what I've already proved to myself.

Made the 200GB all NTFS type 3 for XP use. No problems to date. Has a
month's worth of weekly DI 7 and DI 2002 image files on it as I had
planned to begin with, with exception of not using FAT32 using multiple
partitions. 98SE can't see it, so it can't break it.

Will continue to warn people at this site of my observations. I will
respond to anyone who addresses what I'm talking about. But, I will
ignore in the future any intentional misdirection talking about
partition sizing or bios 48bit lba capability. That's not my issue, and
I assume all that's done when the subject comes up. That's NOT what I'm
warning about.

In the future, please don't assume my experience level, both hands-on and
studied, with this issue. Thanks.
--
Jonny
"Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
...
Jonny wrote:

[..snips...]

In the end, you can only store 128GB of data on the hard drive before
data corruption results. This a problem with Win98/98SE. Not
partitioning or a bios problem. Due to this, a 120GB hard drive
is the largest capacity available in today's market that can be fully
utilized by Win98 for file storage.

This is totally untrue in today's world with options to dissolve that
old limitation and make it totally obsolete John.
You have been explained the simple details about this situation John
within the last few days in your other reply elsewhere, but for
whatever reason you keep saying the same thing, however it is simply
not true and the truth of the matter is "with the proper ingredients"
W98 fat 32 has no limitations with large HD's anymore. Obviously you
don't have one installed then, but I for one out of thousands? am
'currently at this moment running' 250GB hard drives and am running
W98SE on it with absolutely no limitation or access to the full amount
of GB to each or combined partitions !

I'll just copy/past my other reply in here again to you here.

In thread context it's an immutable truth that All of the HD's size can
be fully utilized if you use a bios which supports 48-bit LBA as well
as keeping all partitions under 128 GB, then you will get Full capacity
utilization of All partitions. ...iow, with 48-bit LBA support if
anyone installs a 500 or even a 1000 GB HD and as long as they
partition it up keeping all partitions under 128 GB, then Yes you will
have Full functionality and utilization of each and every partition,
and all of W98's appropriate utility tools will work perfectly (using
the updated scandisk, defrag, fdisk, etc)

This controller card has 48-bit LBA support and as well using a
controller card has excellent performance advantages. I recommend the
latest version of the Promise ULTRA133 TX2, and here's just one of many
places to buy one:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-007&depa=0
(needs an available pci slot of course)

It's best to keep your FAT32 OS primary partition(s) under 8GB not only
for best 4k cluster size efficiency, but it's so much faster to defrag
it, etc; you don't need anymore than 8GB anyway for the OS partition.
Then you take all of your Non-OS partitions and that is where you would
make all those just under the 128 GB size and label and use them for
storage partitions.

Rick



--
Jonny

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:43:57 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
Jonny wrote:

In the end, you can only store 128GB of data on the hard drive before
data corruption results. This a problem with Win98/98SE. Not
partitioning or a bios problem. Due to this, a 120GB hard drive
is the largest capacity available in today's market that can be fully
utilized by Win98 for file storage.

This is totally untrue in today's world with options to dissolve that old limitation
and make it totally obsolete John.

Could you provide a list of what is required for Win98SE to support
48-LBA? Does this work for Win98 and WinME?

"with the proper ingredients"

What proper ingredients?

Yes, I know the FAT32 file system is good for terrabytes, but AFAIK
the OS code has to be 48-LBA capable to work safely.

In thread context it's an immutable truth that All of the HD's size can be fully
utilized if you use a bios which supports 48-bit LBA as well as keeping all
partitions under 128 GB, then you will get Full capacity utilization of All
partitions. ...iow, with 48-bit LBA support if anyone installs a 500 or even a 1000
GB HD and as long as they partition it up keeping all partitions under 128 GB, then
Yes you will have Full functionality and utilization of each and every partition, and
all of W98's appropriate utility tools will work perfectly (using the updated
scandisk, defrag, fdisk, etc)

I'm not at all sure about that. What you're saying implies that
Win98SE is not capable of addressing beyond "128G" but that this is OK
as it addresses each volume only from the start of that volume as
address 0, so that even if the volume passes the HD's "128G" (137G is
what I usually hear) limit, it doesn't matter.

This is possible, in that volume sector addressing (as opposed to
volume cluster addressing) does indeed address every part of the
volume, with the volume's boot record as sector zero. You can't
address the boot record or FAT via cluster addressing, but you can
address these via (logical) sector addressing.

However, logical volumes are reached via chained linkage within the
extended partition that contains them, so presumably the OS needs to
address these in absolute terms?

Is BIOS 48-LBA sufficient to meet this requirement?



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:39:12 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"

You cannot use the old version of 98x fdisk to format your drive

FDisk does not format drives, period. It merely creates or deletes
system-level partitions and OS-level logical volumes within extended
partitions, and can also set a partition as active on the first HD.

The FDisk that ships with Win95/98 becomes defective somewhere between
40G and 60G; it ceases to show the true capacity for 60G+ HDs.

The replacement Win98 FDisk, or the one that ships with WinME, can
"see" HDs above 60G up to 137G, but cannot correctly display
capacities over 99G and (more seriously) cannot input capacities over
99G. So you can't really use it on HDs over "99G" if you want control
over partitions (i.e. not "Yes, make everything one big C:"). So the
question of 48-LBA support for FDisk simply does not arise.


Format formats volumes, but does so according to whatever partition
table was present at boot time. That is why you MUST reboot after
changing volume sizes (i.e. creating or deleting partitions and
volumes) in FDisk, before formatting any volumes on that HD.

Format will show oddball capacities on "large" volumes, but seems to
format them correctly anyway. What "formatting" does is create an
empty file system within the volume that FDisk created.


Instead of using FDisk and Format, I use BING (from www.bootitng.com)
to both manage partitions and volumes, and to format them. Unlike the
various broken drek from MS, this tool can comptently create and
format any FAT32 volume size, as well as FAT16 volumes up to 4G - but
do not exceed 2047M for FAT16, as Win9x cannot deal with larger FAT16
volumes with 64k clusters, as NT family OSs can.



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:43:57 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
Jonny wrote:

In the end, you can only store 128GB of data on the hard drive before
data corruption results. This a problem with Win98/98SE. Not
partitioning or a bios problem. Due to this, a 120GB hard drive
is the largest capacity available in today's market that can be fully
utilized by Win98 for file storage.

This is totally untrue in today's world with options to dissolve that
old limitation and make it totally obsolete John.

Could you provide a list of what is required for Win98SE to support
48-LBA? Does this work for Win98 and WinME?


Simply a bios setup that supports LBA
Absolutely of course it works for WinME.
I don't mean to keep publicly promoting Promise controller cards like this and I
don't want to do it anymore actually, but I am not affiliated with them in any way.
The easiest way for anyone to get past large hard drive support is to use the right
bios setup - and the easiest way to do that for most people is to use something
simple like a controller card. I know Chris you don't have your newsreader setup
like the rest of us, and don't use OE, and so don't see your threads all in order,
gosh I wish you did! so I don't have to repeat this again, but it's very old news
anyway ..but just for you I will link it once more below.

Yes Drivers and 80wire cable for the card of course come with it!
You can buy them anywhere and have been the hot setup for years and I've use them for
years ever since the v100 came out, but now it's the 133. One of many places you can
buy it is here and take a look at the Image Viewer screenshotsof on its website too:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tem=16-102-007
...and download the pdf talking about the card from he http://tinyurl.com/737gb


"with the proper ingredients"

What proper ingredients?

Not much really, besides the Card, the other ingredients is simply have no partition

over 128 GB. It's FAT32 naturally. It needs to be under 128GB for its stock
Scandisk and Defrag to work properly, otherwise it won't, and get the latest fdisk
update from MS, and that's all you need. This is all old news though and I am not
saying anything new only repeating what I know to be true from what I've learned. I
currently run two 250GB HD's on two separate computers with this same setup, and my
third computer has only one 250 GB ..actually I only need One 250 on each computer is
more than enough, the other drives are just storage. They are all PATA is my choice
for now and not SATA setups.


Yes, I know the FAT32 file system is good for terrabytes, but AFAIK
the OS code has to be 48-LBA capable to work safely.

In thread context it's an immutable truth that All of the HD's size can
be fully utilized if you use a bios which supports 48-bit LBA as well as
keeping all partitions under 128 GB, then you will get Full capacity
utilization of All partitions. ...iow, with 48-bit LBA support if
anyone installs a 500 or even a 1000 GB HD and as long as they partition
it up keeping all partitions under 128 GB, then Yes you will have Full
functionality and utilization of each and every partition, and all of
W98's appropriate utility tools will work perfectly (using the updated
scandisk, defrag, fdisk, etc)

I'm not at all sure about that. What you're saying implies that

I am And I am running sytems using it - so I'm not just talkin'

Win98SE is not capable of addressing beyond "128G" but that this is OK
as it addresses each volume only from the start of that volume as
address 0, so that even if the volume passes the HD's "128G" (137G is
what I usually hear) limit, it doesn't matter.

The regular blurb about that issue is that 128 GB which is the true windows binary
limit - not the 137 decimal GB which many mention but that's only a HD manufacturers
marketing spec number used in decimals by them so that their numbers look/sound
bigger for marketing selling points, but most importantly the answer is that since
Windows and Windows Utilities uses binary calculations, and so that 137 converts to
128 GB only. If someone was to try a 137 figure they would find it would not work and
don't try it with a good setup, only go by binary numbers therefore the 128 GB is the
true number and what should be used when working with Windows Utilities.

nite, me be 10/7

Rick




This is possible, in that volume sector addressing (as opposed to
volume cluster addressing) does indeed address every part of the
volume, with the volume's boot record as sector zero. You can't
address the boot record or FAT via cluster addressing, but you can
address these via (logical) sector addressing.

However, logical volumes are reached via chained linkage within the
extended partition that contains them, so presumably the OS needs to
address these in absolute terms?

Is BIOS 48-LBA sufficient to meet this requirement?



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:39:12 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"

You cannot use the old version of 98x fdisk to format your drive

FDisk does not format drives, period. It merely creates or deletes
system-level partitions and OS-level logical volumes within extended
partitions, and can also set a partition as active on the first HD.

The FDisk that ships with Win95/98 becomes defective somewhere between
40G and 60G; it ceases to show the true capacity for 60G+ HDs.

....ps, oh gosh I see you have another post made already Chris.
I know for heavens sakes and I don't use fdisk either, and have always use
PartitionMagic to do this - fdisk is passe, but I only mentioned the fdisk issue for
standard issue to mention for regular 98 users which needs to be updated.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q263044/
..I don't tell someone to use a card with LBA and have them leave an outdated fdisk
on their system even if they don't use it, and like to cover all bases is all.
..and of course use the WinME scandisk and defrag is a given

nite now, the wife is yelling for supper
Have a good one,

Rick




The replacement Win98 FDisk, or the one that ships with WinME, can
"see" HDs above 60G up to 137G, but cannot correctly display
capacities over 99G and (more seriously) cannot input capacities over
99G. So you can't really use it on HDs over "99G" if you want control
over partitions (i.e. not "Yes, make everything one big C:"). So the
question of 48-LBA support for FDisk simply does not arise.


Format formats volumes, but does so according to whatever partition
table was present at boot time. That is why you MUST reboot after
changing volume sizes (i.e. creating or deleting partitions and
volumes) in FDisk, before formatting any volumes on that HD.

Format will show oddball capacities on "large" volumes, but seems to
format them correctly anyway. What "formatting" does is create an
empty file system within the volume that FDisk created.


Instead of using FDisk and Format, I use BING (from www.bootitng.com)
to both manage partitions and volumes, and to format them. Unlike the
various broken drek from MS, this tool can comptently create and
format any FAT32 volume size, as well as FAT16 volumes up to 4G - but
do not exceed 2047M for FAT16, as Win9x cannot deal with larger FAT16
volumes with 64k clusters, as NT family OSs can.



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Thanks very much to all who replied. My problem appears to be solved!

I moved the 250 GB drive to the slave position on the original cable
on my Promise card--the one that was already supporting a 40 GB drive
without problems. This single step immediately cleared up all the
performance problems with the new drive. I could now reliably transfer
large files to and from the drive as well as modify and run them on
the new drive.

My third-party partitioner still couldn't see the full 250 GB, though,
and ScanDisk was still running on boot-up. I followed the links
supplied by Rick for the Promise site and was able to download a later
Windows driver version than the one I had installed. (Apparently the
link I'd followed, from the Promise homepage, to obtain an updated
Windows driver was incorrect.) I ascertained that the card BIOS update
that I'd downloaded earlier was the correct one. The link that Rick
supplied for the Promise manual was a useful clue, although the manual
was actually incorrect as to what I needed to do to flash the card
BIOS.

Once I got the BIOS and driver upgrades installed, my Acronis Disk
Director partitioner could see the full 250 GB, and I created a second
partition using the remaining free space. However, ScanDisk was still
running on bootup. I downloaded and installed the Win ME versions of
ScanDisk and Defrag, but this didn't stop ScanDisk from running.

So I deleted both partitions, rebooted, created two 116 GB partitions,
rebooted, formatted the partitions, rebooted, and finally transferred
a large multimedia file to the first new partition and ran it. I
rebooted again and ScanDisk did not run!

So it appears that all is well.

I understand that there remains some disagreement on what will happen
if I attempt to actually use the second partition on this new drive.
Can anyone add anything definitive on that issue?

Thanks very much again. This was extremely helpful!

Ken Dibble

Ken Dibble wrote:

I understand that there remains some disagreement on what will happen
if I attempt to actually use the second partition on this new drive.
Can anyone add anything definitive on that issue?

Windows Explorer shows the new hard drive as two drives, yes? Use both
and enjoy.

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Ken Dibble wrote:

I understand that there remains some disagreement on what will happen
if I attempt to actually use the second partition on this new drive.
Can anyone add anything definitive on that issue?

Windows Explorer shows the new hard drive as two drives, yes? Use both
and enjoy.

Yup, both show up as separate drives.

Thanks again!

Ken