Jump to content

Woes installing 98SE on new 80g WD HD


DeadDude

Recommended Posts

Friend has biz that requires ancient 9x only and DOS only software that is used DAILY.

All files/exes reside on a server, and the clients currently have their own hard drives with 98SE installed, using network to load everything else off server.

I recently discovered that a brand new WD hard drive (80gigs-smallest I could find) does NOT support 98. At first, I was like, yeah right. It's a dumb drive. I'll just partition it and get going.... NOPE.

I've re-partitioned the drive using the built-in 98 installer. No go. It reports the drive is 10gigs. But then it proceeded to allow me to create a primary partition of just under 8Gigs and a second partition the same size. And it reports there's still 10Gigs free to make more partitions. Thought it might be old version of FDisk, so I tried w2k.

Tried using a W2k CD. It partitions and then I pop in 98SE and format from there- installs fine. but then when I try to image the 98 install, the restored image has repeats of the 2nd partition all the way past drive Z: !

I realize the BIOS must support the HD. It does.

I realize that 98SE may only 'see' 8gig HDs. So all my partitions are 8gig (actually more like 7944kb so it won't reach the barrier). NO MORE THAN 2 PARTITIONS ON DRIVE- primary and extended with 1 logical

I require at least 2 partitions for use. C: and D: (D: is local backup storage)

The machine itself is from around 2005. I have successfully loaded W2k, XP, Vista, and 7 on the new drive one at a time (no dual boot weirdness, just did this to test HD).

Only thing I can think is narfing it is the fact that the machine has a SATA DVDRW that is configured in the BIOS to read as 2ND IDE Channel (real 2nd channel has nothing connected- tried with 2nd IDE disabled, enabled, no SATA attached, ONLY SATA attached)

BUT. I have also tried loading the files onto the 2nd partition and installing from there.

Problem isn't actually installing, more like I can't backup the resulting install into a usable form.

At some point in my testing, the drive actually claimed to be bad. I ran the WD Tools and selected an option that claimed if the drive passed it is certified 'new' (can't remember actual option off hand). Left that running all day and overnight. No errors reported.

Tried again, same result.

So I loaded up the WD tools and low level formatted it. Tried to partition using UBCD. Partitioned fine. Installed 98SE again. Added 3rd partition at some point with 98cabs in it. Imaged. Restored. 3rd drive gone completely. 2nd drive cloned across drive letter extending past Z: (Windows 98 reported error on reboot). Windows loaded fine otherwise, but when I saved a 100 meg avi file and played it, computer locked up hard hard. Reboot, try playing again, BSOD can't read FAT. Reboot. Try again. VFAT ERROR BSOD.

Loaded up w2k cd. Killed all partitions. reboot. popped 98SE in again. Installer said "partition me" so I said 'sure'. Go ahead and use all the **** drive. Size reported at 10gigs still. 98 installed. Load it up, it reports 10gigs FREE even though 200megs or so used. Loaded avi file again. Same errors and results as before.

I tried loading MP3s to the drive. Some play, most won't. When one won't play, same errors as before.

So I concluded this drive must no be compatible with Windows 98. I've even tried a 1.5gig partition. Same results ever time.

I sure hope someone out there can help me with this.... and I absolutely hope I simply forgot something from the 98 days.... I cannot believe a standard IDE ATA100 drive would not support 98. BUT w2k and everything newer seems fine on it.

Oh yeah, and the image software reports that the partition table is in FAT16 while the data is stored in a FAT32 form. Asked wich copy to use. Tried each one out one at a time and still same results every time.

I gotta be forgetting something here, right? please help

Edited by DeadDude
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have created a different thread with my problems detailed, but I am posting here because you all seem to be the ones to ask about it.

I got a brand new 80Gig IDE drive.

Booted 98SE CD, and it reports the drive is only 10gigs. I can partition it into (3) 8gig partitions just fine using FDisk in the 98SE installer. FDisk still reports 10gigs available unallocated.

Blew out partitions using w2k cd. Made new ones. No issues. Booted 98SE CD. Sizes misreported still in internal FDISK screen. Went ahead and installed anyway.

Made image. Restored image. Phantom drives every where. Extending past Z:\ according to error box.

1st part C:

2nd & 3rd in extended area.

2nd & 3rd have logical volumes.

3rd partition disappeared after restore.

2nd partition repeats.

Restore program complained about FAT16 partition with FAT32 FAT. Told it use the FAT32 copy. Phantom drives. Tried again, told it use FAT16 copy, partition was 2gigs and Win98 refused to boot. VFAT errors and whatnot.

How can I used this new 80G HD with 98se? Am I forgetting something? Or did LBA change in the last 5 years, and this 9yr old board ain't got the patch or something? I am in waaaaay over my head, as I don't know anything about hex digits in partitions. It has been almost 10 yrs since I did a fresh 98SE install on a real computer.

Sorry if I hijacked this thread, but as I said, ya'll seem to be the ones to ask.

Edited by dencorso
Moved to proper thread. No hijacks and no double-posts, please!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem *IS* the BIOS. Read this.

Win 98+ supports booting from a 1 TB HDD natively, all right.

BTW, you never said it: What actually is the brand and model of the computer (or motherboard) and what's the BIOS version it has installed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motherboard

GIGABYTE GA-8I865GME-775-RH LGA 775 Intel 865G Micro ATX Intel Motherboard

Original Hard drive

HD 40G|WD 7K 2M ATA100 WD400BB

New Hard drive

Western Digital Caviar SE WD800AAJB 80GB 7200 RPM IDE Ultra ATA100 / ATA-6 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

The old drive did not require any sort of special software to make it work. Plugged it in, did same steps I listed in first post, and no problems whatsoever.

Thanks for looking into this with me everyone! Really surprised how fast I got responses! :D

P.S. BIOS has never been upgraded/updated or modified in any way.

P.P.S. I have the exact same computer (built 4 at the time and kept one for myself) and it currently has a 80Gig WD drive and W98SE; once again, no special steps... plug 'n pray and it plays. This drive *IS* partitioned using Partition Magic boot CD. Machine has been modified since then and hold 98, w2k, XP, and a few Ubuntu/linux installs. Also have added more drives. NEVER USED SATA PORTS ON MY OWN MACHINE.

P.P.P.S. BIOS on all machines has always been set to AUTO in the field where you could choose LBA.

P.P.P.P.S. Drive works flawlessly on exact same machine with a newer OS instead of 98 used. Even my LiveXP sees it all properly.

EDIT EDIT

I wonder if the SATA controller itself is screwing all this up? I gotta see if I can pull my IDE burner outta my own tower to throw in this tower and see if that clears it up. I really don't know why it could help, but something in the back of my head says it may be an issue with SATA translating to IDE... the BIOS says there is a total of 4 IDE channels if/when I tell the SATA to run in IDE mode... got some reading to do... but if anyone thinks this might hold some weight, please tell me before I go ripping through my storage unit like a bat outta you know where.

Edited by DeadDude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for a windows 98, fat32 hard drive, you're making it too complicated.

If you haven't messed with the BIOS already, then...

First I would go to Ebay and try to find the exact same model HD as your original.

"Original Hard drive

HD 40G|WD 7K 2M ATA100 WD400BB"

I would then take out your new HD, and put in a "fresh" "used" FAT32 hard drive (ie, same model as your original). Don't use anything that's already been molested and fdisked several times over, or NT partitioned in it's previous life, use only something that came from a DOS/Win 9x system or computer from that era. Then I would install 98 from the actual official disc (you can buy one off ebay for like $25). I don't waste time making images of hard drives. But whatever. It seems like people never want to bite the bullet and start over new, they always must have an "image" (an image of a different hard drive, from God knows what type of computer, whether it was virtual machine or anything, just some random image) and forget about setting up a pristine installation that has zero problems. Maybe the reason why your windows 98 doesn't work, is because your "image" is a piece of defective poo. Maybe the program that made the "image" had an error... so maybe it ain't your new hard drives fault.... just sayin'. Could really be anything. You'll never accurately pinpoint it until you systematically go step by step and verify what works and what doesn't. Have you tested your Windows 98 image on other hard drives? Have you tested other hard drives, besides your new one, with your windows 98 image. See where this is going? If you had an official windows 98 disk, then you could be %100 certain that your copy of Windows will always work. Not so with an image. Since your basically copying what could be an already screwed up Windows 98 and you wouldn't even know it.

When stuff breaks on my computers, I just look at the serial number or model number, then find the exact one on Ebay. I don't put different model stuff in it. Because everything those companies tell you is a "crock of poo" when it comes to being so-called compatible. For instance, the manufacturer of my computer states on it's official webpage that my computer is capable of being upgraded to 512 MB Memory.... when in fact the limit is 384. See, everything they tell you is a crock of poo. If a certain part works, then you might as well stay with that part. (i.e. the original model HD in your computer.)

Just my two cents.

Edited by ScrewUpgrading
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be honest, images are just easier to make and deploy compared to loading up the first version of the softwares and updating/upgrading/patching and the software company is now defunct.

I tried part of your advice. I removed one of the hard drives from my working exact same tower clone and it runs flawlessly in the machine. I did another image from that drive and restored it onto the new drive and it is all screwed up still.

I have previously tried other image software solely on the new drive with the same results.

I have tried everything I can think of... and it all points to this one drive not being DOS/Windows9x compatible.

Weird thing, it seems to 'just run' if I ignore all the warnings and screwed up space reported. BUT. As soon as I try to copy a partition onto it.... same results.

all I can think of is there is some sort of problem with the drive's firmware compared to the BIOS of the motherboard. And for some reason, starting with W2k, there's some over-ride taking place.

Thank you for telling me I am over-complicating it!! I've been banging my head on this for a WHOLE WEEK! Some 3 day weekend...

I would try OnTrack or something similar if not for the fact I know it will render images useless since no other machine/HD has this issue.

EDIT EDIT

I am already using an original legit 98SE CD. I actually have 4 different copies (all report standard 98SE except one, whose label says 98Second Edition, but the revision is higher than the standard 4.10.2222A copy I got this copy from a M$ conference in 1999 as a door prize)

Edited by DeadDude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NT-Family OSes totally override the BIOS. They get rid of it during the first phase of booting (NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM), so they should work regardless of the BIOS.

Linux, FreeBSD/OpenBSD and OpenSolaries do so too, so you cannot infer anything about the BIOS from their running OK.

Go here, get DETECT, run it in DOS, both on the problem machine and in your identical one that works, and attach the results (zip 'em before attaching, please).

Meanwhile I'll look for BIOS updates for that board... Found them here.

And found out it's an ICH5 southbridge board! :blink: So I was thinking in the wrong direction. I was picturing a *much* older motherboard. So, now: it actually can boot standalone DOS all right, can it not? Your troubles begin after it tries to load Win 9x, right? How much RAM does it have onboard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All drives tested are WD brand.

"old" drive is 40, new one 80.

as far as I can tell, BOTH drives have otherwise identical stats.

The machine has 256megs of ram.

Yes. DOS is great. FDisk is only real issue. Even then, Windows is where all the phantoms lie. DOS doesn't report extra drives, BUT it does remove the 3rd partition and all utilities to view the drive return funky results and occasionally lock it up real good.

And I've tried various imaging schemes... bit by bit, only what is used on the HD, only the specific partition.... heck, I've even tried ONLY a single 8G partition and the rest empty. As soon as I restore the partition to the 'new' drive, it CREATES phantom drives!

Has anyone else had something like this happen to them? Everything statistically looks 100% compatible... everything appears to work.... but doesn't. :(

Sorry I took so long to reply this time, I was reading the link posted about BIOS and whatnot and reading some other things to try to sort it out. All I came up with is the same thing I said earlier: Maybe the SATA controller being enabled is somehow causing this issue?

I've also managed to boot off a USB stick with 98 on it yesterday on this machine. It saw the hard drive, BUT NO PHANTOM DRIVES?!?!?! Reboot without USB stick (using HD win98) and phantom drives returned.

I really think they changed something in the controller chip INSIDE the hard drive, and they ain't telling no body.

I am going to search for the IDE standards white paper and cross reference WD controller chips... (wrong terms, but close enough)

Thanks for your help! I'll try anything out at least once if y'all think it could help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should try to contact Western Digital and ask them about it. If there is a new low level format scheme and/or firmware that is not compatible for some reason, then they should be able to tell you about it, and, if so, also tell you whether or not you can do something about it, eg, low level format with an old WD format tool and/or flash the drive with an older firmware version.

Edited by loblo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be honest, images are just easier to make and deploy compared to loading up the first version of the softwares and updating/upgrading/patching and the software company is now defunct.

Well, it might not solve your problem though. As it was never intended to replace REAL installations.

I am already using an original legit 98SE CD. I actually have 4 different copies (all report standard 98SE except one, whose label says 98Second Edition, but the revision is higher than the standard 4.10.2222A copy I got this copy from a M$ conference in 1999 as a door prize)

Okay, but are you actually INSTALLING Windows 98 from a non-imaged, legitimate copy.... or from an image of a legitimate copy? Hehe. I don't image my operating systems, because I figure once it's installed, it's TAINTED FOR GOOD. Why copy an entire operating system, when all of the configuration files, settings, drivers, dates, registry, is all a copy of a different computer, with different HARDWARE? I've never seen the logic of that.

"The disk image contains all the settings and device drivers for the hardware on the computer the image was made on. For example, the old computer may have a very different motherboard, graphics card, network card, etc."*

as far as I can tell, BOTH drives have otherwise identical stats.

But you said you suspect they "changed something without saying what it was" in your new hard drive that makes it incompatible with Win98....

which is why all those stat things are a crock of poo and don't really mean much. If I had a nickel for every time I installed something that "looked" like it would be compatible because it had the same stats, i'd be a millionaire. I've basically GIVEN UP on the idea of swapping different parts that look the same, meaning similar "stats." Now, I strictly just replace parts with exact replicas because it SAVES TIME AND EFFORT. Sure, sometimes it'll work, but 50% of the time, they always leave out important information from their "stats."

I really think they changed something in the controller chip INSIDE the hard drive, and they ain't telling no body.

So I guess what you're saying is those stats are useless.... aren't they? Welcome to my world.

*http://www.2brightsparks.com/resources/articles/disk-imaging-is-not-a-total-backup-solution.html

Edited by ScrewUpgrading
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's do a more controlled experiment:

1) Get Active KillDisk and use it to zero-out (= write 0s) to the whole of the problem 80 GB HDD.

It takes dome time to complete.

2) Get the aforementioned RPM 2.44 and use it to write an standard IPL to the MBR, and to create and format exactly two partitions: the 1st, set active, should be a primary 40 GB partition and the 2nd, an extended partition with a single logical partition inside, spanning the rest of the disk.

3) Use the DOS LABEL.EXE command to give each partition a meaningful label, say, "PRIMARY" to the 1st partition and "LOGICAL" to the 2nd one.

4) Get the free version of XXCOPY (you must get XXCOPY FREEWARE v.2.96.5 - xxfw2965.zip, which is the last version that works in 9x/ME), install it to your working machine and use XXCOPY to clone the live system to the 80 GB HDD's 1st partition. To do this you'll need to either connect it to your internal IDE controller as a slave disk or, much easier, connect it by means of a USB-to-IDE bridge cable that you can get cheaply on eBay or at your local computer shop. Suposing you decide to use the USB-to-IDE bridge, and that your 80 GB HDD gets the letters X: (1st partition) and Y: (2nd partition), and you can ensure you got it right because you know the labels of the partitons, you can clone the live system by simply issuing the command:

xxcopy c:\ x:\ /clone /yy /X"c:\win386.swp"

5) Put the 80 GB HDD back to its machine jumpered as master and reboot the machine.

I bet it shall work all right, provided that you follow my instructions to the letter, using exactly those tools I indicated (not *any* others), and the exact versions mentioned. If, at any point, you get stuck, do not impovise, but instead post here and wait for my reply, before proceeding. Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...