Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Fredledingue

Install w98 on Large Drives (Above the 137Gb Barrier)

Recommended Posts

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:46 PM, rloew said:

I suppose I could make some Videos, load them up with advertisements and make some extra money. Otherwise what is the point.
Videos can be faked so you are still taking me at my word. If you trust me, you don't need the Videos. They are not informative.
Same with Pictures.

Wearing a jacket before entering the store is not even relevant. Maybe a better example is an iPad where the store has a serial number of an iPad missing from inventory and you are found with that serial number iPad.
No receipt you get arrested. With a receipt, the store has to figure out who didn't record the sale.

Since you don't understand the iPad analogy, I won't bother any further with it.

I put COMMAND.COM in AUTOEXEC.BAT because I want to. It gives me access to DOS and lets me continue to Windows when I am done.

I meant what I said. COMMAND.COM is a "Command Shell". It displays a "Command Prompt".

I have no problem making Bootable Floppy Disks, USB Keys, or CDROMs without your help or instructions.

What W98 Copy are you talking about. You are the one running these tests, not me.

We shall see which is faster.

XMSDSK is a DOS Based RAMDisk as is mine. It is not going to be anywhere as fast. You need to get a Windows RAMDisk that is Installed from within Windows 98SE.

It is not about informing me but other customers who don't know how the program works or wants to see how it is demonstrated.  This is not about them trusting you they don't even know you to form an opinion.  Some people may want to see what does it do.  I am talking about just one video not a bunch of them as I don't see any other possible videos but the memory limitation patch to be of any significant popularity.  The video you create you doesn't need to plastered with any advertisements although Youtube does do their own form already.  It is meant to be an informative video if someone sees it they may want to know more about it on your website or purchase it.  Sometimes a simple video condenses all the work for you.  The 98 BSOD error, running your patch, reloading WIN to desktop should take less than a minute total length.  Add your Website and maybe a longer description of your memory patch program and you are done.

The iPad analogy was just bad.  Since the equivalent would have been the iPad was purchased years ago sitting unused stored in my house after so I wouldn't have it on me which mirrors the patch program being unused but stored elsewhere.

There is no need to do a Command Shell to display the Command Prompt with 98SE Boot.  The DOS will still be there if you remove the Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat.  It only uses Io.Sys and Command.Com to boot.  Just use FDISK or your RDISK and create a 2GB FAT16 primary partition on some small drive under 128GB.  Use DOS Format C:/S and it will make it bootable.  If not you might want to set partition one Active in FDISK.

When you reboot the computer and it is the default boot device it should load and display the Date and Time Prompt if Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat are renamed or not present.  This is how DOS has always functioned.

The W98 Copy I am talking about is when you made the declaration that Windows 98 File Copy would be faster than Windows XP File Copy did you do the actual File copy inside Windows 98 Explorer or in the Windows 98 Dos Prompt Window (not Pure DOS).  I still think that the Windows XP File Copy will faster off the Ramdrive to Ramdrive.  Even a 3rd Party Windows 98 Ramdisk to Ramdisk File Copy should be slower than XP's.

I already know that the DOS File Copy will be slower due to previous testing and responded to in an earlier statement.  The DOS File Copy from Ramdisk to Ramdisk will be faster than the hard drive but no where as fast as XP's Ramdisk to Ramdisk transfer rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Customers want to know what it does, they can read the manual. I also answer questions as needed. Video demonstrations may be popular but they are a waste of resources.
I generally try to avoid watching Videos unless I am expecting the visuals to be informative. I dislike the trend towards making Videos and Slide Shows for stories that don't need images.
They also make it easier to slip in more advertising.

Try reading what I said about the iPad analogy. You are not even close to understanding it.

Who says I want the Date and Time every time I boot?
Why would I want to tie up a Drive slot with a tiny Hard Drive?
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT do a lot more than run COMMAND.COM in my system.
Everything you have said is obvious. Your suggestions have no value whatsoever.

I don't have a Windows 98 only RAMDisk so I did not run any tests. I never said I did.
I only said that I expect a Windows 98 only RAMDisk to be faster than a Windows XP only RAMDisk, due to lower overhead in Windowx 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rloew said:

I only said that I expect a Windows 98 only RAMDisk to be faster than a Windows XP only RAMDisk, due to lower overhead in Windowx 98.

But possibly slower than a NT 4.0 in Ramdisk and around the same speed of a 2K in Ramdisk .... :whistle:

jaclaz


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, there is some overhead in 9x that probably is not present in NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, rloew said:

If Customers want to know what it does, they can read the manual. I also answer questions as needed. Video demonstrations may be popular but they are a waste of resources.
I generally try to avoid watching Videos unless I am expecting the visuals to be informative. I dislike the trend towards making Videos and Slide Shows for stories that don't need images.
They also make it easier to slip in more advertising.

Try reading what I said about the iPad analogy. You are not even close to understanding it.

Who says I want the Date and Time every time I boot?
Why would I want to tie up a Drive slot with a tiny Hard Drive?
CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT do a lot more than run COMMAND.COM in my system.
Everything you have said is obvious. Your suggestions have no value whatsoever.

I don't have a Windows 98 only RAMDisk so I did not run any tests. I never said I did.
I only said that I expect a Windows 98 only RAMDisk to be faster than a Windows XP only RAMDisk, due to lower overhead in Windowx 98.

I do understand your iPad analogy but the problem is you are trying to assume my position as it relates in your analogy matches which it doesn't so it is flawed.  Had I recently purchased your patch as an individual buying an iPad out of a store and therefore walking around with it your analogy would relate to my situation.  If I was constantly using the patch with Windows 98 that would be like me carrying around a used iPad and if a iPad robbery occurred in a store they would investigate if my iPad in hand had any connection to the robbery.  Since I had bought it ages ago and correlating that to the iPad analogy I would not have the iPad with me since I didn't use it since it remained unused stored at home.

As for the single Youtube video all you would need is a simple gmail account and then create a youtube account which is linked to it and upload a 45 second video and then paste that youtube video link on your website that can be clicked on.  I don't see why this is a huge amount of resources wasted on your part.  As for the advertising caused by Youtube you can avoid this by keeping it to 30 seconds or less.  It's not like it will take that long to demonstrate the patch fixes the maximum memory limit issue of 9X/ME.  I'm sure you can easily show a BSOD 98 error screen from DOS prompt running WIN.  Then moments later cut to another clip at the DOS prompt running the memory patch program and then running WIN loading to the desktop without the BSOD.

I never said you wanted just the Date and Time prompt.  I'm showing you that you were incorrect that the EXIT command will not launch into Windows 98 if you had not previously launched into it and exited to the 98SE Pure DOS mode.  Renaming the Config and Autoexec would have been a simpler way to prove this since no other files are loaded from either file.  You'd hit enter a few times and be at the Command Prompt then type the EXIT command and it will NOT launch into Windows.

I use the Config and Autoexec for other purposes as well but since you never posted your file contents for me to investigate I must assume you knew you were incorrect about the EXIT command relaunching Windows without first loading into Windows prior and then exiting back to the 98SE Pure DOS Command Prompt.

How many drives do you need internally?  Most motherboards have around 8 or more SATA ports at least.  And why would you tie up your main system with an 8TB or larger primary hard drive which you cannot move the data around to another system with ease?  You could easily hook up the 8TB hard drives to the other SATA ports.  And if you needed more capacity after you exhausted all the internal SATA ports you can add USB cards to get another 8 ports per card slot in some cases which would allow hooking possibly up to 16TB external hard drives to each of those 8 ports.  You don't seem to be into recording HD videos so I don't even know why you are complaining about using one single SATA port for a smaller capacity boot drive.

The OS drive is better kept to a smaller capacity drive to separate the OS from the DATA.  Why take the risk if your OS/DATA drive of 8TB gets corrupted and have to deal moving your data onto another drive before you can repartition and reformat the drive and install your OS?  A 128GB primary hard drive is plenty of space for installing DOS/W3.X/9X/ME/2K/XP/W7 and W10.  I've done this multiple times.  If you needed more space you could even redirect the W10 to the 8TB partition but the Boot Drive will still be fine on the 128GB.

Well you are a resourceful guy so I don't think it would be that difficult to find a 3rd party 98SE Ramdisk to test out and a few freeware ones already on one of my threads that can be used or a superior one created by you based on the DOS non XMS Ramdisk ported to 98SE.  You will realize that the XP Ramdisk should be faster than the 9X/ME Ramdisk.  As for overhead you can also say that the DOS overhead is much lower than the 9X/ME but even when testing copying files in 98SE Pure DOS I know it is much slower to copy files around than inside XP as I had to do this to free up enough space on the XP partition in order to boot.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reference to purchasing my Patch is equivalent to carrying the iPad into the store, even if it has been turned off for a while.

That 30 Second Video can be summed up as follows:

"You get a BSOD without the Patch. If you Install the Patch you will not."

75 Bytes instead of  ~600,000 Bytes. The Video may be fancier, but it is not more informative.

Incidentally, you don't get a BSOD without my RAM Limitation Patch. You get an error message.

Nothing I said about COMMAND.COM is incorrect.
If you remove or rename CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, it will behave as you describe because you have removed the reinstancing of COMMAND.COM by AUTOEXEC.BAT.

All you have to do is add the following line to the end of AUTOEXEC.BAT

COMMAND

Then reboot. Do not modify MSDOS.SYS. Do not Press F5 or F8.

My System doesn't actually go straight to Windows when I type EXIT, I added a command in-between to run my AHCI Disabler before going to Windows so I would not have problems if I have AHCI set.
There was no need to have it run while actually working in DOS.

4 to 6 SATA Ports are more common than 8.

I have no problem moving data around. I use Trayless SATA Drive Trays on all my newer Systems. This allows me to transfer "internal" Drives from Computer to Computer at will.
I also wrote a fast DMA Copier than can duplicate a 4TB Hard Drive in less then 8 Hours.

My OS Partitions are fairly small. They are in various places within the 4TB Hard Drive. Unlike you, I can repair, restore, or replace any Partition I want separately. I don't need to limit the size of my Boot Drive.
Using a feature I put in RFDISK, I can completely restore the Partition structure from scratch using a small Save File, without disturbing any data.
I can hook up as many Internal Hard Drives and all the External Hard Drives you mentioned as well. I am also not limited to 16TiB per Drive in Windows 98SE.
I can use up to 384TiB with Windows 98SE, or 3072TiB with DOS, of total Hard Disk Space. More if I use a Drive Banker.

Of course I could find a RAMDisk. I probably have one downloaded somewhere. I just have no reason to test it.

You can't just port a DOS RAMDisk (XMS or not) to Windows. The DOS RAMDisk uses 16-Bit Code, which is why it is slower. A Windows only RAMDisk uses 32-Bit Code and does not need to run in Virtual Mode.
A Windows XP RAMDisk such as Gavotte is a 32-Bit RAMDisk.
There isn't a lot of overhead in DOS, but then you have to compare it to another DOS or 16-Bit RAMDisk. There is no such thing in XP. The Grub4dos RAMDisk is not a XP RAMDisk either, it just can load and boot it.
Get a true 98SE 32-Bit RAMDisk and then compare it to your XP RAMDisk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your reference to purchasing my Patch is equivalent to carrying the iPad into the store, even if it has been turned off for a while.

Incorrect again.  Since the patch was purchased and unused it would be like buying an iPad years ago and leaving it at home unused.  Plenty of people purchase things they may not end up using.  There's still a ton of stuff I have purchased still sealed in their shipping boxes unopened.  Do I take these around with me?  I hope not as I couldn't carry all of it around.  Instead I could be carrying an Android cell phone or a Windows touch screen tablet and those security guards looking for an iPad would notice it wasn't an Apple branded device and continue searching for the stolen iPad.

4 hours ago, rloew said:

That 30 Second Video can be summed up as follows:

"You get a BSOD without the Patch. If you Install the Patch you will not."

75 Bytes instead of  ~600,000 Bytes. The Video may be fancier, but it is not more informative.

Incidentally, you don't get a BSOD without my RAM Limitation Patch. You get an error message.

Nothing I said about COMMAND.COM is incorrect.
If you remove or rename CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, it will behave as you describe because you have removed the reinstancing of COMMAND.COM by AUTOEXEC.BAT.

All you have to do is add the following line to the end of AUTOEXEC.BAT

COMMAND

Then reboot. Do not modify MSDOS.SYS. Do not Press F5 or F8.

My System doesn't actually go straight to Windows when I type EXIT, I added a command in-between to run my AHCI Disabler before going to Windows so I would not have problems if I have AHCI set.
There was no need to have it run while actually working in DOS.

4 to 6 SATA Ports are more common than 8.

I have no problem moving data around. I use Trayless SATA Drive Trays on all my newer Systems. This allows me to transfer "internal" Drives from Computer to Computer at will.
I also wrote a fast DMA Copier than can duplicate a 4TB Hard Drive in less then 8 Hours.

My OS Partitions are fairly small. They are in various places within the 4TB Hard Drive. Unlike you, I can repair, restore, or replace any Partition I want separately. I don't need to limit the size of my Boot Drive.
Using a feature I put in RFDISK, I can completely restore the Partition structure from scratch using a small Save File, without disturbing any data.
I can hook up as many Internal Hard Drives and all the External Hard Drives you mentioned as well. I am also not limited to 16TiB per Drive in Windows 98SE.
I can use up to 384TiB with Windows 98SE, or 3072TiB with DOS, of total Hard Disk Space. More if I use a Drive Banker.

Of course I could find a RAMDisk. I probably have one downloaded somewhere. I just have no reason to test it.

You can't just port a DOS RAMDisk (XMS or not) to Windows. The DOS RAMDisk uses 16-Bit Code, which is why it is slower. A Windows only RAMDisk uses 32-Bit Code and does not need to run in Virtual Mode.
A Windows XP RAMDisk such as Gavotte is a 32-Bit RAMDisk.
There isn't a lot of overhead in DOS, but then you have to compare it to another DOS or 16-Bit RAMDisk. There is no such thing in XP. The Grub4dos RAMDisk is not a XP RAMDisk either, it just can load and boot it.
 

In this case it would still be a BSOD error but the B would refer to Black since most of the screen in DOS is a BLACK background.  But BSOD is the common term to describe the Windows error problems.  Even a true Blue BSOD can occur during the setup process which may or may not be used in a video.  I experienced one issue with BSOD with the 512MB test but it did not prevent the installation process to complete after the reboot.  But this video is what I would do if I were you but since this is all regarding your own profit then you can do without the video as your profit could be reduced and it wouldn't affect me.

Also you don't need to add Command.Com to the Autoexec.bat at all.  All it will display is the version information.

If you wanted just a Command Prompt instead of the the Date Time Prompt I think even creating a blank line might do the trick or you can do a CLS command only in the Autoexec.  And the purpose of renaming Config.Sys and Autoexec.Bat is prove you were incorrect that the EXIT command will not trigger launching Windows if you booted straight to 98SE DOS.  You must run Windows 98SE prior and then exit back to 98SE Pure DOS before the EXIT command will invoke relaunching Windows from the DOS prompt.

And you cannot modify an original 98SE CD's autoexec.bat.  It is read only.  So the F8 method is probably the easiest way to get to the Boot Menu on an unmodifiable source.

Quote

My OS Partitions are fairly small. They are in various places within the 4TB Hard Drive. Unlike you, I can repair, restore, or replace any Partition I want separately. I don't need to limit the size of my Boot Drive.

False.  I can replace any partition on the fly without any problem that was imaged.  I just restore the image saved back to the partition I want restored.  For D I might have 98SE and just restore the 98SE image to the D partition.  I have no issues here.  In fact restoring the bootloader DOS to W10 will only take a second since it is so tiny.  If you are keeping the boot partition combined with the entire DATA on the same partition and some part of the OS boot loader it is less risky to restore just the boot loader partition than if the OS and DATA were on the same partition.  Why would you want to create a larger image to deal with for backing up?  If you're constantly installing programs I'd put them on a separate partition.  If I have any data corruption on the OS partition I just restore it back quickly.  If I had to constantly backup the OS with my DATA and Program Files these images would get larger and larger.  Also I wouldn't use a 4TB as the primary drive with the boot loader.  I don't see why you need 4TB for the OS anyhow and any additional files could be housed on other internal drives or external drive.  If you just wanted a large MBR primary drive I would just stick to a 2TB laptop 2.5" instead or a SSD version when they get cheaper.  Don't tell me you need 2TB for a single OS?  Even Windows 10 could fit on a 32GB partition.  But for expansion purposes you can redirect to another drive.

Quote

I can hook up as many Internal Hard Drives and all the External Hard Drives you mentioned as well. I am also not limited to 16TiB per Drive in Windows 98SE.
I can use up to 384TiB with Windows 98SE, or 3072TiB with DOS, of total Hard Disk Space. More if I use a Drive Banker.

As insane it may sound to have 384TB connected to 98SE why is it capped at that specific amount and the 3072TB for DOS?  I suppose this is more a DDO experiment as no physical drives of such capacity I'm aware of exist to confirm these limits.

According to this chart it's looking like exFAT is superior to NTFS and caps at 16EB for max file size and 128PB for volume.

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

This link shows NTFS max file size capped to about 16TB and volume max at 256TB with 64KB AUS.

Given the capacities we are approaching for hard drives 16TB seems on the horizon for consumers.  It is possible within 10 years we could have 256TB hard drives assuming it will continually double to 32TB, 64TB, 128TB then finally 256TB which would hit the NTFS limit but perhaps by then most would start switching to exFAT which may survive its higher limit not within their lifetime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

 Drive Banker?  Are you talking about some RAID0 setup with multiple drives and how many drives are we dealing with here?

Quote

Get a true 98SE 32-Bit RAMDisk and then compare it to your XP RAMDisk.

I wasn't talking about directly porting a DOS to 98SE Ramdisk but you would have enough knowledge to code a similar one to function properly in Windows 98 unless coding in Windows 98 isn't your thing or the 3rd party ones out there already are better than what you can create.

This is what I would recommend in a test if it were performed to prove which is faster.  I noticed you added the 32-bit in front of the 98SE Ramdisk.  I'm not sure if these are 32-bit already or you were worried that if most were 16-bit the 98SE Ramdisk would lose to XP.  But my belief is the XP Ramdisk will be faster than the 98SE Ramdisk whereas you believe the 98SE will outperform the XP Ramdisk.

Edited by 98SE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that your fluency in English is rather limited. You keep ignoring what I say and repeat the same arguments.

Since you admitted possessing my RAM Limitation Patch in public, it is like having the iPad with you and showing it off. If you had kept your mouth shut, no one would have known you were my Customer. So you brought attention to yourself.
Your refusal to verify your statement was particularly suspicious. You also basically provided the serial number as well.

VFAT BSODs related to my Patch occur for a different reason and require the /M Option to fix.

Adding Command.Com to the Autoexec.bat does more than display the version information. It loads another instance of the Command Shell.

I never said I just wanted a Command Prompt. I want a Command Prompt to do DOS work OR to make changes before continuing to Windows.

You obviously didn't try my suggestion, so you repeated your irrelevant statement about EXIT. I don't run 98SE prior to DOS. That only works because it also creates a second instance of the Command Shell.

Who said anything about modifying a CDs AUTOEXEC.BAT File?
I modify it after installation. I could also modify AUTOEXEC.BAT and burn a new CD.
You can't run Windows from a CD so I don't have to deal with an unmodifiable source.
I did make a BD-RW that appeared to be a writable Drive, but I could not get Windows to work with it.

You can't replace partitions on the fly with Microsoft tools. You need a third party Imager.

I said a number of times, my Windows 98SE OS Partition is 8GB. The Physical Drive is 4TB. There are about a dozen OS Partitions, none bigger than 32GB. Most of the Drive is data.
Why use a 2TB Hard Drive when I can use a 4TB Hard Drive?

The 384TB limit is 24 x 16TB. DOS can be used with 32KB Sectors which allows 128TB per Partition. The 3072TB limit is 24 x 128TB.

exFAT and NTFS are not going to help much with Windows 9x.

When I talked about Drive Banking, I was referring to dismounting a Partition from a Drive Letter, then mounting a different Partition to that Drive Letter. This can give access to more then 26 Partitions.

I probably could code a 32-Bit Version one although there is very little in common with a DOS Version. A 32-Bit Version would probably not have enough of an advantage over a 3rd party one to justify the price.
Only a 64-Bit one would be unique.

I added the "32-Bit" to clarify that you need to compare a true Windows 9x RAMDisk implemented as a 32-Bit Driver rather than a 16-Bit RAMDisk DOS Driver mapped into Windows 9x.
I already said a 16-Bit RAMDisk running in Windows 98SE will not be as fast as a 32-Bit RAMDisk in any reasonable OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rloew said:

You can't run Windows from a CD so I don't have to deal with an unmodifiable source.

 

As a side note and just for the record, while that statement most probably applies to user 98SE. it is not entirely accurate, it is possible to run Windows 98 from a CD, using the (long gone) Qualystem Rescue setup, that makes use of a registry redirector and of the Franck Uberto's Ramdisk or other methods (also long forgotten).

Whether this is a "smart" or "practical" thing to do is another thing, but definitely is possible, and a similar approach can be replicated using freely available software, though AFAICR there were only attempts for a minimal PE-like 98 Os and noone fully replicated the original Qualystem behaviour for a "full" OS.

jaclaz

 

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I was referring to running Windows 98SE directly from the CD, which you can't.
Running Windows 98SE from a RAMDisk, loaded from a CD, is easy. The RAMDisk is not immutable so I can modify AUTOEXEC.BAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rloew said:

Actually, I was referring to running Windows 98SE directly from the CD, which you can't.
Running Windows 98SE from a RAMDisk, loaded from a CD, is easy. The RAMDisk is not immutable so I can modify AUTOEXEC.BAT.

Sure. :)

I was making a quick joke on the "You can't run" read as if it was addressing specifically user 98SE instead of the "impersonal you" ;)

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...