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. 


SAE140

250Gb on a legacy motherboard

Recommended Posts

I've just installed a 250Gb HDD on a 2001 motherboard running Win98(SE)Lite without any problems whatsoever, so thought I'd pass this info on ...

I'd read LLXX's 22-page thread (impressive programming skills there !) and duly downloaded the replacement EDSI_506.pdr, but as things turned out I didn't need it.

If you have a motherboard based on any of the following Intel® Chipsets:

810/E/E2/L

815/E/EP/G/EG/P

820/E

840

845/E/G/GE/GL/GV/PE

850/E

860

then the Intel® Application Accelerator enables the use of hard drives larger than 137GB (48-bit LBA), under Win98/98SE/Me, providing that the partition(s) are created using suitable 3rd-party partitioning software, such as Partition Magic.

What I found even more surprising, was that Win98's Scandisk and Defrag (ex-WinMe) work without throwing up any errors (at least so far ...).

More details of the install if anyone's interested.

Hope someone finds this info of use.

'best.

Edited by SAE140

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to MSFN! And thanks for your report. But let me, please, point you out some more info we've gathered:

If you have a motherboard based on any of the following Intel® Chipsets:

810/E/E2/L

815/E/EP/G/EG/P

820/E

840

845/E/G/GE/GL/GV/PE

850/E

860

then the Intel® Application Accelerator enables the use of hard drives larger than 137GB (48-bit LBA), under Win98/98SE/Me, providing that the partition(s) are created using suitable 3rd-party partitioning software, such as Partition Magic.

LLXX's thread is not all there is about it here. If you had read using HDDs larger than 137 GB (128 GiB) with Win 9x/ME carefully, then you'd have followed the link to 48bitLBA.com, which documents the use you describe of the Intel® Application Accelerator...
What I found even more surprising, was that Win98's Scandisk and Defrag (ex-WinMe) work without throwing up any errors (at least so far ...).
...and you'd surely have read this post and the ones it links to, so you wouldn't be surprised, as ScanDskW and Defrag (both from Win ME, provided one also uses DiskMaint.dll from Win ME) are known to work OK with up to slightly above 850 GB partitions (= 26,389,392 clusters of 32 kiB ).

Searching more thoroughly the forum would have led you to the relevant threads. And, of course, it's referenced in the Important / "Stickified" / Pinned Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME Topics stickified thread, you ought to always check before even starting a search. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just installed a 250Gb HDD on a 2001 motherboard running Win98(SE)Lite without any problems whatsoever, so thought I'd pass this info on ...

If your motherboard was made in 2001, then there is a good chance that the BIOS does not support Hard Drives larger than 137GB.

If so, you risk corruption when:

You actually place data beyond the 137GB limit.

and

1. Run SCANDISK from DOS (as occurs after a bad shutdown in 98/SE).

2. Run Windows in Safe Mode or with Protected Mode Drivers Disabled.

3. Place files used during boot above the 137GB limit.

and/or

4. Install/Unistall Software that has to reboot to complete.

You will need a DDO Program, such as my BOOTMAN Package, in addition to the Intel Application Accelerator, to safely use that 250GB Hard Drive.

This corruption risk also applies to DOS and Windows XP/Vista/7.

To determine if your BIOS Supports Large Hard Disks, try the following:

Boot your Computer. If the BIOS reports that the Hard Drive is 137GB then it does NOT support Large Hard Drives.

If it reports the correct size, it is probably OK. EPIA motherboards are a significant exception to this rule.

To be sure, download the Demo of my High Capacity Disk Patch and run the 48BITLBA.EXE Program from true DOS, not a DOS Box.

Edited by rloew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the knowledge I've collected, the Intel Application Accelerator gives Windows 98 an ability to work with the large hard drives without a proper BIOS support and without EDSI_506.pdr patch.

One of my computers with I815 chipset is correctly working with such a drive, when the BIOS does not allow to access the higher partitions under DOS. The same rule applies for Windows 2000 system, as well.

In this particular case the BIOS support is faulty through cutting the hard drive size down to the 137GB. From the practical point of view the DOS does not see partitions above the 137GB limit, while working correctly with the lower placed partitions.

The EDSI_506.pdr update could be replaced either with Intel Application Accelerator or with proper VIA IDE controller chipset driver. In other cases EDSI_506.pdr update is a must. Also, only the Intel Application Accelerator seems to be able to work correctly without the proper BIOS support.

Edited by Sfor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Sfor, I have to disagree: RLoew is right! If the BIOS does not support Hard Drives larger than 137GB, you risk corruption when:

You actually place data beyond the 137GB limit.

and

1. Run SCANDISK from DOS (as occurs after a bad shutdown in 98/SE).

2. Run Windows in Safe Mode or with Protected Mode Drivers Disabled.

3. Place files used during boot above the 137GB limit.

and/or

4. Install/Unistall Software that has to reboot to complete.

Because, in all these situations the Intel Application Accelerator isn't active. In fact, many other operations in true DOS mode, besides running SCANDISK may also result in certain data corruption (it's a case of "when" not "if").

So, to be on the safe side you'll need:

(i) A BIOS update to support 48-bit LBA, either from the manufacturer (in case it exists), or modded by a third party (in case it exists), or from e-Support (in case it exists, but that won't be for free).

or

(ii) RLoew's BOOTMAN (not for free either).

There's no escaping from it. Sorry! You may use his free 48BITLBA program to ascertain whether this really is your case. Both BOOTMAN and 48BITLBA (inside his High Capacity Disk Patch Demo package) are available from his site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a motherboard based on any of the following Intel® Chipsets:

810/E/E2/L

815/E/EP/G/EG/P

820/E

840

845/E/G/GE/GL/GV/PE

850/E

860

You don't find any problems with the IAA? IAA actually affected my Benq CD-RW and DVD drives, so I had to dump it. I use a MOBO with an Intel i815 chipset.

With all due respect, Sfor, I have to disagree: RLoew is right! If the BIOS does not support Hard Drives larger than 137GB, you risk corruption

I also agree. Also, it's quite pointless to continue if you BIOS does not properly support 48-bit LBA as your system is on grounds on mass data corruption(Beyond the 137GB range).

So in other words: If your BIOS SUPPORTS 48-bit LBA properly, then the ESDI_506.pdr can actually help prevent data corruption by Windows (Excluding it's disk management tools like Scandisk and Defrag which don't work well on my setup, since they've corrupted my filenames from time to time)? I used to use IAA, but now can't as it kills my CD-RW/DVD-ROM drive support, so I hoped that the 48-bit ESDI_506.pdr patch was a equal substitute(Excluding the "performance gains" that don't exist on my badly fragmented, un-defragmentable HDD).

Luckly, my MOBO is able to handle a 200GB ATA-133 HDD with no problems(No detection problems in the BIOS), even if it was made in 2000/2001.

Edited by sp193

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I didn't - so the rest of your post is redundant.

Searching more thoroughly the forum would have led you to the relevant threads.

But I didn't need to - for as I said "I've just installed ... without any problems whatsoever." As there were no problems, there was therefore no need to research the matter any further. Had any problems arisen, then I certainly would have looked into the matter further.

To elaborate:

I've been running 160Gb Hitachi DeskStar HDD's under Win98Lite for some time on Dell GX1's and 110's by creating 4 x 30Gb partitions and ignoring the remainder. I recently bought another 160Gb HDD on eBay but the vendor dropped it whilst packing, and sent me a 250Gb DeskStar instead. As I didn't fancy wasting 130Gb of it's space, I began investigating the possibility of a 48-bit LBA install by reading LLXX's 22-page thread.

Coming to this issue for the first time, there is a LOT of information in that thread to absorb, but from a quick preliminary reading it appeared that a) I certainly needed a Bios which supported 48-bit LBA, b) I might need to purchase an additional PCI IDE card, c) there was a need for a replacement EDSI_506, and d) there might be ongoing issues with Scandisk and Defrag.

My 250Gb HDD was to be installed in a GX110 tower, so I duly checked Dell's website for a bios upgrade and discovered that Bios revision A08 onwards supports 48-bit LBA. On the same page was a reference to the Intel Application Accelerator - installation of which appeared to be all that was required to successfully install this 250Gb HDD.

I duly installed IAA and partitioned (30, 90 and 120Gb) the HDD with Partition Magic, and filled these partitions with 'Swiss Cheese' directories (containing large files with numerous smaller files for subsequent erasing) and then ran the existing ScanDisk and Defrag without a single hiccup being flagged. No need for an IDE card, no replacement EDSI driver, and (touch wood ...) no ScanDisk or Defrag probs.

Bearing in mind the complexities being discussed within the LLXX thread and the caveat warning re: possible loss of data on the first page (a responsible caution, of course), my motivation for posting was that as this 250Gb install was in contrast so straightforward and uneventful, that it might possibly be of interest and benefit to those with similar hardware.

No problems of any kind at the time of writing, but then - it's still early days.

'best

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...