Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I'm well aware of the 137gb limit 98SE is subject to, and, whenever possible, I try to place the FAT32 partitions I need beneath the limit so as to avoid data corruption/being unable to access my drive, and use the read-only NTFS driver I have for 98 (Paragon's NTFS for Windows 98) to read any NTFS partitions I have (though none of them have exceeded the 137gb limit yet); I, however, have a couple of questions regarding this limit.
1. Would I still be able to read any NTFS partitions that exceed the 137gb limit without data corruption?
2. If I were to have one logical FAT32 partition and one logical NTFS partition enclosed in an extended partition, in which the NTFS partition (and hence part of the extended partition) exceeds the 137gb limit, may I experience data loss/unusability within the FAT32 partition?Thanks in advance to anyone who can help; I'm getting a new computer soon, one with a Gigabyte motherboard, so I'm not sure whether the Intel patch I've heard of will work, hence I don't mind just restricting myself to the limit.
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
There are TWO issues here. The first is OS related. Win98 can't normally access partitions larger than 127GB. The second issue involves hard drive sizes and 28 bit LBA and 48 bit LBA compliance. The two issues are related to a degree.
If you are getting new hardware the second issue concerning LBA compliance will not be an issue. The first issue deals with limitations on Win98. I am not familiar with the NTFS reader you use so I can't comment on it. As far as the other two issues are concerned the links below should explain and clarify.
http://www.48bitlba.com/index.htm
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006
In addition to the above if you prepare a new large HD using the utilitiies from the drive maker you can successfully use partitions larger than 127GB with FAT32. Why you want to do what is another question as you have a huge amount of slack space then. Look at the chart below explaining cluster sizes.
Cluster sizes
for FAT32 are as follows:
512MB to 8,191MB = 4KB
8,192MB to 16,383MB = 8KB
16,384MB to 32,767MB = 16KB
Larger than 32,768MB = 32KBNTFS - All partitions on a PC = 4KB default
0 
The 137g limit is with 98 and the type of partition will have no effect. IF 98 writes or reads above that , there will be data corruption. But with my limited tests booting into DOS did not have problems (not a DOS window). The 137g limit is not a FAT32 problem, but a Win ME and below. Data corruption will happen when reading/writing above absolute sector #268,435,455 {*512= (137,438,952,960 bytes)}. Trying to writing to sector #268,435,456 on my comp will write data to sector #1,048,513.
There was a third party patch ($$) listed on some (PDF) document at Western Digital hdd site (use their site search for 137g limit) but I'm booted to the wrong OS to find the link and have slow dial up . The Intel patch I think works for some intel chip sets.
0
In addition to the above if you prepare a new large HD using the utilitiies from the drive maker you can successfully use partitions larger than 127GB with FAT32.
This is true, my old system, when I had my win98se (which I loved) I bought a 200Gb Drive. I used a floppy that came with, and then, with a little tech support from Western Digital, I got it up and running! Western Digital, Good drives and good tools!
How soon we forget history...Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
0
From memory, the two hard drives I'll be using are a 250gb IDE (Western Digital iirc, I can find out in a couple of days) and a 500gb SATA (might be Seagate, but that's just a rough guess), so I could always just use those tools; however, would it be possible to just use a different third-party partitioning tool and install either the patch from MSFN (link found on 48bitlba.com), or should I just stick with what advice I've been given?
Thanks for the speedy replies, by the way.
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
0
Worth may be referring to a totally different issue. If your BIOS is not 48 bit LBA compliant you may be able to use the hard drive anyway by tricking the BIOS into thinking the drive is smaller. This is referred to as a drive overlay.
Steel, we don't have enough information on your computer to know without a doubt that your BIOS is 48 bit compliant. Because you speced 2.53GHz speed I will assume it is compliant. Therefore the issues you need to address are the following.
Win98, Win2000 preSP3, WinXP original version (no service packs) are NOT 48 bit LBA compliant OSes. Therefore you should not attempt to install them to a partition larger than 127GB.
In the case of formatting with FAT32 you should keep the partition much smaller than that due to excessive slack space. Below is a chart showing cluster sizes for various partition sizes. Keep in mind that only ONE file can occupy a cluster.
Cluster sizes
for FAT32 are as follows:
512MB to 8,191MB = 4KB
8,192MB to 16,383MB = 8KB
16,384MB to 32,767MB = 16KB
Larger than 32,768MB = 32KBNTFS - All partitions on a PC = 4KB default
0
I installed "Paragon's NTFS for Windows 98" and my NTFS partition above 137g were listed as not formated, as expected.
Next installed the 137g patch listed at MFSN site (the patch is for win98se only)
http://www.mdgx.com/files/48BITLBA.EXE and now the NTFS partitions are readable. The patch replaces C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ESDI_506.PDRIf the partitions above 137g were fat32 then I could read/write with no problems.
The above patch would be needed only for IDE hdd not sata. Sata hdd's use a different set of programs that to my reading are 48bit complient. {edit: see post #9 by OtheHill and #10 , and disregard any reference here to SATA hdd's}
Can not say just what partitioning tools will work but 98's "fdisk" likely will still have a problem. ME's fdisk may work.
Are you sure that your new motherboard has drivers for Win98 ? If not you will still have more problems.
0
SATA drivers may be an issue for Win98.
Do you know about running Virtual PC 2007. You can install Win98 from inside WinXP an run your Win98 programs that way.
Really no reason to run a dual boot any longer. I even gave up on Win98 at my last upgrade. SATA drives are the issue. If you MUST have Win98 then you might consider using a separate IDE drive for your Win98. Still a possibility of driver issues but more likely solvable.
0
Thanks for all of the replies;
"Therefore you should not attempt to install them to a partition larger than 127GB."
I wouldn't install Win98 on a partition that big anyway; just seems like a waste, I have it on a 10gb partition at the moment and it does fine.
"The above patch would be needed only for IDE hdd not sata. Sata hdd's use a different set of programs that to my reading are 48bit complient."
So, would that mean I'd need to seek out a certain SATA driver for my 98 install, and, together with the patch, it should be 48-bit LBA compatible? I believe such drivers exist, just that I would need to find out the make of the drive first (or find an appropriate universal drive, if such a thing exists).
QUICK UPDATE: just found a Win98 nForce 430 SATA driver, so I might give that a shot. I was planning to use the SATA drive purely as a data drive anyway, and leave the IDE as the one containing the OS partitions, so that might help make 98 installation smoother.
"Are you sure that your new motherboard has drivers for Win98 ? If not you will still have more problems."
The motherboard (Gigabyte GA-M61PME-S2) itself doesn't have drivers for 98; I have drivers for my graphics card (GeForce 8400GS) and I believe the correct drivers for the in-built sound card (Realtek HD audio), but not the chipset itself (not sure if this is a problem; I've had no problems without such a driver under 98 with my current rig, and) and no LAN driver (I don't use ethernet connections in my comp anyway, so that's no loss).
"Do you know about running Virtual PC 2007. You can install Win98 from inside WinXP an run your Win98 programs that way."
I've used VPC before (I've also tried VMware and Parallels) and that would be my best option, if not for the lack of stable DirectX support, which really doesn't suit me as I'm looking to use Win98 as my older games/generally legacy apps OS.
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
0
I hate to disagree with TopFarmer on this on but the type of hard drive interface has nothing to do with 48 bit LBA compliance. Either OS or BIOS compliance.
SATA controllers on motherboards kind of coincides with the introduction of 48 bit LBA compliant BIOSes. Normally if I see someone with SATA hard drives I assume their BIOS is 48 bit. I recently saw a thread here where the OP had 40GB SATA drives. Of course that may have been a mistake. They may have SCSI drives and not know the difference.
Steel, As I stated above there aren't any SATA drivers for Win98. You may be able to run the SATA drive in an IDE compatibility mode. That may allow you to install Win98.
Before addressing your other concerns can you explain why you must run Win98 on a new computer.
As I stated above your simple solution for the hard drive is to migrate one of your old IDE hard drives into this computer.
You must be dual booting or you would have no need for NTFS partitions. Check into Virtual PC 2007. This is a free Microsoft download.
0
"OtheHill" you are correct , just reread a PDF from SeaGate on Windows 137g barrier. The patch in my post #6 would be for both IDE and SATA hdd's (I hope).
0
"can you explain why you must run Win98 on a new computer."
As stated above, I'd like to have it as something I can use for legacy apps and older games when the other OSes don't work with them as I'd like them to. VPC2k7 doesn't support Direct3D, as far as I know, so it's probably not good for some of my games, and I don't think it's being developed anymore anyway, so there'll be no hope of it getting Direct3D support any time soon (even the VMware products are only beginning to experiment with it).
So, judging by what you're saying, even if I do have the appropriate SATA controller drivers, and even if I install Win98 on a separate IDE drive, I won't be able to see any partitions on the SATA drive?
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
0
No, that isn't what I said. There are different methods to run a SATA drive in the BIOS. You didn't post any specific hardware specs so I can't give more detail. Read your manual for the motherboard. The BIOS section should explain what settings to use that don't require you to install any SATA drivers.
If you get past that hump then you MAY need to hunt up some drivers that are needed for things like the motherboard chipset, sound, LAN, etc. If you get the OS up and running install SIW.exe. That should give you general or specific specs on those items so you can find the drivers. If your are VERY lucky the motherboard maker may have included some drivers for Win98. That isn't likely though.
If running a dual boot it is possible to install Win98 AFTER a newer version of Windows. That way at least you can determine the hardware. If you post the model of your board we may be able to assist further.
0
My motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-M61PME-S2, with a dedicated GeForce 8400GS in the PCI-E slot. I have Windows 98 drivers for the SATA controller, my graphics card, and possibly for the sound card (in-built Realtek HD). I do not require the onboard LAN, hence I did not look for this driver.
The motherboard manual itself doesn't mention anything about setting up a SATA hard drive without a driver; rather, it informs me on how I should go about setting up RAID (which I most likely won't use) or specifying drivers for use in 2k/XP setup (I'm planning to install of my OSes on an IDE drive anyway, keep the SATA for swap and other data).
The motherboard doesn't officially support Windows 98, but I'm thinking that it's possible I could just be lucky enough with the right drivers to make it work. Otherwise, I could always just install XP and use that as a legacy gaming platform (not ideal, but if it has to come to that, so be it).
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
0
You can try installing the SATA drivers using the F6 key when prompted. I am not sure this will work with Win98 but I guess it is worth a try.
BTW, before I forget to mention it. Gigabyte uses a different USB pin out. If you plug in the header for the front or breakout read USB ports you will blow them out. Read the Gigabyte instructions. You may need to remove the wires from the connector if it is one big plug.
Back to the manual. It appears your board has native support for SATA drives.
Under Integrated Peripherals Enable NV SATA controller.
0
From memory the F6 thing doesn't work with 98 installation, but since I'm installing it to an IDE drive, would it matter? If anything, it should make the install easier; if the SATA drive isn't initially detected then I won't have to worry about getting drive letters wrong and installing to incorrect drives/partitions.
Messing up computers, one dual-boot at a time.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
