If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
Alan Peake wrote:
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
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. 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
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/pro...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]]]]] -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
98 Guy wrote
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]; 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
Nim Rod spewed:
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. Which you naturally won't tell us what they are, because you like to make hit-and-run statements without backing them up. And thats a stupid way to describe them, its better to describe them as non Microsoft tools. What - the world to you is defined based on Micro$oft? Everything is either "MacroShaft" or "non-MacroShaft" ? 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. Go ahead sparky - tell us why. 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. Tell us how many files you have on your XP or Vista system that are 4 gb. Are you aware that most multi-media software is capable of spanning the 4 gb file limit when working on fat-32 drives? Why don't you tell us how many USB memory sticks come formatted with NTFS. 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. Backup strategies are a separate issue. Only a fool bothers to dual boot 98 and XP. I see that no dual-booters here want to challenge that comment. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581
look/search for " 48bit "and " 137 " make sure you read the info related to it. http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84886 might be some other stuff you may want Be aware that these are mostly unofficial fixes ... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________ "Alan Peake" wrote in message ... | | | 98 Guy wrote: | | 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, | .. | | Any more questions? | | Yes Where do I get one of the above (particularly the free one!)? I | tried google but no joy after an hour or so. Dial-up only here | Alan | |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
98 Guy wrote: 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, ... Any more questions? Yes Where do I get one of the above (particularly the free one!)? I tried google but no joy after an hour or so. Dial-up only here Alan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
250 GB drives - please help
Do you have or know where I can get a system disk from. I deleted win 95
uning the format hard drive. My computer is now telling me that a system disk is nrrded. "Eric Gisin" wrote: "98 Guy" wrote in message ... 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two DVD R/RW drives ok? | Anthony Buckland | General | 1 | September 25th 05 09:22 PM |
cd rom drives | carl | General | 2 | January 22nd 05 07:40 AM |
New Drives? | Dave | General | 2 | January 7th 05 04:57 AM |
CD DRIVES | Ken | Software & Applications | 1 | July 19th 04 08:13 PM |
zip drives | joe | General | 0 | June 26th 04 09:44 PM |