Jump to content

98SE

Member
  • Posts

    538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by 98SE

  1. [LEGACY BARRIER] 128GB - (LEGACY LBA 28-BIT BARRIER) 120GB
  2. [COMMON CAPACITIES] 2.0TB - (2.2TB CLASSIC MBR LIMIT) 1.5TB 1.0TB 750GB 500GB 320GB 250GB 200GB 160GB
  3. [MODERN CAPACITIES] 20TB 18TB - POSSIBLE MBR LIMIT WITH ADAPTERS 16TB 12TB 10TB ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 8TB Brand Western Digital Model # WD80EFZX https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-red.html#WD80EFZX Specifications: Form Factor 3.5" Capacity Interface RPM Class Cache 8TB SATA 6Gb s 5400RPM 128MB Advanced Format AF 512-byte emulation (512e) Installation Type: USB External HDD with 32-Bit Address Translation Adapter Partitioning: XP Professional 32-Bit with SP3 MBR Single NTFS Partition 64KB Allocation Unit Size ╔═════════════╗ ║wmic diskdrive get ║ ╚═════════════╝ Caption,DeviceID,Size Caption 98SE 8TB MBR EXTERNAL USB Device DeviceID \\.\PHYSICALDRIVE0 Size 8001552384000 ╔═════════════╗ ║fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo ║ ╚═════════════╝ NTFS Volume Serial Number : ------------------ Version : 3.1 Number Sectors : 0x0000000074701ac0 Total Clusters : 0x00000000074701ac Free Clusters : 0x0000000000000001 Total Reserved : 0x0000000000000000 Bytes Per Sector : 4096 Bytes Per Cluster : 65536 Bytes Per FileRecord Segment : 4096 Clusters Per FileRecord Segment : 0 Mft Valid Data Length : 0x00000000080c0000 Mft Start Lcn : 0x000000000000c000 Mft2 Start Lcn : 0x0000000003a380d6 Mft Zone Start : 0x00000000009fe980 Mft Zone End : 0x00000000009fe9a0 ╔════════════════╗ ║ DOS MBR EXTRACTION ║ ╚════════════════╝ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 C0 8E D0 BC 00 7C FB 50 07 50 1F FC BE 1B 7C BF 1B 06 50 57 B9 E5 01 F3 A4 CB BD BE 07 B1 04 38 6E 00 7C 09 75 13 83 C5 10 E2 F4 CD 18 8B F5 83 C6 10 49 74 19 38 2C 74 F6 A0 B5 07 B4 07 8B F0 AC 3C 00 74 FC BB 07 00 B4 0E CD 10 EB F2 88 4E 10 E8 46 00 73 2A FE 46 10 80 7E 04 0B 74 0B 80 7E 04 0C 74 05 A0 B6 07 75 D2 80 46 02 06 83 46 08 06 83 56 0A 00 E8 21 00 73 05 A0 B6 07 EB BC 81 3E FE 7D 55 AA 74 0B 80 7E 10 00 74 C8 A0 B7 07 EB A9 8B FC 1E 57 8B F5 CB BF 05 00 8A 56 00 B4 08 CD 13 72 23 8A C1 24 3F 98 8A DE 8A FC 43 F7 E3 8B D1 86 D6 B1 06 D2 EE 42 F7 E2 39 56 0A 77 23 72 05 39 46 08 73 1C B8 01 02 BB 00 7C 8B 4E 02 8B 56 00 CD 13 73 51 4F 74 4E 32 E4 8A 56 00 CD 13 EB E4 8A 56 00 60 BB AA 55 B4 41 CD 13 72 36 81 FB 55 AA 75 30 F6 C1 01 74 2B 61 60 6A 00 6A 00 FF 76 0A FF 76 08 6A 00 68 00 7C 6A 01 6A 10 B4 42 8B F4 CD 13 61 61 73 0E 4F 74 0B 32 E4 8A 56 00 CD 13 EB D6 61 F9 C3 49 6E 76 61 6C 69 64 20 70 61 72 74 69 74 69 6F 6E 20 74 61 62 6C 65 00 45 72 72 6F 72 20 6C 6F 61 64 69 6E 67 20 6F 70 65 72 61 74 69 6E 67 20 73 79 73 74 65 6D 00 4D 69 73 73 69 6E 67 20 6F 70 65 72 61 74 69 6E 67 20 73 79 73 74 65 6D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2C 44 63 6A 91 23 4F 83 7D 00 01 01 00 07 FE FF FF 3F 00 00 00 C1 1A 70 74 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 55 AA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 6TB 5TB 4TB 3TB
  4. [EXTENDED CAPACITIES] - RESERVED FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS 1PB 512TB 256TB - CURRENT NTFS/exFAT WINDOWS LIMIT 128TB 64TB 32TB
  5. [SUPER CAPACITIES] - RESERVED FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS 1YB 1ZB 1EB
  6. MBR / GPT Drive Dissection NOTE: This INFORMATION is a WORK IN PROGRESS !!! [SUPER CAPACITIES] 1YB 1ZB 1EB [EXTENDED CAPACITIES] 1PB 512TB 256TB - CURRENT NTFS/exFAT LIMIT 128TB 64TB 32TB [MODERN CAPACITIES] 20TB 18TB - POSSIBLE MBR LIMIT WITH ADAPTERS 16TB 12TB 10TB 8TB 6TB 5TB 4TB 3TB [COMMON CAPACITIES] 2.0TB - (2.2TB CLASSIC MBR LIMIT) 1.5TB 1.0TB 750GB 500GB 320GB 250GB 200GB 160GB [LEGACY BARRIER] 128GB - (LEGACY LBA 28-BIT BARRIER) 120GB
  7. Also for some reason even disabling Javascript entirely the memory bug still exists and continues to climb on its own. Is there one for Chrome? Firefox just isn't playing the Twitter and Facebook videos and I'm using the latest version. As for PaleMoon is their a portable version release so you can just dump it on the Ramdrive and run and defaults the cache location to the same drive stored?
  8. @rloew I read everything you wrote the first time and yes you understood my point as well. But the efficiency I'm talking about was how the use of space on physical 512 Bytes vs 4KB sector hard drives were more efficiently handled so more capacity could be squeezed out of the platters. The 512 Bytes to 4096 Bytes Sector Sizes used less storage space for the ECC container by combining 8 into 1 and shortening the ECC size length. A jump from 4096 Bytes Sector Sizes to 65536 Bytes Sector Sizes should gain some in the same manner but maybe not quite as big an improvement as from the jump from 512 Bytes to 4096 Bytes Sector Sizes. So I see no reason why hard drive manufacturers need to wait and just get together and agree and jump to 64KB sector sizes and allow patching of W7 -> W10 immediately since these are still in support status similar to the benefit XP SP1 brought. The 64KB sector sizes which wouldn't work in DOS or 9X/ME as you previously pointed out before wouldn't affect me as I'm looking at huge storage drives which DOS->ME simply can't handle the multicores, extra memory, and special applications not written for them. I'm very doubtful I would be using such large capacities under real DOS, 9X, or ME but rather on 2K, XP, 2K3, W7->W10 where these 64KB drives will be most applicable. And these large capacity drives would most likely be used externally via USB so even the adapters might be making it appear to the OS as 4KB sector sizes to make NT happy. This is exactly where the OS patch from MS comes in to support 64KB sector drives now for W7-W10 and possibly backported for older Operating systems which is the point of just getting right to the the next LBA 64-Bit and 64KB sector drive stage now then waiting around and hitting another barrier to deal with limping to 8KB and up in small increments. This is what I was trying to overcome and something that has seemed to have dragged along since DOS. Most programs won't allow selection of a Drive unless it has a physical drive letter to select. This is why this Mount points probably wouldn't work to access more than 24 Partitions as single Drive Letters to max out capacity available to the OS and programs. Even Ramdrives use up Drive Letters so are there any Ramdrives that can preserve drive letters by using Mount points instead or do they count against the 24 Partition limit? Yes you mentioned this banking idea for 9X/ME but you can do a similar function already existing in XP by removing the drive letter from a partitioning freeing it and assigning it to another drive but it still doesn't get beyond accessing more than 24 Drive Letters simultaneously for My Computer, Drive Management, or the Command Prompt so it doesn't solve the limitation. Now has any other Windows version today fixed this? @jaclaz If you prefer you don't need USB devices to demonstrate your point. If you can shrink one of your internal drives and from your Drive Management let's use Drive 1 which appears to be a 320GB drive and has about 128GB space left on it. Create Thirty two 4GB FAT32 partitions from the remaining partition space or a size of 4096MB for each of the 32 partitions in Drive Management. Past Z: will these other 8 partitions will be accessible in My Computer, Drive Management, and Command Prompt as a physical drive letter? If so demonstrate how the first 24 assigned Drive letters and the extra 8 unassigned partitions will be shown as C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, H2, I2, J2 in My Computer, Drive Management, and the Command Prompt.
  9. I'm not sure we are on the same page. I think you are showing me some sort of manual method. When you add USB drives for example it will see how many partitions are available and automatically mount them. If I had an internal drive with 3 partitions: C: D: E: E: is my XP OS partition. Say my USB drive had 21 Partitions It will automatically mount them as F:-Z: consuming all available drive letters. If I added another USB drive #2 with 24 Partitions on it they would not be accessible in My Computer since they have no Drive Letter. It will show up in Drive Management with no drive letters. As for Command Prompt you have to assign a drive letter to the Partition first. So are you saying you found a way to automatically mount more than 2500 Drive letters automatically and can keep to the pattern I outlined and all accessible under My Computer, Drive Management, and of course the Command Prompt without doing anything but just adding the USB drives and that's it? Can you show me 100 unique Partitions assigned with Drive Letters in your Drive Management? The first 24 C: to Z: will be there but I want to see about the next 76 drive letters.
  10. To explain further the issue with "consumption of drive letters" regardless if it is FAT12/16, FAT32, exFAT, or NTFS as long as it is connected to XP and mounted it will use these drive letters as follows. C: - Z: letters used up first exhausting the first 24 drive letters. Common Windows limitation without patching. Proposed drive letter scheme when more additional partitions are to be mounted and used by XP. So with this mounting pattern it would allow 2400 Drive Letters or more to be mounted and accessible through My Computer, Command Prompt, Disk Management and transparent to XP for all other programs that use drive letters. C2, D2, E2 ... Z2 C3, D3, E3 ... Z3 ..... ..... ..... C99-Z99 C100, D100, E100.. Z100. A2-A100, B2-B100 could be reserved as an option to avoid confusion as typically A: and B: were for floppy drives so either a check box option to allow these extra 198 letters to be used or hidden. So once C: through Z: drive letters are taken up by partitions it will roll to the newer drive letters of C2 -Z2 ... C100-Z100. It could extend indefinitely so an unlimited amount of partitions could be accessed in XP as normal drive letters. C101-C200 ... Z101-Z200 C1001-C2000 ... Z1001-Z2000 Accessing drive letter Z100 under the Command Prompt would look as follows. Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. X:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.XP>Z100: Z100:\> Z100:\>DIR Volume in drive Z100 is VOL-Z100 Volume Serial Number is XXXX-XXXX Directory of Z100:\ File Not Found Z100:\> Make sense?
  11. I feel your pain but don't lose hope. If you can share this "Letter of application" or if it's too personal to privately message it. Maybe this could be improved as it sounds like this is their first impression of you. Also these 50 Jobs you got interviews for can you list these job titles and description you were seeking in the order of application. Did any of these have any callbacks for another meeting or phone call for a follow up interview? Of the 50 Job interviews you got how many applications did you submit in total. 50 out of X?
  12. Even a 1.0GB RAM limitation might prevent the issue as 1.5GB can freeze up too. Or a max tabs limit user setting. But using more than 3GB of usable OS memory to 8GB would be a big upgrade. Is there a way to disable javascript for background tabs and then foreground tab is the only one with it enabled. Then switching tabs the javascript is disabled for the last tab and turned on for the active tab? I usually use a Javascript toggle button but maybe something like this would fix some of the javascript freezing from building up without deactivating the website from not functioning.
  13. Hmm good point so 32KB sector drives would still be DOS compatible. Poor performance how so? I know formatting drives in DOS 32KB AUS is the default for large capacity drives so that's an interesting connection. This would still push it 8x to 140.8GB MBR Max capacity so it would be worth it. LOL we all need to eat. 18TB MBR drives it is till full 64TB GPT drives transition will be mandatory. Yes I know but I shortened it for easier written digestion. 8GB to 2TB MBR partitions of course are a given compatibility. Issues? I think it works just fine as intended. 18TB MBR will be enough for most people and still work on every OS that I care about. 2TB for internal again is a non issue and more than plenty for just the OS unless you have no plans to ever move a huge amount of data to an external drive. But if you insist on larger internal drive capacity in XP then that Paragon GPT Loader would be the easiest existing solution. Your mentioning the lack of XP programming experience is unfortunate for us to hear not that I was forcing you to get your own GPT version out now but suggesting this could still be a possible money maker and I could see companies purchasing it. Of course the XP pool is probably dwindling more and more over the next few years and we may see people finally go to a 64-Bit GPT capable OS so it won't matter anymore if no one does this within the next few years to keep interest. Even with 6 to 8 SATA easily ports in modern motherboards you could still hook up 2TB drives to all of them and get up to 16TB and when needed use a SATA to USB adapter for external use on the fly. This is the best alternative if you want all internal MBR drives that work. That's a sad but valuable discovery but it just reconfirms we just stick to 2.2TB max for MBR internally or enjoy 18.0TB max for MBR externally for the least amount of headaches. MBR at least for me is not necessary to be understood in full depth to use it and most software has built in safeguards to prevent any serious corruption. I've been formatting and partitioning drives since the old MFM days and RLL, ESDI, IDE, and SCSI all worked fine with my technique and of course the final leap to SATA hasn't changed this over the years. Most people simply won't be memorizing what all the MBR code inside means unless they are planning on making partition managers or using some advanced 3rd party Linux tool. Simple testing is sufficient for most people to know how MBR works or doesn't and I already suspected the 2.2TB x2 being a possible way to gain access to the extra capacity without needing to dive into MBR. The biggest problem is splitting the partitions so if you can't seamlessly bridge the full 4.4TB capacity and having wasted two drives letters it's not worth doing vs having a full 18TB for a single drive letter we already know which option is more efficient in the end. Since XP is confirmed by you to not work with beyond 2.2TB due to the wrapping issue you described I guess it's a verified traditional MBR patch free death sentence. It was one of the issues contemplated as soon as the first 2TB 3.5" drives were out around 2009 and it took awhile before WD released the first 2TB external USB powered models since it was so close to the barrier limit. Then the long wait for the release of 3TB when only 3.5" came out first and no sign of a 3TB MBR 2.5" that worked in XP so all hope of that being possible was put on hold. Then XP support dropped by MS made it less likely any of these major companies was going to make these special capacity breaking 2.5" drives for 3TB and up like their 3.5" models and trust me I kept my eye on all of them for any good news. Your wrap around conclusion reminded me of the corruption on 98SE with a 160GB drive that nuked itself as I started filling the drive with data to near full capacity. Back then there was not even a warning on the hard drive box which should have been for users about this problem with LBA28.
  14. Software patches are a band aid to the hardware approach but anything is better than nothing. A 2.5" form factor drive that is USB powered would be preferable than hooking up to an external 3.5" with AC adapter. Given four 2TB drives or the convenience of saving 3 USB ports and using 18TB with one port and an AC adapter would be a worthy sacrifice. When 18TB 2.5" drives become affordable they would be a better option for space preservation and lower heat dissipation and be used on every LBA48 OS for greater compatibility. There is no need to boot off a 4K USB drive and it would only be an experiment to see if the same procedure worked before wiping the drive again. The consumption of an additional drive letter when plugged into XP would provide no benefit so a single full capacity NTFS partition is the way to go. I've already had bootable drives from 360KB to 2TB drives without issues. MBR drives of 16GB are sufficient for most bootable legacy setups. There is an efficiency gain from 512 Bytes to 4KB sector drives. https://www.seagate.com/tech-insights/advanced-format-4k-sector-hard-drives-master-ti/ If an 8KB or a jump to 64KB sector drives could be done today it would probably future proof the drives and newer OSs would be set for 64KB compatibility sooner. I think MBR is dead so it's time to throw in the towel but meanwhile accept 2TB for regular users or be more creative and have 18TB drives until ready to switch to GPT full time. The next threshold is already beyond probably what you or I will ever need so having 64KB sector drives sooner means no more stop gaps from 4K to 64KB would need to happen which always causes a transition mess to take place. I say get it out of the way now and jump to LBA 64 and 64KB sector drives and just be done with it than drag it along and end up hitting another capacity barrier in the future or something we have to keep patching like a XP SP1 to fix it. A jump from 4KB to 64KB sector drives should be noticeable as well on drive space efficiency. As for Allocation unit sizes 64KB would probably work well on a 64KB sector drive. Try changing your AUS to 512 Bytes on a 4KB sector drive and you will see a performance hit. Meanwhile XP Pro 64-Bit though old still can be installed on MBR and on FAT32 partitions while still capable of using GPT drives so XP users still have a transition path if they simply aren't ready to go to Windows 10 but can appreciate most of the benefits of a 64-Bit OS on their favorite XP user interface. If they aren't doing any gaming XP 64-Bit would probably last a long time.
  15. Yes that's not enough as even FireFox is probably 3GB aware as it exceeds 2GB and continues growing. I've already maxed it and since this is about continued development we need something that is more robust. We need a way to give XP 32-Bit the ability to increase the OS memory space from 3GB to 8GB. Then PaleMoon can at least use 4.8GB of it probably enough for today's multitab surfing until they start bloating the web pages again making 16GB necessary to switch to 64-Bit to keep pace. I already use a 29GB Ramdisk or 61GB depending on which system I'm on. This doesn't fix the problem. Have you tried using a 64-Bit OS to see if Pale Moon 64-Bit can handle 8GB or more browser usage in the Task Manager? What's the max memory usage attainable you've seen before stability issues for Pale Moon 64-Bit on your 64-Bit OS?
  16. Roytam1 do you know how to get PaleMoon to use the hidden XP memory above 3.2GB? Something like a 4GB or 8GB memory fluid memory hog browser would be nice. Firefox constantly bombs out round 1.5GB->2.5GB where it freezes/lags to the point you have to end it. Dibya any way you can help make Palemoon use 4GB-> 8GB of memory on a normal XP 32-bit OS? This is something that we need done from the start if this is going to be XP's only independent browser after everyone else drops support.
  17. You had linked some 2012 posts earlier which from your response assumed all "tests" on these types of adapters had been done or sufficiently done in the past. Your depth of knowledge of the inner workings of hard drives and storage schemes might prove useful since you are a true tinkerer. But I don't know if your skill set extends to hardware engineer or just software only. What is the most modern computer system setup you have in your possession if you don't mind me asking? What changes I'm proposing are taking that technology and making it USB powered. Currently these adapters are running off a small power adapter which doesn't make them completely portable and are only for 3.5" hard drives. We need to shrink these adapters and add a programmable chip which can identify the sector type and switch from 4KB, 8KB, 16KB, 32KB, and 64KB sectors to interpret future hard drives and also make them USB powered so that even 2.5" laptop hard drives or SSDs will be able to use them and can be used internally. Imagine using 18TB of data off a 2.5" laptop hard drive? Or say in 5-10 years time since these fabricated adapters support 8KB->64KB sector drives when they finally release 8KB sector 2.5" laptop hard drives we can boost the capacity toward 36TB. I know to you this may seem like an enormous amount of capacity today and no one or yourself can view this as being necessary because 500GB to you seems all that you need where 500GB to me was not enough even back in 2008. But we both have different storage requirements but that shouldn't prevent even you from being blinded to see the advantages of having large capacity storage capability on a 2.5" laptop MBR SSD of such capacities as extending the usefulness of 2K/XP and possibly 9X/ME. If the goal is the longer use of MBR without modifying the OS files and usable on all Operating Systems at least with 48-Bit LBA functionality this is the only path forward or if an alternative full GPT Loader for 2K/XP arrives and we submit and switch to GPT entirely around the 20TB and larger drives if only 4KB sector drives or within the next 20 years there is still no sign of jumping to larger 8K->64KB sector drives. But again even today an 18.0TB MBR for 2.5 laptop hard drives or SSDs would be a remarkable achievement. Sure if booting to any operating system isn't considered "bootable" by your definition you have that prerogative. But then you're not with the "original" definition of "bootable" for IBM PCs. Floppy disks preceded hard drives and that would be the first real definition of a "bootable" device to an OS. Perhaps you didn't suffer using 5 1/4" disks to boot your operating system back in the day like the rest of the world and got spoiled with hard drives? Unless you are declaring "DOS" to not be considered "bootable" you will be offending probably most people who have used computers since the early 1970s as their definition. And another person might think of a USB drive as a "bootable" device today where they never used a floppy and possibly optical drives will become extinct. However my methods would differ from you or RLoew in making something "bootable" and we all know we use different techniques to get to the same or similar satisfactory conclusion. First there was never a need for myself in the past to boot into NT directly off USB in all my daily requirements. The lack of computer memory to consider storing the entire XP OS into a Ramdrive and the speed of USB on a P4 wouldn't have made it feasible then for my needs. It was already slow enough as it was running that you accepted it and moved on. Or in my case I stuck with Windows 9X for as long as possible since boot times were near instant compared to XP. Now fast forward to today on a Coffee Lake with 6 Cores and 64GB of DDR4 RAM we are talking another story where it would be a "fun" experiment and "XP" would be the most "usable" of all the older NT OSs at the moment to even consider spending the time. As for BSOD 7B I already fixed that problem on regular SkyLake / Kaby Lake installations which would make Coffee Lake a better choice for XP compatibility. Now dealing with USB "bootable" drives wouldn't be necessary and just another way of doing the same thing as a hard drive but slower. But whether it has been done in the past is not irrelevant here if the steps to get it done are convoluted and not simplified so the masses can make use of it today without perusing a lot of technical loop holes then many will not even attempt it or spend the effort trying. There have been easier Windows WinPE methods that would already have worked with less tinkering probably before your Linux methods came to fruition. If you can store the XP OS image on a regular hard drive or a SSD then all you have to do is get that image onto a compatible NT Ramdrive and you will get the same result and the OS will be slightly more responsive. The idea being running XP on a pure Ramdrive and also using the extended > 3.2GB Unallocated Memory for a large Ramdrive for other uses would be the maximum benefit. Basically taking what I am already doing on a normal day to day on my XP system but slightly speeding the OS response time up if any would be apparent by having the XP OS running off of pure RAM instead of off a slower SSD or hard drive. In conclusion it could be that there is no "quantitative" or significant enough difference on faster machines from Quad core Ivy Bridge onward to consider using it as a day to day. But one advantage I see is for a more secure XP Internet Browsing and if it were infected it wouldn't matter after you shut down the computer. As for every day operations other than browsing there wouldn't be any advantage as you need to constantly have to update the XP OS files if installing new programs which would be wiped and forgotten as soon as you rebooted. It would still be a good test bed for experiments involving achieving higher benchmark scores or installing unknown untrusted programs downloaded from the internet which if are infected could be run without impunity.
  18. What exact roadblocks did you encounter that could not be resolved? Also why did you have to use Windows 7 instead of just XP 32-Bit in your testing? What software did you use to modify and add the partition and addresses. Maybe doing in within XP 32-Bit on one of my larger drives (minus) the adapter we would be able to test beyond just 4TB to verify if multiple 2.199 Partitions could be created and work without special drivers as long as XP SP1 was installed. From what I gathered it was possible to only extend one partition of 2.2TB over the first partition as long as the partition started before the end of the first 2.2TB range in your initial experiments. Had you contemplated adding another 2.2TB partition possibility if you had a larger drive? Since you both studied this low level stuff more intensely than I would ever have. Let's say we had a 10.0TB hard drive just to simply the math. 2.0TB (not 2.2TB) is the actual MBR barrier in this example: The max would be 5 Partitions on a 10.0TB drive. Part# 1 [0.000-1.998] Part# 2 [1.999-3.998] Part# 3 [3.997-5.996] Part# 4 [5.995-7.994] Part# 5 [7.993-9.992] Could Partitions #2, #3, #4, #5 Partition location information be stored in Part#1 so any reference to those Partitions could be accessed correctly? The other big question was did either of you see a way to bridge the two partitions to show up as one large contiguous chunk and appear as one partition somehow to the OS?
  19. 8TB SATA 3.5" -> (4KB -> 512 Byte Adapter) -> USB 2.0/3.0/3.1 Port We need a hardware engineer to find a way to replicate the adapter so it runs off USB power instead of AC power. 18TB MBR USB 2.5" laptop hard drives on XP 32-Bit will be possible.
  20. I haven't tried it yet. Note: I'm trying to keep it manufacturer untouched fresh and unused before doing any experiments that will tamper the drive data. So this is the best time to gather that info and preserve it by mapping the drive before I have to actually use the drive myself for data storage. Also you don't have to boot to NT to call it bootable. 98SE DOS bootable is sufficient proof of it being a bootable drive. XP wasn't meant to be a USB bootable OS but 98SE is capable. A possible test could be attempted later after forensics are done. You do realize that my previous USB SSD tests still boots to the Windows Boot Menu via USB but the part where it tries loading into the NT OS after being selected which is the problem. The test done in 2012 you referenced you did on a similar USB drive. And what became of it? Did you have the engineering knowledge to replicate the adapter yourself or improve it? Or find a way to dump the controller chip software.
  21. Actually even 2TB USB enclosures had it. There was a 1TB model that I haven't tested which might also work. Original test done was in 2014 when 8TB drives were first available. It remains to be seen. I haven't performed such tests yet. But would it blow your mind if I could make it bootable? Perhaps some DOS and Windows tools you recommend to verify the functionality is identical or at least document it.
×
×
  • Create New...