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. 


Kippykip

Does the Unofficial Win98SE service pack fix the 137gb issue?

Question  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Does the Unofficial Win98SE service pack fix the 137gb issue?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      0


Recommended Posts

I was just wondering whether or not it fixes the 137gb limit out of all the patches it has?

I hope I haven't posted in the wrong section here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does fix the Win9x limit, but your IDE BIOS must also support LBA-48 for it to work correctly.

>I hope I haven't posted in the wrong section here...
You have. Post in the support thread for the project you are asking about, or in the general Win9x forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting you brought this up because i always seem to have this weird issue with partition sizes larger than 32 GB in both windows 95 and 98 / 98SE systems that would make virtual memory disabled after a certain point of updating the system and couldn't really find any solutions to this other than limiting the setting in the notepad file "system.ini" to "maxphyspage=18000" which then would get rid of the virtual memory problem of being disabled or the c: drive not working properly, also "minfilecache=0"and "maxfilecache=0" under vcache in system.ini ( this step is probably not absolutely needed but i still do it ), i don't think the lba48 part was the problem because most of these systems should have supported these drives ( 2002-2006 laptops or hardware ) and most of the hard drives weren't even larger than like 120 GB, most of them were like 40 - 80 GB, yet i still had this weird problem. this wasn't so much of a problem in windows 95 since 384 MB of ram is still a pretty good amount for windows 95 and regardless of having a hard drive less than 32 GB, windows 95 still had problems with freezing / crashing or running weird if you tried to limit the ram to more than 384 MB ( in maxphyspage ), although what is more weird is on earlier builds, i had windows 95 running up to like 920 MB of ram or so with drives possibly more than 32 GB partitioned or lower, but for some reason, i couldn't get it to work like that anymore, makes me feel like there might be some uncessary update or updates that are were not needed that i may have added in my update archive list that messes up windows 95 osr 2.5? it would probably be too much work to find out why, but it was something to just point out.

i do remember applying the unofficial service pack but still getting this messed up problem, virtual memory not working / disabled and c: drive would be running in ms dos compatibility mode. i wonder if ACPI may have to do with this too as i did have resource related / weird problems with ACPI enabled on some systems too. i know for the dell latitude d810, in order to run windows 98SE properly without it acting weird, at least the problem where if you try to go to safe mode, but don't do anything else, or even try to change anything through msconfig like preventing office 2000 from starting, upon restart it would just hang endlessly and going to safe mode and trying to change back the settings made no difference. you would need to run the dell latitude d810 with ACPI disabled by running "setup /p i" after format of hard drive and copying of files in dos prompt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These problems and the 137GB limit are unrelated issues.

I have never seen this problem. If your updates reinstalled the Hard Disk Drivers, it is possible that the Driver was disabled, causing the Drive to run in compatibility mode.

Attempting to set MinFileCache or MaxFileCache less than 1/24 of the total RAM will be ignored.

There are some buggy Motherboards after 2002 that do not properly handle LBA-48. I developed a fix for the EPIA series BIOSes.
Some Intel Motherboards in the 8xx and 9xx series cannot handle more than 32GB Hard Drives if they were setup with an unexpected geometry.

Share this post


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

These problems and the 137GB limit are unrelated issues.

I have never seen this problem. If your updates reinstalled the Hard Disk Drivers, it is possible that the Driver was disabled, causing the Drive to run in compatibility mode.

Attempting to set MinFileCache or MaxFileCache less than 1/24 of the total RAM will be ignored.

There are some buggy Motherboards after 2002 that do not properly handle LBA-48. I developed a fix for the EPIA series BIOSes.
Some Intel Motherboards in the 8xx and 9xx series cannot handle more than 32GB Hard Drives if they were setup with an unexpected geometry.

this was exactly the information i was looking for in your last two sentences, so it does appear there is some picky BIOSes from 2002 and on / some 8xx / 9xx series intel chipsets that do no properly handle lba-48. rloew, i believe i read the information in your site to this specific patch, but when would i need to apply it? for instance, if i had that virtual memory becoming disabled problem and c: drive running in compatibility mode, would applying the full version of the patch after having this problem already there solve the issue so that i can have the higher capacity drive without having to scale down to that 384 MB ram limit i mentioned, is it a windows patch or something i would have to apply through a boot disk or other way like through dos command prompt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think these Patches would help with your particular problem. The symptoms associated with the LBA-48 and geometry issues are:

Failure to boot.
Disk Errors.
Disk Corruption.

Compatibility Mode is not a symptom. Nor is there a dependence on RAM. I am assuming that you are not using SATA Drives.

I have two different Patches. The BOOTMAN series of Patches upgrade or replace the BIOS Code and are implemented as a DDO. The High Capacity Disk Patch adds LBA-48 support to the Windows Driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidenote I'm using sata drives with the 775i65g motherboard, it supports a compatibility mode where it emulates sata drives as IDE. However it makes the 2nd IDE port not work.

No idea whether it supports 48-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SATA Motherboards generally support LBA-48. The Intel bug doesn't happen with Drives normally partitioned on the same Motherboard.

My SATA Patch would allow you to use the additional Ports

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...