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. 


LLXX

Enable48BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!

Recommended Posts

The 32 GB limit is due to Windows 95 non-support of FAT32 (only FAT16) and the maximum size for a FAT drive is 32 GB (using some 3rd party utilities can get a 64 GB FAT32 drive) but at that size the cluster size is 32 KB and 64 KB respectively which is ridiculously huge and causes a lot of wasted space.

Windows 95 OSR2.x DOES support FAT32. It just doesn't support past 32GB.

@LLXX: If you do patch 4.00.1119, why don't ya try to also patch it so it can recognize past 32GB?

Also, can you post a link to where you found it?

the_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Petr, qazaq : Excellent. :thumbup

@the_guy : It seems the 4.00.1119 I had was actually a 4.00.1116 :}

I doubt the 32Gb limit exists in the driver. Perhaps someone should install Windows 95B (w. FAT32) on a 40Gb HDD or similar. One could also try using the patched 4.10.2186 driver (intended for 98fe).

From http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/bios/sizeGB30-c.html :

Microsoft officially announced in 1999 that Windows 95 does not support hard disks over 32 GB in size. For that reason, I am including this in my discussion of hard disk capacity barriers. However, I must embarrassingly admit that after many months of trying to determine the reason for this exclusion, I have been unable to find out what it is!

Also, there are various references stating that "the FAT must be less than or equal in size to 16MB minus 64KB", i.e. 4MB minus 16KB clusters. Would it be possible to use a 120GB partition with a cluster size of 1 sector (512 bytes)? I have a lot of small files which 32K clusters would waste much space. However the FAT would then be approximately 900MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can (re)format your FAT32 disk/partition with 512 bytes cluster size using FORMAT.COM:

http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm#FORMAT-Z

FORMAT drive: /Z:n [Windows 95B OSR 2.0 + MS-DOS 7.10 and above ONLY]FORMAT drive: /Z:n formats a FAT32 drive with a cluster size of n times 512

Bytes. Meaning:

drive: = your hard drive letter: C:, D:, E:... etc.

n = number of sectors per cluster multiplied by 512 (cluster size in Bytes).

Examples:

n = 1 creates a 512 Bytes cluster;

n = 2 creates a 1024 Bytes (1 KB) cluster;

n = ? creates a ? x 512 = ???? Bytes (???? bytes : 1024 = ? KB) cluster.

You can modify the size of the allocation units (sectors) on a FAT32 drive to

your heart desire.

The /Z:n parameter canNOT be used with removable drives.

WARNING: It is NOT recommended to change the default cluster size, because

some programs such as disk-repair/anti-virus tools may STOP working properly!

___________________________________

* Microsoft Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2 IDE Driver ESDI_506.PDR 4.00.1116 + VOLTRACK.VXD (4.00.954 for Win95/OSR1 + 4.00.1112 for Win95B/95C OSR2) Fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171353

Direct download [154 KB, English]:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q273468.EXE

HTH

Edited by MDGx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Petr, qazaq : Excellent. :thumbup

@the_guy : It seems the 4.00.1119 I had was actually a 4.00.1116 :}

I doubt the 32Gb limit exists in the driver. Perhaps someone should install Windows 95B (w. FAT32) on a 40Gb HDD or similar. One could also try using the patched 4.10.2186 driver (intended for 98fe).

WRONG!

Using patched 4.10.2186 driver under Win95 with 32Gb+ HDs will F*CK your system up and cause BSODs (and cause other problems)! This is why I dont want you to patch Win95 systems, LLXX. THEY'RE DEAD NOW.

Sorry but patching just the esdi_506.pdr file under Win95 is NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Other parts of the Win95 OS have to fully support huge HDs.

AND OHHHHH, reading this from this forum:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1026129864

Windows 95 does not properly support drives larger than 32GB without a high probability for data corruption.
yea the last thing I want on a 32gb+ HD is for it to mess up computer files under Win95. 32Gb+ HDs are best used on Win98/ME/2000/XP.

The 32 GB limit is due to Windows 95 non-support of FAT32 (only FAT16) and the maximum size for a FAT drive is 32 GB (using some 3rd party utilities can get a 64 GB FAT32 drive) but at that size the cluster size is 32 KB and 64 KB respectively which is ridiculously huge and causes a lot of wasted space.

Windows 95 OSR2.x DOES support FAT32. It just doesn't support past 32GB.

ONLY Win95 OSR2, OSR2.1 & OSR2.5 allow FAT32 drives. Win95 original & OSR1 do NOT recognize FAT32 drives as I've tested for myself several weeks ago. Win95 & DOS 7.0 can only accept up to 2Gb partitions.

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said. Windows 95 OSR2.x (2.0, 2.1, 2.5) support FAT32.

the_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I said. Windows 95 OSR2.x (2.0, 2.1, 2.5) support FAT32.

the_guy

yup but only FAT32 drives up to 32Gb. Any higher and Win95 SR2 may cause "data corruption" problems.

heck there are not even fat32 drivers out there that will make earlier editions of Win95 read fat32 drives.

And according to the 48bitLBA.com page Win95 also does NOT support or even recognize 48-bit LBA HDs greater than 137 GB and says to upgrade Windows to a higher version:

http://www.48bitlba.com/win95.htm

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sorry for all this trouble. I didn't know anything about Windows 95. Never used it AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, sorry for all this trouble. I didn't know anything about Windows 95. Never used it AFAIK.

ah, no big deal hp38guser. Win95 has SO MANY FLAWS that it's best to use Win98 or WinME and install the 48bit LBA patches for Win98/ME to use 137Gb+ HDs. Win95 even chokes on AMD K6 and AMD Athlon 1.1 Ghz+ (and even on Intel Pentium 3/4) CPUs as noted in MS articles 192841 & 234259.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you actually *tried* to install Win95 on an HDD >32Gb?

I don't believe anything M$ say until I've tested it myself or read through the code.

Micro$oft claim that Windows 98 First Edition also has this problem but it can be fixed with an updated ESDI_506.PDR (.2186 I think...). The problem is described as only occurring on Phoenix BIOSae using BitShift translation. My interpretation is that Windows 95 (OSR2) *will* work on an HDD > 32Gb provided the BIOS is not Phoenix nor is it using BitShift translation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any of you actually *tried* to install Win95 on an HDD >32Gb?

I don't believe anything M$ say until I've tested it myself or read through the code.

the 48bit HD technology is incompatible with Win95, FOOL! (no wonder why I'm getting a lot of those BSODs and other oddities when using very large HDs under Win95)

it's just like mixing apples and oranges which does NOT make any sense!

and if you dont believe MS, try asking the people from the 48BitLBA.com site.

any creation of a 48bit LBA driver for Win95 WOULD BE VERY FOOLISH!!

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micro$oft claim that Windows 98 First Edition also has this problem but it can be fixed with an updated ESDI_506.PDR (.2186 I think...). The problem is described as only occurring on Phoenix BIOSae using BitShift translation. My interpretation is that Windows 95 (OSR2) *will* work on an HDD > 32Gb provided the BIOS is not Phoenix nor is it using BitShift translation.

you are only HALF right. ANY kind of BIOS made before Jun 1999 will NOT work with 32Gb HDs (as mentioned in Western Digital's FAQ). BIOSes after that date may work with 32Gb HDs.

and besides, my custom made PC (which now has WinXP) with a 40Gb HD (and using an AWARD BIOS) did NOT work with Win95 SR2 because Win95B had caused a lot of "blue screen" errors before startup; hey Win95 SR2 cant work on machines with superfast CPUs without the AMD-K6 patch MS created. didnt bother installing the patch, reformatted the HD, put in Win98se and then upgraded to XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erpdude8, I don't know what kind of problems you have with your computer but I used Win95 until last year when I changed my display adapter and I had no drivers for Win95.

I had 2 Seagate HDDs 120GB (111 GB if 1KB=1024B) and never had any problems with them. There was only one partition on each drive, FAT32, created with Ranish Partition Manager and formatted from windows explorer (not FORMAT.COM).

The same drives were later used to create a disk array using onboard RAID controller. The virtual drive was 240 GB in size and was partitioned with RPM directly form windows and then formatted from windows explorer. One partition, FAT32, no problems.

Scandisk from MS-DOS worked but it was VERY slow. Scandisk form windows didn't - "Not enough memory". Norton Disk Doctor was fast and worked fine (execept on a DriveSpace compressed volume I had, where it reported some non-existent errors).

You didn't install K6-2 patch?? Maybe that's why it didn't work! K6-2 patch contains ESDI_506.PDR v4.00.1118.

Edited by Marius '95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't install K6-2 patch?? Maybe that's why it didn't work! K6-2 patch contains ESDI_506.PDR v4.00.1118.

Q175629 has esdi_506.pdr version 4.00.1119, Marius '95. I can send you the patch if you want. Just be sure you are using Win95 OSR2 version 4.00.1111 B or C. email me or send me a PM if you need the Q175629 hotfix for Win95.

I just couldnt install the AMD-K6 patch. the problem happened before Win95 loaded and before I got a chance to install the update. perhaps the updated files from the patch needed to be installed from DOS mode outside Win95 as noted from this page:

http://home.pacbell.net/drakcap/Purist10.htm

The K6-2 patch does NOT cover CPUs faster than 2.1Ghz as noted in MS article 312108. MS only made a Q312108 hotfix for Win98fe but not for Win95.

But you were using RAID controllers. Can you use your HDs WITHOUT RAID controllers under Win95? that's the big question!

Also can you use your big HDs without even using ANY Ultra ATA PCI adapters that have their own 48bit LBA BIOSes & drivers.

The Ultra ATA PCI adapters with 48-bit LBA BIOS/drivers bypass a computer's BIOS and the Win95 esdi_506.pdr driver.

Have any of you actually *tried* to install Win95 on an HDD >32Gb?

YES, GOSH DARN IT, LLXX! Guess you are STILL in the DARK why many large HDs may not be compatible with Win95.

Even Rudolph Loew's High Capacity Disk Patch does NOT cover Win95 which is a good thing. Ditto for Intel Application Accelerator software which not only does not support Win95 but works very oddly under there. IAA works under Win98/2000/ME/NT4/XP.

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are only HALF right. ANY kind of BIOS made before Jun 1999 will NOT work with 32Gb HDs (as mentioned in Western Digital's FAQ). BIOSes after that date may work with 32Gb HDs.

It is true for Award BIOSes only and it was stupid mistake in the code only, you can check my analysis at

http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ga586hx_mod.html

http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ga586t2_mod.html

Petr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The K6-2 patch does NOT cover CPUs faster than 2.1Ghz as noted in MS article 312108. MS only made a Q312108 hotfix for Win98fe but not for Win95.

But you were using RAID controllers. Can you use your HDs WITHOUT RAID controllers under Win95? that's the big question!

Also can you use your big HDs without even using ANY Ultra ATA PCI adapters that have their own 48bit LBA BIOSes & drivers.

The Ultra ATA PCI adapters with 48-bit LBA BIOS/drivers bypass a computer's BIOS and the Win95 esdi_506.pdr driver.

Two points:

1. KB246818 states:

Hard disks and other media that are larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in size are not supported in any version of Windows 95.

In that case even the drivers for the ATA adapter could not help.

But if the problem is really in ESDI_506.PDR only, it would be possible to use it.

2. CPU speed.

AMD patch is available for OSR2 only, but I was able to patch ESDI_506.PDR and SCSIPORT.PDR from Windows 95 retail version and everything worked fine. In fact it was very stupid mistake of MS programmers, they just multiplied and divided three constants and on some CPUs it caused divide overflow. But if you have multiplied and divided these three numbers manually and put just the result to these drivers, everything was fine and there was absolutely no change in the functionality. I wrote this to Microsoft in February 2000 and asked them to publish the fix. Their answer was that they replaced all Windows 95 in our company by Windows 98 SE free of charge - that's the reason why I don't work with Windows 95 for more than 6 years.

I suppose that the problem in NDIS.VXD will have the same nature and could be easily corrected - if anybody cares about it. Do you have any idea - it this problem for all 2.2GHz+ processor or just for specific ones? I have installed Windows 95 FPP on Virtual PC 2004 and found no problem - although the CPU is Pentium D 2.8 GHz.

BTW, there is also problem with AMD K6-2 500 MHz processors on Windows Me: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/261641

Petr

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...