JorgeA

Friends, Several weeks ago, as part of my computing self-education, I performed a clean installation of Windows 98SE on an old Daewoo notebook computer. The notebook had come with a massive 1.5GB hard disk and 48MB of RAM. As I wasnt using this computer for anything, it was a good platform for practice and experimentation. I learned how to do many things I'd never dared to try before: open a laptop case, change and add new RAM (its now up to the maximum 80MB), replace the hard drive, and install Windows on it. Very instructive experience, and it turned out to be a lot of fun. However, as part of my learning process, Ive since discovered that of the 15.1GB that the new drive supposedly has, only 8GB or so is recognized by the BIOS and Windows. So the question is: How do I make use of the missing 7GB? I guess this question could be broken up into several, depending on the approach taken. What Id like to know is if any of these approaches is possible: 1. Is there anything I can do to get this computer to recognize the missing drive space, without losing the information thats already on the drive i.e., somehow to resize the partition? 2. Barring that (that is, if there is no way to get it to recognize more than 8GB at a time), is there any way I could reclaim that missing space to create a new partition, again without losing the existing information? Im not opposed to reformatting the HDD and reinstalling Win98SE if it comes to that, but of course Id like to avoid having to retrace all those steps, if possible. Here is some relevant information about the computer that hopefully will help: From System Information: Operating System -- Windows 98 4.10.2222 A Available Space on Drive C: -- 8046MB (FAT32) - reflects usage of some space, of course, but I was hoping to see >13000MB here BIOSDate 06/15/98 BIOSVersion PhoenixBIOS 4.0 Release 6.0 CPU Pentium MachineType IBM PC/AT Ssytem Board DriverDate 4-23-1999 Primary IDE Controller (dual fifo) Driver ESDI_506.pdr, Date 4-23-1999 From System Properties: Intel 82371AB/EB PCI Bus Master IDE Controller Intel 82371AB PCI to ISA Bridge (ISA Mode) Intel 82439TX Pentium Processor to PCI Bridge From the BIOS Setup Utility: Hard Drive Maximum Capacity 8455MB Cylinders -- 17475 Heads -- 15 Sectors -- 63 LBA Mode Control Enabled (but see the Hard Disk Manager info, next) 32 Bit I/O Enabled From the DEKSI Hard Disk Manager: Hard drive is correctly identified as a Toshiba MK1517GAP, 14.1GB -- BUT the C: (only) drive listing has it, like Windows, at 7.9GB Capacity: 15.1GB (matches the advertised size, though not the actual size) 48-bit LBA Addressing: Not Supported (how does this square with what the BIOS Setup said?) From the CPUID.EXE Utility: Genuine Intel Pentium Processor with MMX Technology Processor Family: 5 Model: 8 Stepping: 1 From the Intel Chipset Identification Utility: Intel 430 Chipset Memory Controller: 82430TX Notes: a. The BIOS Setup gives me the choice to select the Drive Type as either Auto or User. If I select Auto, the values cant be changed, but if I select User, then the values for the cylinders, heads, and sectors become modifiable. But I hesitate to muck around with those values unless I know that it can be done without screwing up the data, programs, and settings that are already on the HDD. b. Curiously, the DEKSI Hard Disk Manager (a Windows program) knows that it's a bigger drive. Why don't Windows or the BIOS know, while the HDM does know? c. One thing I find confusing is that the BIOS Setup seems to suggest that it does LBA, which according to my reading and limited understanding of the subject should take care of the 8.4GB barrier and permit it to recognize larger drives yet its not recognizing it. It also has the same BIOS version and release number as my Win98FE tower, which has always happily used a 13GB drive. The only relevant differences (as far as I can tell) are that the BIOS Date for the laptop (06/15/98) is earlier than that for the tower (03/15/99), while the system board "Driver Date" for the laptop (4-23-99) is actually MORE RECENT than that for the tower (5-11-98). So what gives?! What do you think is there any way to make use of the extra space on the hard disk? Thanks very much! --JorgeA

Hmm... that's very good to know! --JorgeA

Jake, That's terrible... and funny!!! --JorgeA

Svenne, If your purpose in upgrading from Win98FE to SE is to be able to use USB, this might help: http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/win98fe-usb-mass-storage-drivers.php I installed the FE USB 2.0 driver on my FE tower, and it has worked well for me. (I confess that I did not download the recommended service pack, but the USB driver works anyway.) A much simpler solution than upgrading/installing an operating system, if all you need is USB support. But, if by "USB disks" you mean an external USB hard drive and not a USB thumb drive, then I am not certain as I have not tried an external HDD on that computer. Good luck! --JorgeA

triger49, I hear you about Yahoo! All that animation was distracting, and it took forever to finish loading on my Win98. That's why I switched search engines to Google a few years ago. Much cleaner look and faster page loading. Then I found out that Google doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to privacy, so now I'm using Ixquick for my Web searches. --JorgeA

dencorso, It does sound like an interesting (if labor-intensive) alternative. I'll look into it further. Muito obrigado! --JorgeA

Quite true. And the best independent HOSTS file for this use is findable here. dencorso, Would this be used in addition to, or instead of, the two resident functions in Spybot (Immunization & TeaTimer)? In other words, since I no longer do manual scans with Spybot (and you know why ), I'm looking for a way to replicate those two functions that doesn't involve using that resource hog. --JorgeA

Mijzelf, Your reply illustrates the reason why I decided to help to pay for this forum. In fact (except for the heat that was generated for a couple of days) this whole thread has been highly instructive, and for it I thank you and everyone else who's pitched in. You really made things clear with the analogy to a telephone exchange in the house. LOL Over the years, I've participated in many forums of all sorts. The level of helpfulness and interest shown to a non-expert on this forum is unrivaled in my experience. --JorgeA

Wrong. The services are bullet-proof because they are not vulnerable to attacks. Even if a hacker knows which services I run on which ports (which is partly not difficult to find, a simple portscan will show I'm running a webserver, the other services are using non-default ports), he can't do anything with it. For the weaker services I trust my router not to expose them, because I didn't forward any ports to them. Mijzelf, O.K., I see an opportunity to learn here. Help me to understand. You wrote that your ports are not vulnerable to attack even if a hacker knows which services you're running on which ports. What function/application would it be, then, that is protecting your services, and wouldn't that be called the "firewall"? Maybe there is a distinction between the protection that a "router" offers, vs. the protection given by a "hardware firewall" -- am I getting closer to the mark? Finally, and to go back to the question that started this thread -- in your view, and knowing everything we've discovered about this Westell 6100F, would I need another device in order to adequately protect the various PCs (including or especially the Win98 systems), or is the 6100F enough? And if another device is needed, would that be instead of the Westell, or in addition to it? Remember that I don't intend to network the various PCs to each other, necessarily. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. --JorgeA

You can skip that 'kind of'. A router is a router. When you only do some surfing it's hardly useful to have a hardware firewall. As soon as you start exposing some services (by portforwarding) to the internet a portscan detector could be useful, but I don't know if it's provided. I found that manual for you, but I didn't want to register to be able to download it. So I don't know which functionality the firewall has. I never bothered to configure the firewall in my router. I just trust my exposed services to be bullet-proof. Mijzelf, I have uploaded a screenshot of that page 70 so that you can see the various possible settings. I tried to upload the top half of page 71, where the choices are explained, but that put me over the capacity limit, so here they are: General Firewall Settings Maximum Security (High) High security level only allows basic Internet functionality. Only Mail, News, Web, FTP, and IPSEC are allowed. All other traffic is prohibited. Typical Security (Medium) Like High security, Medium security only allows basic Internet functionality by default. However, Medium security allows customization through NAT configuration so that you can enable the traffic that you want to pass. Minimum Security (Low) Low security setting will allow all traffic except for known attacks. With Low security, your ProLine is visible to other computers on the Internet. No Security (None) No Security (None) is ProLine’s factory default security setting. Firewall is disabled. (All traffic is passed) Custom Security (Custom) Custom is a security option that allows you to edit the firewall configuration directly. Note: Only the most advanced users should try this. O.K., so given what we know that the default "No Security" setting will do (that is, my PCs are already almost completely invisible), under what conditions would it be useful/necessary to change to a different setting? Second question. Let me see if I got this right. Your exposed services can be bullet-proof even in the default setting, thanks to the level of protection that the router gives in that setting? --JorgeA Westell p70 Shot 2.pdf Westell p70 Shot 1.pdf

Thanks, cluberti. The review you linked to was good to read. I'll dig deeper into this. Will add the CCI byte issue to my list of questions for the Moxi folks (hoping all along that they'll have any idea what I'm talking about!). --JorgeA

cluberti, I hope you don't mind my briefly reviving this thread, but I have three quick follow-up questions: 1) Have you tried the Moxi? 2) What do you think of their system, compared to TiVo and Windows Media Center (features, ease of use, reliability)? 3) Off the top of your head, do you know how well set up Moxi is to deal with the CCI byte/broadcast flag issue? (Based on this thread, MCE is and TiVo isn't.) Hopefully these will be fairly easy to answer! I've been checking out the Moxi, and it looks like a strong candidate. --JorgeA

wsxedcrfv, Thanks very much for the detailed recommendations and procedure for replacing Java Runtime. I'll start implementing them. From this thread it looks like I'm already doing #7. I guess that #10 wouldn't apply to the Win98 machines (I haven't gotten into multibooting). I've had Spybot on the Win98 tower for several years. The first thread I started on this forum had to do with Spybot crashing on that PC every time I did a manual scan. I still keep it for the two purposes you indicate, but may switch to SuperAntiSpyware because -- speaking of resource hogs -- Spybot is a really big one. --JorgeA

Mijzelf, Thanks for all the information, I appreciate it. I'm still surprised to learn that I've had a (kind of a) router all along. This whole discussion has saved me the effort of researching a router purchase, and the expense of making it. Would there be any purpose in changing the default setting as seen on page 70 of the Westell's manual, or is it better to leave it alone despite the fact that it says that is "No security"? --JorgeA

wsxedcrfv, See my reply to rilef. It looks like the Westell 6100F that I have may be in fact some kind of combo device, as I can go into the settings and (apparently) change them, including firewall and port rules. (Please excuse my noobness if I'm getting the terminology wrong.) Check out page 70 of the PDF to the manual. The general firewall settings menu is just like the one I saw when I went into my box's configuration application. Now, you'll see that the default setting is "No Security." Yet, as I said before, my PC's did pretty well on the Gibson tests. Two questions: Could that be thanks to the software firewalls -- and, if I were to uninstall them, then which of those security settings would I choose to emulate the level of protection that the current firewalls are providing? On the other hand, since the software firewalls are already in place, one could say that there's very little additional time and effort involved in keeping them running. So isn't it possible that the question boils down to whether you want to dedicate resources on a Win98 machine to a firewall? One last thing (for now, anyway). I assume that none of this affects the wisdom of running antivirus/antimalware applications, as opposed to a firewall? I appreciate all the information you've been passing along -- thank you! --JorgeA

rilef, Thanks for jumping in. I sense a flame war erupting here, or maybe my question has rekindled an old argument. Hopefully what I report below will help to stop things from getting to that point. Prompted by your post, I went into my Westell's configuration. Had to set a new password and all. I'm too new at the networking game to dare to actually change any settings in there, but it sure does look like I can change them. I even clicked a few settings on and off, but left everything unchanged in the end. (I didn't hit the "Apply" button.) Every button that I tried seemed to respond as one would expect. Maybe this will help to settle the question of whether this box is a simple modem, or a router (maybe a modem with extra features? or a combo device as you think might be possible). If you go to page 70 of the 6100's guide, you'll find a screenshot of the general firewall settings. It matches exactly the screen that I got when I clicked on the Westell menu to access the firewall settings. I was surprised to see that the default (and current) value is "No Security," because all of my PC's did well on the Gibson tests (except for the ping test). Could that be the computers' software firewalls in action? Thanks again! --JorgeA

wsxedcrfv, Thanks for the link. Pretty nasty technique, there. Would you say that there's generally just too much focus on (or trust in) software firewalls? I've never had a case where the Norton firewall alerted me to an unknown program trying to go out on the 'Net. But there have been times where it's told me that it blocked an outside attempt to invade my Win98 PC. However, that was when the PC was on dial-up. I don't remember it happening again since I got DSL. Let me make sure I have this right. So I can actually set up a LAN behind this Westell device, enabling file sharing and the like, while dispensing with the various PCs' individual software firewalls, and they will still have as much protection from intruders as before? BTW, there's no chance of me going into the Internet underworld, so I should be O.K. on that score. Thanks again! --JorgeA

According to this your modem is a 6100F. So maybe you can find a manual here. Mijzelf, You know, as I looked for info on my modem last night I did see that exact DSLR forum thread that you linked to, but in the process of visually scanning I did not see the sequence of characters that my eyes were looking for (F90-610015-06), so I ended up skipping it. The key, of course, was in knowing that a "6100F" is the same as an F90-610015. My Web search didn't turn up the other link you provided, and which puts the two sets of numbers together. I continue to be amazed by the level of expertise shown by the folks who participate in the MSFN Forums, and most of all by their (your) willingess to help. Many thanks! --JorgeA P.S. Now that it's daytime, I can see clearly that my modem says, in little white letters on the front, "Model 6100F." Duh!! And here I thought I was being so sophisticated by going straight to the product label on the bottom...

wsxedcrfv, Fascinating! Looks like I'll be reading up on NAT and subnets sooner than I'd thought. Cool. The firewalls DO eat up some resources, so this is a tempting idea. It's too bad that there doesn't seem to be any official documentation anywhere that's specific to my particular modem (Westell F90-610015-06), so that we could explore and tinker with the settings, and maybe see what the manufacturer has to say about their product's features. I did find the following webpage where this issue is addressed. (See "Solution #2.") One question about dispensing with the software firewall. My understanding is that a hardware firewall stops unwanted inbound traffic, but not outbound. Wouldn't there be a use then for the software firewall, in case one of my PCs got turned into a zombie? It's an interesting concept that you suggest, going without a software firewall. I'll look into it deeper. For now, it's starting to look like I already have the capabilities that I was looking for, so I don't need a router. --JorgeA

wsxedcrfv, No, my setup right now is really simple. I'm slowly poking my toes into this ocean. The PCs are not networked, at least not with each other. (File sharing is turned off on all of them.) That's not to say that I won't set up an actual network at some point, but for the time being I'm avoiding that level of complexity. So I guess that the answer would be that the PCs connect via the same IP address, but no local network is set up (nor can any of my PCs detect one). Here's my progression. Up till December 2008 I had a single Win98 PC connected to the Internet via dial-up. When the computer developed major problems (which seem to have been fixed), I bought a Vista system and moved up to DSL service. Once I got used to that, and the old PC seemed to get better, I decided to experiment with putting both computers on the 'Net, so I bought a switch and both of them can surf the Web at the same time, but with no networking between the two of them. Then I added a Win98SE notebook, and it surfs great at the same time, too. My Vista laptop can jump in as well, no problem. And now that I have a handle on that, the next level is to set up a router so that these PCs can enjoy its hardware firewall. Maybe later on I'll try to network them, but right now that's beyond my pay grade.... Steve Gibson's tests indicate that my PCs are fairly well cloaked, except for the Ping Test. I'm not sure if that protection comes from the DSL modem (there's some question as to whether it's actually a router), or from my ISP, or from the computers' individual firewalls. I'm willing to learn. Hope this helps to make my situation clear! --JorgeA

Mijzelf, The IP address on those two sites is in fact different from the one that shows up in ipconfig. I guess that suggests that it's a router? In case it makes a difference, the three computers are each connected to a switch, which is then connected to that DSL device. The device is a Westell F90-610015-06. After a Web search I couldn't really settle in my mind the question of whether it's a modem or a router, but I still suspect it's a modem. After seeing this info, what does it sound like it is to you? Thanks! --JorgeA

Thanks, cluberti -- I'm glad that you roam around these forums! Would I be right to assume that you agree with me and Mijzelf (sorry everyone, couldn't resist saying that), that no particular router model or special setting is needed to get Win98 and Vista PCs working off the same router? --JorgeA

Mijzelf, Thanks, that's what I thought -- that nothing special needs to be done. But I'm new at this, so I wanted to make sure! I checked two of my PCs on the Gibson Research site, and they have the same IP address. But then the DSL modem from the phone company is billed as just a modem. They do sell other devices that they call routers, so I figure that my modem is just a modem. And it has only one connection for a PC. Does any of this make a difference as to whether the "modem" could actually work as a router? --JorgeA

Hello, I have two Windows 98 and two Vista computers to take care of in my office, and I'm thinking of buying a wired router to help protect them when they go on the Internet. Currently the computers are each connected to a switch, and otherwise they all fend for themselves with their own software firewalls. The router would be to add a hardware firewall layer to my defenses. As currently configured, all the computers pass every one of Gibson Research's ShieldsUP!! vulnerability inspections, except for the Ping Reply test. I have two questions: 1. Can you recommend any wired routers that work well on both Vista and Windows 98FE, or does it not really matter to the router what kind of computers are hooked up to it? 2. Considering that Win98 systems are involved (an FE tower and an SE laptop), are there any special issues Ill need to keep in mind when setting up the wired router for the first time? Im not looking (necessarily) into setting up a network to enable the computers to talk to each other. Im mainly interested in replicating the star configuration that I now have, where each computer connects to the switch and then the switch connects to the DSL modem. The only difference would be that Id be using a wired router instead of a switch, or maybe in addition to the switch. Any guidance you can provide will be welcome. I apologize if I chose the wrong forum section to post this on! --JorgeA

cluberti, My wife just shocked me by basically giving the green light to do Windows Media Center. She said, "Let's be technologically advanced and be the first people we know who are doing this sort of thing." It's O.K. that you didn't give me a straight "A" or "B" answer -- you gave me something better: enough information to guide our thinking based on our needs. One of the main reasons we've been looking into TiVo and MCE is the ability to watch recorded (and now, encrypted) programs on different TVs. But this business with the CCI byte puts MCE in the lead, since TiVo's system apparently isn't prepared to deal with that -- and we would *hate* to have to buy new equipment in a couple of years, considering that the other main reason for all this shopping is precisely to save money in the long run. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. As you suggest, we WILL ask around for more opinions, but you and CoffeeFiend have been a great help. --JorgeA