Copy2Gb

[LLXX]

4,572,612,608?? Since when did FAT32 support files over 4Gb?

A screenshot of the properties page is much appreciated.

The maximum size of a file is supposed to be 4,294,967,294 bytes. I just checked the FAT32 directory entry format, and the file size field is indeed 4 bytes and there don't seem to be any more places for hiding an additional extension to the file size, except for the 1 byte at 0C titled 'Reserved for use by Windows NT'...

Notice the little "NT" right above the file size byte?

If FAT32 actually stored 5-byte filesizes, the maximum limit would theoretically be extended to 1Tb-2 (1,099,511,627,774 bytes)!! B)

Edited September 3, 2006 by LLXX

[randiroo76073]

Here's a screenshot, but now I have to say that I think my OS is going wonkers on me, have been checking and have found little discrepancies here & there. I'm partitioned so I think I'll scrub C: and do a fresh install. Went to dl site, file size should be 3.81gb, shoulda checked that first but didn't think to, sorry! One to many tweaks I guess Will try that transfer again after reinstall. Again, sorry

[LLXX]

Next time save it as a PNG. That'll stop it from getting blurry and straining the eyes.

Certainly an interesting screenshot. Win9x appears to be using moar than 32 bits internally for filesize calculations, or something similar...

I'd say the cluster chain was damaged and enlongated, so you should do a scandisk, but still...

[randiroo76073]

Next time save it as a PNG. That'll stop it from getting blurry and straining the eyes.

Certainly an interesting screenshot. Win9x appears to be using moar than 32 bits internally for filesize calculations, or something similar...

I'd say the cluster chain was damaged and enlongated, so you should do a scandisk, but still...

Thnx for tip, always used jpg, had to go to other puter, as main is really a mess, Firefox keeps getting a stack fault when loading & reinstalling it does no good, other discrepancies in known file sizes[smaller] also Hadn't any problems for a while so didn't click in my brain[4.25gb] Senior moment there I guess. Your patch does work tho cause I had transfered 2-3 gb files previously. Really admire all people on this forum who know Programing, it's a big help for people like me who know enough to get in trouble LOL! Could KUP possibly have anything to do with it? Maybe Revolutions 5 lite? They're using XP files I think.

[MDGx]

This is the Win98 FE (First Edition) KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2002 patched by anonymous author to correctly manipulate 2-4 GB files.

COPY2GB.EXE includes both 98(FE) + 98SE kernel32.* files, detects OS build and installs appropriate file.

Please install to make sure proper kernel build is installed.

After install, run make2gb.exe on a drive/partition with free space > 2 GB to make sure the patched files work properly with 2 GB or larger files:

I have tested it on both tweaked 98SE and "from scratch" 98SE. Works ok.

* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE 2-4 GB Files Errors KERNEL32.DLL (4.10.2002 for Win98/98 SP1 + 4.10.2226 for Win98 SE) Fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=318293

Direct download [349 KB, English]:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE

More info:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=81200

_______________________________________

These are the anonymous author's replies to MSFN members questions:

I am attaching the fixed Win98FE version of KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2002 and

I have a few answers to questions in the forum.

Pre-enlargement is very useful: If there is not enough disk space to copy

a 2-to-4-GiByte file, it is detected sooner. It also prevents the scenario

of another process reducing the available free space to a point where the

really lengthy copy process of a 2-to-4-GiByte file fails before it

finishes.

On Aug. 31 2006, 04:43 PM, 'erpdude8' wrote:

Q: thanks MDGx. what version of SHELL32.DLL file should he patch? the one

from MS02-014/313829 (version 4.72.3812.600) for Win9x. or how about the

SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3843.3100 (for NT4) from MS04-037/841356? or

the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3841.1100 (for NT4) from MS04-024/839645

even?

A: I already patched version 4.72.3812.600 --> ...610 some time ago and it

is the only version being _considered_ for release. I am afraid I have no

time to patch any other versions.

On Sept. 1, 2006, 01:22 PM, 'erpdude8' wrote:

Q: MDGx, I have some questions about the "MORESTAK: Windows 9x/ME 16-bit

Programs Stack Memory Patch" listed on your page. How do you use it? Do I

have to run MORESTAK.EXE in native DOS or while Win98/ME is running. Do I

have to specify which 16bit EXE files (like WINFILE.EXE and PROGMAN.EXE)

that needed to be patched by MORESTAK.EXE.? Documentation on using

MORESTAK.EXE is still unclear and the utility is not in english. How do I

really know MORESTAK.EXE did its job?

A: I would seriously question the benefits of this program in most

instances. The author of MORESTAK probably was experiencing the bug in

KRNL386.EXE, which has been fixed in 4.10.1999. If too small a stack were

an issue with many 16-bit programs, U891711 and U918547 (as examples)

would be crashing "frequently" and I would have given them a stack larger

than the 8192 bytes M$soft set it to.

On Sept. 1, 2006, 08:26 PM, 'eidenk' wrote:

> I had expected to witness a "battle of the 2GB+ patchers" but it did not

> happen so I have learned nothing.

Battle? Chances are zero to none. I have a life!

> And anonymous had said that the 137GB LLXX patch was not good because it

> was not patching enough code if I recall correctly.

Outdated! The remaining issue is about the 8 NOPs. LLXX's explanation does

not make any sense. The NOPs are in 4.00.950 to begin with, and most

versions, in particular 4.90.3000, saw major changes (and recompilations)

for power management and so forth. If obsolete, they would have long been

discovered and removed. My advice is, if the driver works, great - if not,

keep this modification as a cause in mind. That's all. And if LLXX is

willing to listen, she will put them back in.

Hope this helps.

_______________________________________

LLXX:

I'm not sure why, but MDGx is the only one here to say that Make2Gb didn't work with my patched 2226 kernel. All others, and confirmed testing on my own (virtual and real) machines show otherwise. Perhaps that is his reason for release the one he thinks to be working?

I have tested your kernel32.dll 4.10.2225 on a "from scratch" 98SE system and make2gb.exe works properly now.

Thanks.

The release of the alternative [if you want to call them that] kernel patches by anonymous author has nothing to do with my testing of or my opinions about your patches.

The anonymous author saw this thread, probably tested your patches [?], and decided to create his own afterwards.

Everything I received in email form anonymous author is posted here [please see above].

I have nothing to do with this.

I do appreciate your work and your contribution to 9x OSes "life extension" greatly, as I'm sure many others do too.

I'm not trying to start a competition or whatever else some may want to call it.

All I'm trying to do is provide the best updates I can get a hold of, so everybody can benefit in equal measure.

Best wishes.

HTH

Edited September 4, 2006 by MDGx

[LLXX]

I'm not sure why, but MDGx is the only one here to say that Make2Gb didn't work with my patched 2226 kernel. All others, and confirmed testing on my own (virtual and real) machines show otherwise. Perhaps that is his reason for release the one he thinks to be working?

I have tested your kernel32.dll 4.10.2225 on a "from scratch" 98SE system and make2gb.exe works properly now.

Thanks.

Would it be possible for you to test which patch broke MAKE2GB?

[MDGx]

Would it be possible for you to test which patch broke MAKE2GB?

It was your kernel32.dll 4.10.2225 patch, but I tested it back then on an extremely tweaked 98SE OS.

It works ok on a fresh 98SE install, though.

[erpdude8]

Q: thanks MDGx. what version of SHELL32.DLL file should he patch? the one

from MS02-014/313829 (version 4.72.3812.600) for Win9x. or how about the

SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3843.3100 (for NT4) from MS04-037/841356? or

the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3841.1100 (for NT4) from MS04-024/839645

even?

A: I already patched version 4.72.3812.600 --> ...610 some time ago and it

is the only version being _considered_ for release. I am afraid I have no

time to patch any other versions.

I have made some mods with 4.72.3812.6nn of shell32.dll files in Resource Hacker that will either remove the "shortcut arrows" on shortcut icons or replaced the regular shortcut arrows with light arrows.

I will have to assume that the SHELL32.DLL MS04-024 and MS04-037 security updates for NT4 also prevent the ability to change or remove the "shortcut arrows" on shortcut icons. This behavior began after installing the SHELL32.DLL MS02-014 security update for Win95/98/NT4.

Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.

Much of this site goes against M$ EULA anyway - nLite, some unattended setup files, etc. Also, remember that M$ provides no support for Win9x anymore. If they were to complain about the contents of this site, the projects in these subforums definitely won't be their first target. I'd say http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=23719 is more vulnerable to legal threat.

...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA

I have to agree somewhat of what LLXX said. I dont have a problem with these "patched" files being redistributed as long as they work correctly and not cause crashes.

besides, M$ ended ALL support for Win98FE/98SE/ME on July 11, 2006 and have left these OSes in the dust.

ah forget what Mr. Loew thinks about Enable48bitLBA; if the unofficial ESDI_506.PDR patches work better than Loew's solutions, then they might be a nice alternative than having to pay for his software.

[Tijay]

On this place here ; many thanks to glocK_94 for his german translated kernel32.dll. I´ve tested it now 2 days and my anoying "mmtask error" has gone. Works as original one. Thanks for your support.

Tijay

[Eck]

I just installed the 2225 version of the patch from the first post.

Reason - I wanted to download Vista RC1. Apparently the Microsoft download does not install its download manager on 98SE so only the web browser download link works. Thinking better of trusting IE to download that big a file without some error occuring I installed GetRight. I have a license for that but don't always install it unless I need an exceptionaly large file like this one.

GetRight reported that I won't have enough disk space for the file but continued to download it anyway.

Thinking I could fix this with your Kernel.dll patch I checked which version I had and saved it and installed your 2225 in command prompt only mode.

Now, GetRight is still reporting I won't have enough disk space when starting the download. Of course, I do have enough disk space.

Does this likely mean that because I installed your patch I shouldn't have any problem when the download completes and GetRight starts moving stuff around when it renames the file? It likely uses Windows Explorer to move stuff between its Cache and where the file is finally saved to. Not sure, but I think it works that way.

The Vista download is not more than the 4GB file limit of FAT32 so it shouldn't really be a problem. But it is over 2GB. I think that's why GetRight is reporting it's too big for my available disk space.

So, is this just a cosmetic error now? Meaning that although programs used to dealing with the 2GB bug automatically expect there to be a problem with a bigger file so they offer that error message like GetRight showed me. However, since I installed your patched Kernel.dll there will be no problem actually dealing with the larger than 2GB file?

What do you suggest? It's downloading and reports about 3 hours left so we'll see what happens.

[Drugwash]

If you have enough HDD space, you might try the following: download and install FlashGet (adware - banner - unless registered), go to Options > Other > Advanced (branch) --> "Allocates disk space after get filesize" and then add a large file to the list (the same Vista one or similar). Upon starting the download, FlashGet will get the file size from the server and will try to allocate the same size on the HDD as a file called <filename>.jc! prior to starting the download (a very good anti-fragmentation method used in some DC clients too, only that it doesn't move the file, it only renames it when download finished, unless you specifically chose to move it into a certain category). If there's any problem with the patched kernel, something bad should happen at that point (hopefully it won't).

[Eck]

Hmmm, "Create empty files on the hard drive as soon as files are added" is a checked by default option in the GetRight advanced options section.

There is another option not checked to do extra write caching to reduce disk activity. Then it says that as this will reduce actual writing there are more possiblilities of failures and it might increase the need for more frequent resumptions of downloads.

I'm up to 1467MB with about 2 and 1/2 hours left. I should know soon about at least getting past the first 2GB stage. The second stage I'm worried about is when GetRight is finished and tries to complete the download.

I'm wondering why GetRight thinks it doesn't have enough space when it starts the download. The message recommends that I try choosing another location, but lets me just click OK and the download proceeds.

I just scandisk'd and defrag'd yesterday using the Windows Me versions from the 98SE2ME pack that's installed. That should help, anyway. Cleaned out the temp internet files and the temp folders too.

We'll see soon. I hope the Kernel.dll 2225 version that I had wasn't some kind of patched version that has fixes that are not in this version. It's just the one that was there after using Gape's Service Pack, 98SE2ME, 98SE2XP, and 98SEMP10. I have no idea whether those pack's just update to the Microsoft standard 2225 version or they provide some bug fixes they add to the file.

Windows booted up and is running fine so far though. I just used Word to print out the above post so Office still works too.

[Drugwash]

I hope the Kernel.dll 2225 version that I had wasn't some kind of patched version that has fixes that are not in this version.

This issue should have its own topic (I hope I didn't miss it if it already exists). There are several patched versions of certain files, but there are no patchers. So if one wants/needs two or more of those modifications applied to his/her file... surprise.

Not to mention that patchers could be feasible for files in different languages than English, when the patch creator can't/wouldn't waste time with patching each file version individually.

As for GetRight, I'm not at all familiar with it, but a wild guess would be that if it's set to move the file from a temporary location to a final one, it may require 2x file length of initial HDD free space.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Drugwash

[LLXX]

So... I should fix GetRight too?

I have FlashGet 1.50, I think I've downloaded several 2GB+ files with it before... files that I couldn't move with Explorer until I switched over to the fixed kernel - actually, the file in my first post with an attached JPG (first page) was download with FlashGet IIRC.

[Eck]

Heh.

Nah, I don't even know if GetRight needs fixing. I'm just guessing about why that message about needing more space came up even after applying the Kernel.dll fix.

Further info - As soon as this Vista download moved past 2GB my hard drive started thrashing. I'm assuming this is because Virtual Memory is now being used. I have a min and max limit on that of 1536 so I hope that won't be a problem.

GetRight is happily continuing downloading away though. The hard drive is not excessively thrashing, just noticably doing more work. No Windows slowdown is occuring. Actually it's behaving a lot better than Windows XP does when NeroRecode is encoding at high quality.

No idea why the hard drive suddenly started working besides that Virtual Memory idea. Got less than an hour left so we'll see. Could also just be AVGFree doing its background scanning.

Not familiar with how GetRight does it exactly. It does put a GetRight extention on the end of the file while it's downloading then renames it to the original name when done. The file appears in the folder it's downloading to while it's downloading. For all I know it just renames the file when it's done.

That double the disk space guess could be it.