Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!

[briton]

Can you just unpack a .cab file then recreate the .cab file with the new file in it?

What program do you use?

Sorry - I should have mentioned it. There are a number of utilities around. Search Engines are your friends!

If you search, you may find the one I use - good old Microsoft:

MakeCab.Exe

You can get that from Microsoft (free as in free beer as opposed to free thinking lol) - see Knowldegebase Article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310618 which tells you how to use it and the link for downloading it. You need to do a little reading to work it, but don't worry - it isn't rocket surgery

Also, I notice Gapes Unofficial SP2 & SP3 says it supports semi slipstreaming, and all you have to do is copy your Win98 file from your Windows98 cd to your hard disk, then extract the files in the SP2.cab file into your Win98 folder that you copied earlier. These updated files will replace the existing files on the cd. Does that mean Windows 98 has a type of slipstreaming support built into Win98's installation process?

Sorry, I don't use Gapes. I now rely almost entirely on this Board's own "Auto-Patcher For Windows 98se". If you haven't tried it, you might like to! (It includes the option of switching the ESDI_506.PDR file and has the option to use the correct one but obviously only after Win98SE is installed and you are patching it.)

Hope that helps!

Edited December 13, 2007 by briton

[Fredledingue]

HELP!

If I install the patch on my computer, Hard disks drives are forced into DOS-compatibility mode.

I'm worried because I just bought a 400Gb drive...

[Tarun]

HELP!

If I install the patch on my computer, Hard disks drives are forced into DOS-compatibility mode.

I'm worried because I just bought a 400Gb drive...

Did you consider upgrading to XP and making sure your motherboard supports 48-Bit LBA?

[Fredledingue]

How do I check wheter my MoBo supports 48-bit LBA?

(I don't plan to insntall XP on this machine)

Thanks.

[dencorso]

Try HDINFO... I've never used it myself, but it claims to be able to test your BIOS for 48-bit LBA support.

[Mijzelf]

If I install the patch on my computer, Hard disks drives are forced into DOS-compatibility mode.

You say 'if'. Does that mean that when you reverse the installation, the harddrive works OK? I'd expect the patched ESDI_506.pdr to be corrupted somehow, or the wrong version.

The compatibility modus is forced when windows decides that it has no appropriate drivers for the drive, which happens when the device is not recognized, or when the proper driver is unavailable (by corruption for instance).

[Fredledingue]

Yes, when I restore the original ESDI_506.pdr, the drive(s) work(s) OK.

I'v tried to one in LLMX's zip file (Mistakingingly the 22226 version, then 22225.), MDGx's installer and Gape's uSP2 and 3. All put my drives on DOS-compatibility mode. I have this problem since uSP2 was realeased. That's the only file that doesn't fit on my computer.

I have a WD 120 GB (real: 111Gb). Before, I had a second 40 Gb drive that is removed now.

I'm doing a test with HDINFO, right now to see if my BIOS and MoBo are compatible...

Currently the BIOS shows for the drive LBA: ON and 32-bits: ON. It doesn't mention anything about 48-bits.

The MoBo is 5 years old.

[Fredledingue]

I mounted the new WD 400Gb drive into the case and set it as primary slave. The primary master is a WD 120 Gb.

The BIOS detects the new drive but displays for it a capacity of 136.9 Gb only.

Then, I restarted windows.

Windows Explorer doesn't see the drive (maybe because it's not formatted - but how do I format a drive that windows doesn't see? I hope to find the solution here, on WD website - ).

In the Device Manager, however, it seems to be there because there are two "generic IDE drive TYPE 47". If there is only one hard disc installed there should be only one, I think.

Then I ran HDINFO. ===> Surprise!

The primary master (the 120 Gb drive) doesn't support 48-bits LBA (and supports everything else)

The primary slave (the new 400 Gb drive) supports 48-bits LBA and displays a capacity of 400 Gb (contrary to BIOS)!

Then I ran 48LbaChk under plain DOS

===> Second surprise!

It says "Your BIOS appears to be 48-bits LBA capable and you have a drive larger than 137 Gb installed".

Which is good news.

Yet, the problems remain that the BIOS doesn't see more than 136.9 Gb, Windows doesn't see it at all and the ESDI_506.pdr patch still set drive C in compatibility mode.

I'm a little bit confused with all these conflicting informations...

Edited December 29, 2007 by Fredledingue

[Mijzelf]

Windows Explorer doesn't see the drive (maybe because it's not formatted - but how do I format a drive that windows doesn't see? - ).

You'll have to partition it. Explorer will only see a *partition* it recognizes. Windows has recognized it, as it sees 2 harddisks.

[Fredledingue]

I applied r.Loew patch and... it works!

I was able to partition the new drive up to 143 Gb (Windows sees it with that much free space) with WD's Datas Lifeguard (utility from WD's website).

Something impossible before applying r.Loew's patch.

Now, I didn't try to fill the drive with 143 Gb of datas, but the fact that windows sees it as a 143 Gb drive is very promising.

(It's just a little bit silly to limit the demo version to 145 Gb because it's unclear whether you effectively broke the 137 Gb barrier if you or the partition utility counts 1 gigabites as 1,024 Mb or as 1,000 Mb, as 1,073,741,824 bytes or 1000,000,000 bytes an so on. One way you are under 137Gb "real", the other way you are not. )

The problem with the ESDI_506.pdr patch from LLMX, is that the Device Manager doesn't see any of the hard drive.

Datas Lifeguard, which allows you to format and partition the drive, doesn't detect the drive as a WD one when the patch is installed. Both Device Manager and Datas Lifeguard detect the drive normaly when the original pdr file is restored. But in this case, Datas Lifeguard won't let me use more than 137 Gb.

Edited December 29, 2007 by Fredledingue

[briton]

I'v tried to one in LLMX's zip file (Mistakingingly the 22226 version, then 22225.)

So you have an IBM laptop? Doesn't seem likely! You probably need 22, not 25. Check the original file version number.

You might want to have a look at the thread for the Win98SE Autopatcher (under Unofficial Service Pack on this site).

Have you tried manually setting BIOS hard drive info based on WD literature?

Edited December 31, 2007 by briton

[Fredledingue]

Hi Briton.

I'v read everywhere that the 22226 is for IBM laptops and that the 22225 is for all other PC.

Moreover I'v applied the patch through installing MDGx's installer and also Gape's uSP.

It would be surprising that two w98 Gods ( ) made the same mistake by placing a wrong file in their installer and that by an incredible luck these wrong files work on most computers except mine.

But since there is version 222222 around, I'm going to test it, just in case I'm lucky. Maybe you are the right guy after all... Otherwise I'll lay $10 for Loew's path. That's not the end of the world.

Happy New Year!

[submix8c]

Huh! (repeating myself...)

Reckon if R.Loew has a viable patch that's a vast improvement in lieu of LLXX' patch, it would be soooo nice if he would just "give it up" instead of charging for a patch to an "obsolete" OS. Granted, there a quite a number of persons still using the "obsolete" OS, but, c'mon, wouldn't it be better (from a marketing point of view; he got "yelled at" for doing that in MSFN) to just "release" it openly and try to gain a name for being good at what he does, then go on to more profitable (read $$$ instead of $) ventures?

Not knocking your rationale; you do need a "proper" fix if your gonna use a 137gb+ HDD... just seems kinda way too capitalistic.

Let us know how popping that $10 works...

[briton]

Hi Briton.

I'v read everywhere that the 22226 is for IBM laptops and that the 22225 is for all other PC.

Moreover I'v applied the patch through installing MDGx's installer and also Gape's uSP.

It would be surprising that two w98 Gods ( ) made the same mistake by placing a wrong file in their installer and that by an incredible luck these wrong files work on most computers except mine.

But since there is version 222222 around, I'm going to test it, just in case I'm lucky. Maybe you are the right guy after all... Otherwise I'll lay $10 for Loew's path. That's not the end of the world.

Happy New Year!

Sorry - I checked my own versions to see what I did. My oh my that sticky needs relabelling lol

My mistake. Here is how I have them labelled for the boxes I use them on:

4102222F Older Desktop PC Win98SE.ZIP

4102225F Desktop PC Win98SE.ZIP

4102226F IBM laptop v4.10.2226 of PDR file only.ZIP

4903000F WinMe.ZIP

If I remember correctly, the advice I was given on the board was that I should match the installed version number. Did you actually check what file version your installation disk installs?

So you are correct - 26 is for IBM laptop.

(As for the $10 - small price to pay for someone else to do the brainwork! Some go open, some ask for donations. It's up to the owner of the intellectual property rights!)

Edited January 5, 2008 by briton

[Fredledingue]

So 22 is for older desktop PC. Maybe I should install the one for older PC?

Now I'm a little bit at loss how to proceed after I installed Lowe's patch to test another patch. I'v started to use the HD and don't ant to erase everything now.

Can I change the vxd back and forth file and continue with the current HD drive partition (144 Gb) and content?

About the $10, I would be glad to give them to him if that's the solution I need in my case. The problem is more the hassle of moving my derriere to make the payment. It's never clear whether my pay-pal payments are accepted.