LLXX

Antivirus

I've searched the internets, there is no official ESDI_506.PDR version 4.10.2227. That version number is currently used for the fixed 4.10.2222. Fixed version of 4.10.2225 will be 4.10.2230. Adding 5 to the version number isn't that confusing...BTW I've also fixed 4.10.2001 (Windows 98FE). I haven't found 4.10.2186 yet. (Someone may want to provide more information on First Edition versioning so an appropriate scheme for the new files can be implemented.)

Stop trolling.

Press Fn and then X.

You're supposed to burn the ISO to a DVD and boot from it, not just mount the ISO from within Windows and attempt to install!

Get a Conductive Ink Pen. I've repaired quite a few printed circuit boards this way. For larger areas conductive paint and a brush is required.

Wow... all that, with DivX, only 569Kb. This must be the work of an expert Asm coder. I use LXPIC for viewing under DOS : http://hplx.pgdn.de/

Doing the first one was the difficult part, since I had to analyze the existing code and figure out how to integrate the new code. After that, it was mostly copy+paste with a hex editor.

Try using an older version.

That's double the wattage I have... but I don't seem to see anywhere where they mention the weight of this thing...

Version 1.1 is now available. Done

Use SOCKS proxy with SSL tunneling support. Should go in networking section btw...

Windows ME was going to be next. It's coming 4.90.3000 is now fixed and ready for download. That didn't take long Will do. You can manage the versions when you package it, though I recommend 4.10.2230.

Windows ME was going to be next. It's coming

As stated above, this is based on 4.10.2222. If you think it's necessary, I'll patch the newer versions as well. I don't know if you've noticed, but I already changed the version information slightly - it now reads "ESDI Virtual Device (Version 4.0b)" instead of just 4.0. However, according to your suggested versioning, I think the following may be appropriate:4.10.2222 -> 4.10.2227 4.10.2223 -> 4.10.2228 4.10.2224 -> 4.10.2229 4.10.2225 -> 4.10.2230 4.10.2226 -> 4.10.2231 README.TXT opens for reading whenever one installs the driver. Posted here: http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU and here: http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581 * Unofficial Windows 98 SE > 137 GB Hard Disk IDE Driver ESDI_506.PDR 4.10.2227 Fix: http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=78592 Direct download [80 KB, English]: http://www.mdgx.com/files/48BITLBA.EXE Keep up the good work. Thanks, I'll do the patching and leave the packaging up to you

I think it depends on the mobo and chipset. I've successfully used 2Gb of RAM with no problems (after setting MaxFileCache as described to 524288). It's rather pointless IMHO to use MaxPhysPage... might as well just physically remove the extra 512Mb, if it's not even being used.

Download the HTML Help package from M$ and install it.

Try Beta 8 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=79102 No mention of your problem being fixed though...

I know. But laptops also have cases, a CPU, and HDD(s). I know. But laptops also have cases, a CPU, and HDD(s).

The point is to use my fixed driver, not VIA's own drivers. Nothing needs to be "enabled". The driver will automatically switch to using extended commands when reading past the limit (see doc for more info).

What sort of cooling fan do you mean... case? CPU? HDD? ...and BTW, 70$ is *much* more than what the most expensive fan costs. You could probably get a good 80mm case fan for 7$.

Version 1.0 is now available. Edit: 136th reply to this thread... how ironic

Version 1.0 is now available. I repeat once again, I am NOT responsible for any loss of data caused by this driver. We do not have any hard drives supporting 48-bit LBA, so I am unable to test the extended commands. There should be no problems with drives less than 128Gb. It's just the new code that needs testing.

That's strange, there's no such export in my WININET.DLL either.

nope. Minimum CPU requirements for Win98fe/Win98se are Intel 486 processor 66Mhz or better with 16 megabytes of memory. making Win98 run on a 386 processor and you will regret it - BIGTIME! the CPU requirements of Win98 were printed on the Win98 product boxes. That's what M$ says, but I've successfully run a minimal Win98se installation (nano98) on a 386DX at 25MHz with 8Mb of RAM. It was actually much less sluggish than I expected.