briton

The important part of that was "in real dos mode". The reason we suggest that you switch the file before Windows starts is that otherwise it is possible for file corruption to occur on the drive because Windows will be seeing the wrong size of drive and possibly write over important files. Therefore do NOT do the change of file from within Windows. It appears from the subsequent post that there are other reasons, but this is the primary reason - in DOS, the file system will remain intact and safe, whereas in Windows, until you change that file, your file system is in danger of corruption. Just stop Windows loading and go into the DOS prompt to do the switch. If you want to ensure that Windows installs with the new file, see earlier posts regarding inserting the replacement file into the CAB files on your installation disk. Hope that helps.

Didn't we already discuss that, in order to slipstream it, the file has to be written into the CAB file? Forgive my aged memory if I am wrong - I can't find the reference in the thread but perhaps some able-memoried person can refresh that for us please. And if you can't slipstream (or don't want to), as far as installing is concerned, if you stop at the first reboot and replace the file (with the correct version of course - 2226 only for the IBM portables) after that you are good to proceed as normal.

Sorry - I checked my own versions to see what I did. My oh my that sticky needs relabelling lol My mistake. Here is how I have them labelled for the boxes I use them on: 4102222F Older Desktop PC Win98SE.ZIP 4102225F Desktop PC Win98SE.ZIP 4102226F IBM laptop v4.10.2226 of PDR file only.ZIP 4903000F WinMe.ZIP If I remember correctly, the advice I was given on the board was that I should match the installed version number. Did you actually check what file version your installation disk installs? So you are correct - 26 is for IBM laptop. (As for the $10 - small price to pay for someone else to do the brainwork! Some go open, some ask for donations. It's up to the owner of the intellectual property rights!)

So you have an IBM laptop? Doesn't seem likely! You probably need 22, not 25. Check the original file version number. You might want to have a look at the thread for the Win98SE Autopatcher (under Unofficial Service Pack on this site). Have you tried manually setting BIOS hard drive info based on WD literature?

Sorry - I should have mentioned it. There are a number of utilities around. Search Engines are your friends! If you search, you may find the one I use - good old Microsoft: MakeCab.Exe You can get that from Microsoft (free as in free beer as opposed to free thinking lol) - see Knowldegebase Article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310618 which tells you how to use it and the link for downloading it. You need to do a little reading to work it, but don't worry - it isn't rocket surgery Sorry, I don't use Gapes. I now rely almost entirely on this Board's own "Auto-Patcher For Windows 98se". If you haven't tried it, you might like to! (It includes the option of switching the ESDI_506.PDR file and has the option to use the correct one but obviously only after Win98SE is installed and you are patching it.) Hope that helps!

The point about not applying it before using the disk is that if the system attempts to write even one byte to above the limit, it will be written at the start of the disk and possibly mess up something you can't fix. (If you are installing Win98 in a partition which starts above 137GB you won't have any trouble - the installation process won't reboot into Win98 so you HAVE to replace the file at/before the appropriate moment!) Two easy ways to get the file in place: One is to put it in the cab file in the Win98SE installation CD. It would be a good idea to make sure the original file exists there too in case it is needed later (rename it to ESDI_506.ORIG.PDR or something) and also to make sure there is a note in the readme file or on the CD itself. That's effectively a slipstream although you get no choice to avoid replacing it that way. (On my Win98SE CD it is in WIN98_51.CAB - I don't know if this varies for different versions.) The other is to replace it from DOS (not a DOS windows obviously). You can do this from a boot to DOS (from diskette, CD, USB stick etc), but it is also safe to do this by attending the Win98SE installation and stopping it rebooting into Win98SE the first time. At that stage, the Win98 OS has not accessed the disk. To do it from DOS, obviously you need to put the file somewhere where DOS can access it so that you can copy/move it into the ..\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS directory. Hope that helps!

That doesn't help. The mechanism used to hide a partition is to set the 'hidden' bit in the partition descriptor. So W98 still has to parse the partitiontables to see if it should ignore the particular partition, which it already does, since W98 ignores all unknown partition types. OK, but that doesn't apply if you edit the partition table manually and actually DELETE all other partitions except the one on which you are going to install Win98. In that case, the partition table only includes that partition - the rest of the space is seen as unpartitioned EMPTY (or available) space by the Win98 installer and by Win98 when it boots. Once you have successfully installed Win98, you go back to the partition table and manually enter the partition information which was there before you "deleted" them. You don't lose data because the data in the partitions themselves still exists. It was a method by which some RPM users used to have more than 4 primary partitions - they simply deleted the partition table info for the ones they weren't using at the time. Of course, during the time that the partition table information has been deleted, you must NOT use any utilities which will try to use that space and of course you need to have recorded the partition table parameters so that you can put them back in the table. Just an idea to find out what was going wrong.

Whine a lot about how long and complicated everything is

Way to go Lecco. Glad you found it. But what exactly is that dialog in the screenshot showing us? Sorry to be ignorant, but I can't pick out the clue.

I agree - apply the patch. You might want to wipe the 98 partition and reinstall it afterwards in case. You are ensuring that you can't access the other partitions when you install Win98, right? One thing you might consider is using a boot manager which can hide everything else when you boot into 98 and ensuring that the other partitions simply don't exist when you install 98 (use Ranish Partition Manager or something similar to "remove" the partitions from the table and put them back after you have installed 98 then change the boot manager settings to ensure they are hidden whenever you boot into 98). Oh and you aren't using dynamic disks in XP, right? Hope you sort it out, DaveLH, and please come back and let us know when you do and how you did it!

Surely that would account for the slowdown? Compatibility mode is slow as cold molasses!

Are you talking about on compatibility mode?

If anyone is happy to use Compatibility Mode disk access, surely the whole question of Enable48bitLBA is a waste of reading? When I installed Win98SE in a partition starting above the 137GB barrier, I could only get it to boot if I tweaked it to work in compatibility mode. But oh that sucked! It was like going back to 8bit machines lol In compatibility mode, you can access whatever your BIOS can access, can't you? Slowly, but surely anyway! Oh and P.S. Thanks MDGx

I have been suggesting for some time that the sticky gets Moderated to show people which file to download because of that figure. etc... Perhaps atlasrune was refering to leet, to primarily describe the behavior or accomplishments of others in the community Well, I hope we all appreciate the accomplishments of the contributors. However, as one who was misled into thinking that I should download the "latest" version when I first visited this thread, I thought atlasrune was once again highlighting the fact that, comparing the download figures for each version, it would appear that the world has more IBM laptops running Win98SE with >137GB disks than there are desktop PCs doing the same. So unlikely that it seems obvious that most people are downloading the WRONG version. Version 2226 was specifically for IBM laptops with version 2226 of the original Windows file ONLY. The numbers suggest that most current downloads are by people who are simply grabbing the latest version even though it is the WRONG version. My advice to ANYONE not sure what to do is to download Autopatcher (this site, other thread) which includes both versions of the Enable48bit patch (IBM laptop and desktop PC) with options menu. If you use that, the only reason I can think of to install the patch individually ahead of autopatching would be either because your Win98SE partition is above the 137GB barrier so the installation fails on reboot (in which case you simply start in DOS and manually switch the file) or because you know that the Win98SE OS will write above the barrier before you can run Autopatcher (rare and requires you to have something else installed which will write there). My advice to the moderators is to add a note in the download sticky in this thread on each version so that people will see, for example, against 2226F "Only for IBM laptops with version 2226 installed" or similar.

Well, I boot with XOSL which allows setting which partitions are visible. But XP will see the Win98SE partitions anyway so you don't have to worry about it. That is unless you use Ranish Partition Manager and do the famous (infamous?) delete partition info from the table so that NOTHING can see it! I believe most boot managers allow hiding of partitions. XOSL just happens to be FREE

I have been suggesting for some time that the sticky gets Moderated to show people which file to download because of that figure. On the other hand, if you read it, it does state which version is for what. The trouble is that the numbering suggests that one is the "latest" version. Ah well, if people come to that sticky, read nothing at all and download the wrong file, maybe that is supposed to happen! lol

There's always an "if" If your Win98SE OS runs and can't see the rest of the drive, you should be fine. So to be on the safe side, when we set up multi-boot, many of us hide the other partitions on Win98SE bootup. Then there are the other "ifs". If later on, you want to repartition the disk to have a shared data partition for instance, would you remember that you need to patch BEFORE you allowed Win98SE access? You probably would if you had to change that "hidden" setting before Win98SE got to it. What if you install another "large" drive? (Your drive is amazingly small for 2007 and it's nearly 2008!) Will you remember that Win98SE must not see that one either even if it has visible partitions? What if you install a means of accessing NTFS from DOS and then use it in Win98SE? Or install the same utility to read NTFS partitions from Win98SE because you want to be able to read things when XP won't boot? It seems you are reluctant to patch. I would suggest that, if you have a Win98SE partition, you get Auto-patcher from this site anyway (see Autopatcher thread). Then you will have a safer, better Win98SE and the 48bitLBA will be there waiting for you to install if you need it. And you are less likely to forget you need it if/when you do! Better safe than sorry?

Precisely why a disk of useful tools should be a separate project. Some people just want a fully patched system without 1000's of extra tools. Put your tools in separate project, and those who want both, can install both. No need for the two projects to merge. 1. I want to update my Win98SE system not upgrade it or install extra software. 2. I want to upgrade my Win98SE system with some useful but workable features of the operating system (or the things which Microsoft considered should be provided with the operating system). 3. I want to install utilities to make my Win98SE experience more fun, more efficient etc etc. IMHO, soporific does an excellent job fulfilling "1" (which is soporific's primary aim I believe) and adding such things to fulfill "2" as are available (such as the MDGX WinMe upgrades). Isn't that enough work, soporific! As far as "3", if anyone lists their "essential tools and utilities", every single one of us can list ours and you will be AMAZED at the vast array of "essential" software! For my money, when I build my Win98SE bootable CD, I include my own choice of utilities (many in DOS), the operating system, an up to date Antivirus program and the means of accessing something (local disk, network disk, internet etc) which allows me to get the other things I want (Shockwave, Flash Player etc). Go ahead with the separate project but please leave soporific the limited requirements which he meets so well! For my money, the separate project has been done elsewhere with all the BootCDs around (I never use them as I tend to build a new version of my own BootCD every now and then or stick it on a memory stick either of which takes very little time but I understand why some people prefer preformed BootCDs with someone else's idea of what is "essential".)

1. If your BIOS can't handle disk space above 137GB, you can't expect the Win98SE operating system to handle it because it doesn't know it is there (or worse). Meaning that this patch is no use if the OS can't see the disk space. (Basically, if you don't patch and have a larger disk, if/when Win98 gets above the barrier, it kind of thinks it is starting over with often disastrous results. (128GB is not relevant.) 2. With the patch, you can use partitions over the 137GB barrier or even starting below it and running through the barrier (been there, done both). If I remember the reports correctly, some users seemed to have trouble running through the barrier so they simply kept partitions either above or below but not through 137GB - dunno cos I never had a problem either way. 3. The "patch" is actually a replacement for one of the files in the Win98SE operating system. By changing an OS file, the parameters which Microsoft provide about the OS for software designers to comply with may no longer be valid. For most software, this is not going to be an issue as it will rely on the OS to work out where on disk to write/read etc data. However, with disk management software (and, I believe, some backup/restore software), the software design becomes more involved in the disk access activity which is why breaking the OS parameters in an unsupported way may well cause problems. (Again, I haven't used it, but if I read correctly, rloew's solution to the 137GB barrier doesn't have this effect as it is not "breaking and rebuilding" a Microsoft file - I am sure he can clarify that point!) So yes, you can use the patch (make sure you get the right file for your system - the sticky where they are listed is not that clear unless you read it all - many people seem to be downloading the IBM brand laptop version because it is the latest even though it is not the one for other laptops and all PCs). You can then use partitions above 137GB in Win98SE. Without the patch, if later Windows versions/Linux distros use larger disks, simply ensure that your Win98SE OS can't SEE those higher partitions (hide them when that OS boots). With the patch, some disk management and similar software may not work correctly - or works correctly but is dealing with the OS parameters not being what it was designed for. ...Win98SE installed... So when you install Win98SE on a partition, it is your responsibility to ensure that relevant patches are installed. I advise installing the correct 48bitLBA patch before the Win98SE installation reboots (stop the boot, go into DOS and switch the files) then reboot and let the installation continue - and THEN use AutoPatcher (see other thread) to do the other tweaks you need. And yes, if you never install disk management software etc in Win98SE partition, you should be safe, but the caveat is that there is always firmware which can render that statement incorrect - there seem to be some strange BIOS utilities around! Most people using Win98SE as their primary OS seem to want to be in control of the intricacies of their machines and hence don't like that kind of software. Many of us with Win98SE in a multi-boot scenario, tend to want to know what is where and which OS can see it! In either of those cases, your instincts are precisely correct!

Look I hate to mention this, but some of you are treading rather close to the line regarding Terms and Conditions of this site - to quote "Forum moderation is not up for public debate". Whether or not I agree with any of you, if someone breaks certain rules, they are instantly banned and that is moderation which is not up for debate. I only mention this because I don't want to see anyone here inadvertantly falling foul of that rule and getting banned! Now, regarding splitting this thread. Again, I think some of you are missing the point. Noone is suggesting that this thread should die! It goes quiet for a while, but it always comes back up when someone new comes across the problem/solution or when there is a new wrinkle. However, this is a thread about DISK SIZE. Unless I am very much mistaken, although it was the obvious place to start discussing MEMORY SIZE, that discussion has now grown more important and much larger and more complicated. It is therefore not only OFF TOPIC, but is now swamping the thread to the point that new users may well find the whole business of DISK SIZE way to difficult to pick out. Hence the suggestion to split the thread and move the exisint MEMORY SIZE posts to a new thread with a title that covers that (Overcoming memory size limitations or whatever). If a moderator should see this, please take some action to strip out the off topic stuff, interesting and useful though it is, into it's own new thread. Thanks.

Thanks for the explanation. I avoided that - for some reason (maybe going way back to mainframes lol) I like to keep OS types separated as early as possible. Therefore, I use XOSL to control everything. You might find it useful and it is so easy to reinstall with previous settings and then update with a couple or three files you can keep on a thumb drive. The trick I found was to keep whichever bootloader a Linux distro prefers (usually GRUB or LILO) with that distro so that it will automatically update to point at the latest kernel. But to GET that distro booted, I have to point at the bootloader from XOSL. That way, despite many OSs having their own boot managers (whether Windows or Linux), there is a master boot manager in front of them which I can restore if they remove it and which can find the partition to point to without difficulty. If I move, remove, add, change location on disk etc of any partition or partitions, I simply need to stop at XOSL and tell it where they are if it doesn't know already (not bad for freeware ). Of course, I am controlling the moves/resizes etc manually using a combination of Ranish Partition Manager (my primary partition control as it really is manual!) and a DOS bootable thumbdrive with GParted on it (don't ask - it just works out faster that way) so there is never a time that some boot management or partition software will do something I didn't intend it to - again not bad for freeware. As many other users, I do NOT consider that Windows installations are there to stay - I regularly wipe the partitions and reinstall Windows and Linux versions from scratch. Naturally, that is a good time to reconsider partition sizes, positions etc. The same applies to Linux distros - I manually create the partition table before installing them and I put GRUB or LILO wherever I want it but not as the primary boot manager. Now how all that applies to AutoPatcher is simple. Whenever I am going to run Autopatcher, I first reboot into XOSL and set the default boot to the Win98 partition being patched. That way, if Autopatcher reboots (and more especially if it does so more than once), it can do so unattended. And how it applies to your situation as guru should be obvious. If you have some kind of Master boot manager at the front of the line and point it at any other bootloaders such as Grub which you need to have there, you can be all things to all men AND use beta versions of patchers etc. It would also mean that your Grub would be where a more restricted user (say a user with only one OS and that being a Linux distro) would have it. I am not sure Autopatcher will affect your MBR anyway even if you were worried that a beta version might, you could have GRUB (or another bootloader/manager) pointing at a GRUB NOT on the Win98 partition. That would isolate the "real" GRUB you need to protect from the partition you would be using beta updaters on. Just a thought. Sorry - a little off-topic but my first response was because I understood your previous post to suggest that Autopatcher was changing things on partitions other than the Win98 one it was working on.

soporific - for your to-do list sometime, could you look at http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_B...st&p=702190 which is a post about the 48bitLBA patch failing when a "disk address translation program" was used. I replied to North of Watford on that thread, but maybe you want to include a stronger warning about disk access management software or something.

Well, not for everyone because many Win98SE users (and probably MOST users who use Win98SE as their primary OS) are aware that they need to read a lot! I do admit that I only found out because I couldn't actually install Win98SE after I installed the first larger drive because I tried to install Win98SE in a partition which STARTED above the 137GB limit so I didn't lose anything - the reboot during installation simply failed. Point taken anyway. Three points @ 2 cents each: If there IS to be a warning, someone needs to edit the sticky post where the downloads are listed. If there IS to be a warning, someone needs to edit the sticky post where the downloads are listed. (Who has access to that sticky since the patch author is no longer with us?) Therefore, while they are there, it would help to list the different versions against the reason WHY each version exists as the number of downloads recorded suggests many people are downloading the WRONG version (are there THAT many IBM laptops out there?). If a warning is included there, it needs to be included with the AutoPatcher. Finally, I do have one point. If in many decades of computer use I have ever used a "disk address translation program", it was totally invidible to me. I am wondering if it is common. There are MANY things you might be using that would suggest that you need to use this patch with caution but in most if not all cases you would be expected to realise that they were messing around with disk access in which case using an old Operating System should cause anyone using them to be as careful as you obviously were (testing with copies of files). Anyway, I agree a warning about disk management software might be put in bold print in the download sticky and I'll post a link to your post there so that soporific can consider including a similar warning with the Autopatcher download.

I am not really sure why you are getting "cross-pollination" between your partitions but I suppose that might depend on how you are setting up your partitions and how you manage your OSes. Personally, all my partititions are visible to all the other ones and all can read the others (yes, simple free DOS utilities allow you to read NTFS, Linux etc). As I never let any OS installers or updaters to get away with changing my boot management or partition table, nothing ever messes up the other partitions (well, unless I want it to lol). And the best thing is that all the utilities and management are free (although not all open source). I control boots using XOSL (for the Linux partitions I point XOSL at GRUB or LILO to allow them to ensure the latest kernel is in use). I control partitions using Ranish Partition Manager which means that when a new OS is installed, I plan the partition(s) for it beforehand and set up the exact spaces in RPM before letting the installer at them. To move/resize partitions I use GParted on a stick (I modified their LiveCD to run from DOS on a USB memory stick to simplify things). Whenever something installs that is likely to change the MBR, I go first back into RPM to check that the partitions are as I want them, then go to DOS to change things like boot.ini which WinXP invariably "unfixes" and then restore XOSL from somewhere else (another partition or a backup) and then set it to include the new OS. All of which takes no time at all once you understand how it all works. Doing that, you can use any Auto-Patcher to your heart's content. It will ONLY affect the Win98SE partition(s). Can't think why it would affect any others - mine are all visible and the auto-patcher has never affected any of the other partitions except the one containing the specific Win98SE OS on which it is run. The others include Vista, XPpro (more than one), Win98SE (more than one), DOS (more than one) and various Linux distros. And various combinations on various boxes. Never a problem outside the specific Win98SE partition on which the auto-patcher is running - oh, except that it helps to tell your boot manager to boot that partition as the default while autopatcher is running which saves you supervising it or having to reboot manually back from the default OS each time it reboots (and even then it doesn't CHANGE anything on the other partitions). Am I missing something here? Anyone else found the autopatcher does things to other partitions?

Yes. Not on the board - on the Operating System. Do not attempt anything above 128GB before you replace the esdi file. The capacity of the BIOS is something else again - unless your BIOS can identify the disk correctly, you are in trouble. Get a BIOS update or else get another board. The easiest way to get Win98SE working is rather easier than all this - use the excellent Aut-Patcher at AutoPatcher which includes the 48butLBA patch. The only reason you wouldn't be able to use that would be either (a) you are installing the Win98SE OS onto a partition which starts near or over the limit or (B) you need to access that part of the disk before you finish installing and auto-patching. If you don't want to use the Auto-Patch for some reason (although I don't know why not as it gives you complete choice on what you let it do and allows undoing anything), just manually replace the ESDI file in DOS and carry on. But without BIOS ability to identify your disk, you are spinning your wheels. Sorry