Jump to content

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!


Recommended Posts

It is of course the case that one only reads information like this, and is alerted to the problem AFTER a major data loss!

Well, not for everyone because many Win98SE users (and probably MOST users who use Win98SE as their primary OS) are aware that they need to read a lot! I do admit that I only found out because I couldn't actually install Win98SE after I installed the first larger drive because I tried to install Win98SE in a partition which STARTED above the 137GB limit so I didn't lose anything - the reboot during installation simply failed. Point taken anyway.

Having learned the hard way, could I plead for a bigger warning that this patch does not play nice with any other form of disk address translation program? And possibly for Autopatcher 98SE to ask for positive confirmation before it installs it?

I know now, but it would be nice if I were the last to find out unexpectedly!

Three points @ 2 cents each:

  1. If there IS to be a warning, someone needs to edit the sticky post where the downloads are listed. If there IS to be a warning, someone needs to edit the sticky post where the downloads are listed. (Who has access to that sticky since the patch author is no longer with us?)
  2. Therefore, while they are there, it would help to list the different versions against the reason WHY each version exists as the number of downloads recorded suggests many people are downloading the WRONG version (are there THAT many IBM laptops out there?).
  3. If a warning is included there, it needs to be included with the AutoPatcher.
  4. Finally, I do have one point. If in many decades of computer use I have ever used a "disk address translation program", it was totally invidible to me. I am wondering if it is common. There are MANY things you might be using that would suggest that you need to use this patch with caution but in most if not all cases you would be expected to realise that they were messing around with disk access in which case using an old Operating System should cause anyone using them to be as careful as you obviously were (testing with copies of files).

Anyway, I agree a warning about disk management software might be put in bold print in the download sticky and I'll post a link to your post there so that soporific can consider including a similar warning with the Autopatcher download.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


North of Watford Posted Yesterday, 07:03 AM

Earlier this year there was an exchange between Briton and Seskanda about limits to HDD size, including those imposed by the BIOS. [Around about post #273 on page 14]

It is of course the case that one only reads information like this, and is alerted to the problem AFTER a major data loss! My story is that one of the boxes that I run is a Compaq Deskpro EN 733 SFF. When I hurriedly fitted a 160MB Seagate drive into it plenty of months ago, it ended up requiring the use of the translation feature on the CD that came with the drive, and put the OnTrack address translation routine in place. Windows 98 duly limited the use of the drive to the bottom 137GB and all was well.

On learning that Autopatcher for Windows 98SE had installed the 48BitLBA patch, I thought I would have a try. Promptly put a new primary partition in the free space at the top of the disk, and filled it up with copies of files, on the principle that if I lost this new partition, I would have nothing to cry over. Initially it seemed to be OK, but a reboot later and I had lost the entire contents of the new partition, the entire contents of the extended partition, and the initial primary partition was corrupted beyond repair. Oh dear! All 120 GB on that disk are now in bit heaven.

Having learned the hard way, could I plead for a bigger warning that this patch does not play nice with any other form of disk address translation program? And possibly for Autopatcher 98SE to ask for positive confirmation before it installs it?

I know now, but it would be nice if I were the last to find out unexpectedly!

Thanks

I ran some experiments on OnTrack and was unable to get it properly support 48-Bit LBA. As you found out the hard way, it is not safe to test 48-Bit LBA support on a Hard Drive by writing test files above the 137GB Limit while having important files below the limit. BIOS issues, bad DDOs and Windows XP RTM, and to a lesser extent Windows 9X, will write data intended to go above the 137GB limit to other locations below the limit destroying the data you thought was safe. The new files are probably mostly still OK. You would have to read them with the same bad driver and get around the probably corrupted partition table. You will need the help of the CIA to get back any of your old data.

I wrote my BOOTMAN Package to provide the necessary support that older BIOSes, and some buggy newer BIOSes, lack. It is compatable with LLXX's files and should work with the Autopatcher.

eidenk Posted Oct 16 2007, 05:51 PM

OK guys, this is a thread about the 48LBA patch initially and it should remain.

So I suggest splitting it and moving the discussion about the RAM limitation patch in a thread of it's own.

I also suggest moving the discussion about the system resources in a thread of it's own.

Could a moderator do this ?

I have no problem with new threads for these subjects. Links to them would of course be appreciated.

It was a recent posting about my BOOTMAN Package that appears to have triggered these discussions when people saw my new RAM Limitation Patch on my website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
North of Watford Posted Yesterday, 07:03 AM

Earlier this year there was an exchange between Briton and Seskanda about limits to HDD size, including those imposed by the BIOS. [Around about post #273 on page 14]

It is of course the case that one only reads information like this, and is alerted to the problem AFTER a major data loss! My story is that one of the boxes that I run is a Compaq Deskpro EN 733 SFF. When I hurriedly fitted a 160MB Seagate drive into it plenty of months ago, it ended up requiring the use of the translation feature on the CD that came with the drive, and put the OnTrack address translation routine in place. Windows 98 duly limited the use of the drive to the bottom 137GB and all was well.

On learning that Autopatcher for Windows 98SE had installed the 48BitLBA patch, I thought I would have a try. Promptly put a new primary partition in the free space at the top of the disk, and filled it up with copies of files, on the principle that if I lost this new partition, I would have nothing to cry over. Initially it seemed to be OK, but a reboot later and I had lost the entire contents of the new partition, the entire contents of the extended partition, and the initial primary partition was corrupted beyond repair. Oh dear! All 120 GB on that disk are now in bit heaven.

Having learned the hard way, could I plead for a bigger warning that this patch does not play nice with any other form of disk address translation program? And possibly for Autopatcher 98SE to ask for positive confirmation before it installs it?

I know now, but it would be nice if I were the last to find out unexpectedly!

Thanks

I ran some experiments on OnTrack and was unable to get it properly support 48-Bit LBA. As you found out the hard way, it is not safe to test 48-Bit LBA support on a Hard Drive by writing test files above the 137GB Limit while having important files below the limit. BIOS issues, bad DDOs and Windows XP RTM, and to a lesser extent Windows 9X, will write data intended to go above the 137GB limit to other locations below the limit destroying the data you thought was safe. The new files are probably mostly still OK. You would have to read them with the same bad driver and get around the probably corrupted partition table. You will need the help of the CIA to get back any of your old data.

Re: Safety of 48bitLBA patch

Do I understand correctly that the 48bitLBA patch for 98SE is safe to use, provided you also have a 48bitLBA enabled BIOS, no partitions over 128GB, AND have NOT installed a third party manager like OnTrack? No manufacturer sells drives with OnTrack pre-installed, right? They might furnish a CD containing OnTrack, but if you have the BIOS support, no partition over 128GB, install ONLY the 48bitLBA patch, and NEVER install the OnTrack manager, then your data is safe, right? That is, the problem exists ONLY when using OnTrack and 48bitLBA patch together, and is due more to a failure in OnTrack than in the 48bitLBA patch?

I've always been wary of using products like OnTrack. Based on this info, it appears my instincts were correct.

I don't currently have any hard disks over 120GB, but someday I might, so this is good info to know in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys, this is a thread about the 48LBA patch initially and it should remain.

So I suggest splitting it and moving the discussion about the RAM limitation patch in a thread of it's own.

I also suggest moving the discussion about the system resources in a thread of it's own.

Could a moderator do this ?

Some1 please send me a PM with all posts [exact URLs/links] you want to have moved to another thread/topic, and with the name of the new thread/topic you want created or the URL/link of the existing thread/topic you want me to move those posts into, and I'd be happy to do it.

HTH

IMHO this thread should remain as is, as a testament to the lady llxx along with petr, who`s efforts was an inspiration to us all. Along with rloew`s contribution (the guy has got to earn a living) and should stay "as is" to remind us all of what could have been before the politics began

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys, this is a thread about the 48LBA patch initially and it should remain.

So I suggest splitting it and moving the discussion about the RAM limitation patch in a thread of it's own.

I also suggest moving the discussion about the system resources in a thread of it's own.

Could a moderator do this ?

Some1 please send me a PM with all posts [exact URLs/links] you want to have moved to another thread/topic, and with the name of the new thread/topic you want created or the URL/link of the existing thread/topic you want me to move those posts into, and I'd be happy to do it.

HTH

IMHO this thread should remain as is, as a testament to the lady llxx along with petr, who`s efforts was an inspiration to us all. Along with rloew`s contribution (the guy has got to earn a living) and should stay "as is" to remind us all of what could have been before the politics began

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO this thread should remain as is, as a testament to the lady llxx along with petr, who`s efforts was an inspiration to us all. Along with rloew`s contribution (the guy has got to earn a living) and should stay "as is" to remind us all of what could have been before the politics began

:hello: Hi, oscardog! I do appreciate your point: loosing llxx was really bad. :( No argument here.

But splitting the thread will allow for easier and more convenient discussion of the two sub-topics in question, whitout resulting in the end of this thread per se. So I insist it ought to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I hate to mention this, but some of you are treading rather close to the line regarding Terms and Conditions of this site - to quote "Forum moderation is not up for public debate". Whether or not I agree with any of you, if someone breaks certain rules, they are instantly banned and that is moderation which is not up for debate. I only mention this because I don't want to see anyone here inadvertantly falling foul of that rule and getting banned!

Now, regarding splitting this thread. Again, I think some of you are missing the point. Noone is suggesting that this thread should die! It goes quiet for a while, but it always comes back up when someone new comes across the problem/solution or when there is a new wrinkle.

However, this is a thread about DISK SIZE. Unless I am very much mistaken, although it was the obvious place to start discussing MEMORY SIZE, that discussion has now grown more important and much larger and more complicated. It is therefore not only OFF TOPIC, but is now swamping the thread to the point that new users may well find the whole business of DISK SIZE way to difficult to pick out. Hence the suggestion to split the thread and move the exisint MEMORY SIZE posts to a new thread with a title that covers that (Overcoming memory size limitations or whatever).

If a moderator should see this, please take some action to strip out the off topic stuff, interesting and useful though it is, into it's own new thread. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Safety of 48bitLBA patch

Do I understand correctly that the 48bitLBA patch for 98SE is safe to use, provided you also have a 48bitLBA enabled BIOS, no partitions over 128GB, AND have NOT installed a third party manager like OnTrack?

1. If your BIOS can't handle disk space above 137GB, you can't expect the Win98SE operating system to handle it because it doesn't know it is there (or worse). Meaning that this patch is no use if the OS can't see the disk space. (Basically, if you don't patch and have a larger disk, if/when Win98 gets above the barrier, it kind of thinks it is starting over with often disastrous results. (128GB is not relevant.)

2. With the patch, you can use partitions over the 137GB barrier or even starting below it and running through the barrier (been there, done both). If I remember the reports correctly, some users seemed to have trouble running through the barrier so they simply kept partitions either above or below but not through 137GB - dunno cos I never had a problem either way.

3. The "patch" is actually a replacement for one of the files in the Win98SE operating system. By changing an OS file, the parameters which Microsoft provide about the OS for software designers to comply with may no longer be valid. For most software, this is not going to be an issue as it will rely on the OS to work out where on disk to write/read etc data. However, with disk management software (and, I believe, some backup/restore software), the software design becomes more involved in the disk access activity which is why breaking the OS parameters in an unsupported way may well cause problems. (Again, I haven't used it, but if I read correctly, rloew's solution to the 137GB barrier doesn't have this effect as it is not "breaking and rebuilding" a Microsoft file - I am sure he can clarify that point!)

So yes, you can use the patch (make sure you get the right file for your system - the sticky where they are listed is not that clear unless you read it all - many people seem to be downloading the IBM brand laptop version because it is the latest even though it is not the one for other laptops and all PCs). You can then use partitions above 137GB in Win98SE. Without the patch, if later Windows versions/Linux distros use larger disks, simply ensure that your Win98SE OS can't SEE those higher partitions (hide them when that OS boots).

With the patch, some disk management and similar software may not work correctly - or works correctly but is dealing with the OS parameters not being what it was designed for.

No manufacturer sells drives with ...

...Win98SE installed... :D So when you install Win98SE on a partition, it is your responsibility to ensure that relevant patches are installed. I advise installing the correct 48bitLBA patch before the Win98SE installation reboots (stop the boot, go into DOS and switch the files) then reboot and let the installation continue - and THEN use AutoPatcher (see other thread) to do the other tweaks you need.

And yes, if you never install disk management software etc in Win98SE partition, you should be safe, but the caveat is that there is always firmware which can render that statement incorrect - there seem to be some strange BIOS utilities around!

I've always been wary of using products like OnTrack. Based on this info, it appears my instincts were correct.

Most people using Win98SE as their primary OS seem to want to be in control of the intricacies of their machines and hence don't like that kind of software. Many of us with Win98SE in a multi-boot scenario, tend to want to know what is where and which OS can see it! In either of those cases, your instincts are precisely correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If your BIOS can't handle disk space above 137GB, you can't expect the Win98SE operating system to handle it because it doesn't know it is there (or worse). Meaning that this patch is no use if the OS can't see the disk space. (Basically, if you don't patch and have a larger disk, if/when Win98 gets above the barrier, it kind of thinks it is starting over with often disastrous results. (128GB is not relevant.)

The problem is not in Windows, when it is Patched, it has no problem even when the BIOS does not support 48 Bit-LBA. The problem occurs in the early boot phase when Windows loads itself, runs SCANDISK or does Real Mode tasks such as WININIT. Safe Mode or running in Compatability Mode will also fail since it uses the BIOS code. Programs run in Real Mode, such as DOS, FDISK and the Windows Install CD will also fail.

3. The "patch" is actually a replacement for one of the files in the Win98SE operating system. By changing an OS file, the parameters which Microsoft provide about the OS for software designers to comply with may no longer be valid. For most software, this is not going to be an issue as it will rely on the OS to work out where on disk to write/read etc data. However, with disk management software (and, I believe, some backup/restore software), the software design becomes more involved in the disk access activity which is why breaking the OS parameters in an unsupported way may well cause problems. (Again, I haven't used it, but if I read correctly, rloew's solution to the 137GB barrier doesn't have this effect as it is not "breaking and rebuilding" a Microsoft file - I am sure he can clarify that point!)

Most Disk Management tools use System Calls to access Hard Drives. They do not know anything about 48-Bit LBA mode, so they should work. Some may simply overflow from working with drives larger than they were tested with. Partition oriented tools such as SCANDISK and DEFRAG are affected by Partition size rather than Physical Hard Drive size.

My Patch works in a similar manner to LLXX's. The difference is that I do not provide the Drivers but Patch whatever is there. This avoids any issue of Microsoft Copyright problems.

I've always been wary of using products like OnTrack. Based on this info, it appears my instincts were correct.

Ontrack does not appear to support 48-Bit LBA properly and may disable BIOS support, if present. As mentioned above, BIOS or DDO support is required for safe operation with large Hard Drives. Ontrack does not appear to do sector shifting as some older DDOs did. These older DDOs caused serious problems since the Drives became unreadable if moved or if the DDO was removed or damaged.

Most people using Win98SE as their primary OS seem to want to be in control of the intricacies of their machines and hence don't like that kind of software. Many of us with Win98SE in a multi-boot scenario, tend to want to know what is where and which OS can see it! In either of those cases, your instincts are precisely correct!

Being unable to get any of the Hard Disk Vendor DDOs to work and wanting to work with my own Multi-Boot Manager, I wrote my own DDO called BOOTMAN. It only provides 48-Bit LBA support, without a lot of bells and whistles, and comes in different versions for different needs. One version is loaded from a Floppy Disk so it can work with any Boot Manager since nothing is changed on the Hard Drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all.

I run Windows 98SE with no patching and, after having mistankenly broke the 137GB barrier, some of the old files on the HD gone corrupted (the files are still visible but cannot be accessed by Windows, read or copied). These are OLD files, written within the 137GB limit and were, prior to the problem, perfectly readable and working.

There is a way to recover the data or it is forever gone?

Edited by caggo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I want to create a dual boot system Win98SE / WinXP

and I have a 300GB hard disk

If I make 2 partitions using the Windows XP boot CD.

C: 32GB using FAT32 for Windows 98SE

D: 168GB using NTFS for Windows XP SP2

WITHOUT using any patches, would I have any problems with Windows 98?

As Win98SE cannot recognise NTFS file system, will it basically just ignore the NTFS partition which happens to be located beyond the 137GB barrier?

Can anyone confirm this?

Edited by galahs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I want to create a dual boot system Win98SE / WinXP and I have a 300GB hard disk If I make 2 partitions using the Windows XP boot CD.

C: 32GB using FAT32 for Windows 98SE

D: 168GB using NTFS for Windows XP SP2

WITHOUT using any patches, would I have any problems with Windows 98?

As Win98SE cannot recognise NTFS file system, will it basically just ignore the NTFS partition which happens to be located beyond the 137GB barrier?

Can anyone confirm this?

There's always an "if" :whistle: If your Win98SE OS runs and can't see the rest of the drive, you should be fine. So to be on the safe side, when we set up multi-boot, many of us hide the other partitions on Win98SE bootup.

Then there are the other "ifs". If later on, you want to repartition the disk to have a shared data partition for instance, would you remember that you need to patch BEFORE you allowed Win98SE access? You probably would if you had to change that "hidden" setting before Win98SE got to it.

What if you install another "large" drive? (Your drive is amazingly small for 2007 and it's nearly 2008!) Will you remember that Win98SE must not see that one either even if it has visible partitions?

What if you install a means of accessing NTFS from DOS and then use it in Win98SE? Or install the same utility to read NTFS partitions from Win98SE because you want to be able to read things when XP won't boot?

It seems you are reluctant to patch. I would suggest that, if you have a Win98SE partition, you get Auto-patcher from this site anyway (see Autopatcher thread). Then you will have a safer, better Win98SE and the 48bitLBA will be there waiting for you to install if you need it. And you are less likely to forget you need it if/when you do!

Better safe than sorry?

Edited by briton
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...