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. 


Petr

Corrected FDISK and FORMAT

Recommended Posts

Does anybody know - is there anywhere some good description of this?

Can you be more specific?

Look at the link I posted in reply on the other thread:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...85729&st=15

The general reference for everything MBR/Bootsector related is the Starman's realm:

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/

Some info on geometry and bootsectors can be found on my page:

http://home.graffiti.net/jaclaz:graffiti.n...B/USBstick.html

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried to correct wrong display in Windows 98 SE FDISK.EXE and FORMAT.COM.

FDISK.EXE from Q263044 can handle even disks above 137 GB but the display is everywhere limited to 5 digits, on some places the last digit is truncated but most often it appears in the next field and shifts all subsequent values to the right, the result is almost unreadable. The same problem is with FDISK.EXE from Windows Me.

I have increased the display to 6 digits and I hope it works everywhere, please test it. There was too many modifications so I could make a mistake. For sizes >=100GB there is no space between the word before this number and this number, it would be necessary to shorten the text on some place and I think this is acceptable behavior.

FORMAT.COM from Windows 98 SE has limited the size of in the "Formatting.." message to 5 characters before the decimal dot, but including the thousand comma. The result is that the size for disks above 10 GB was shown incorrectly, in very confusing way: If the size was 12,345.67 MB, then the display was 12,34.67 MB - very bad.

It was easy to correct this behavior by extending the size to 6 characters, this correction is already made in Windows Me FORMAT.COM. Unfortunately there is another limit - the size in megabytes is 16-bit integer and therefore the biggest displayable size is 65,535.99 MB. 80 GB disk appears as 10758 MB disk (76293 - 65536).

It would be possible to rewrite the display routine but I'm nit sure if it is worth the effort.

Here are the corrected files, please test:

disktools.zip

Petr

If you have time Petr, can you also patch the Win98 FE (1st edition) version of FDISK.EXE. Look at MS article 263044. File sizes for the Win98FE and Win98SE versions of the FDISK.EXE files are different.

Q263044 Fdisk.exe for Win98 FE is 64428 bytes in size while Fdisk.exe for Win98 SE is 64460 bytes in size.

However, BOTH Win98 FE and SE versions of original FORMAT.COM file have same identical size [49575 bytes]. It looks like the patched FORMAT.COM file you made CAN be used under both Win98 FE and SE.

After making the patched Fdisk.exe file for Win98 FE, the unofficial Fdisk.exe/Format.com patch made by MDGx will have to be re-packaged to include both the FE and SE editions of Fdisk.exe.

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have time Petr, can you also patch the Win98 FE (1st edition) version of FDISK.EXE. Look at MS article 263044. File sizes for the Win98FE and Win98SE versions of the FDISK.EXE files are different.

Q263044 Fdisk.exe for Win98 FE is 64428 bytes in size while Fdisk.exe for Win98 SE is 64460 bytes in size.

However, BOTH Win98 FE and SE versions of original FORMAT.COM file have same identical size [49575 bytes]. It looks like the patched FORMAT.COM file you made CAN be used under both Win98 FE and SE.

After making the patched Fdisk.exe file for Win98 FE, the unofficial Fdisk.exe/Format.com patch made by MDGx will have to be re-packaged to include both the FE and SE editions of Fdisk.exe.

Yes, I know, I'm just waiting for any feedback, after verification that SE version works perfectly I can modify FE and ME versions too.

On the other hand I have no idea what should be the difference between W95 OSR2, W98, W98SE and WMe versions of FDISK (with exception for check for DOS version 7.1 or 8.0)? Is there different letter ordering? Are there different requirements on partition type, size, position? Or should I just make one version working on all systems?

Petr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted here:

* Unofficial Windows 98 SE Display Errors FORMAT.COM + FDISK.EXE Fix:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=85573

Direct download [110 KB, English]:

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

This NEWer FDISK.EXE Fix replaces OLDer Q263044 FDISK.EXE Fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263044

Keep up the good work, Petr.

Does this means Q263044 is obselete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand I have no idea what should be the difference between W95 OSR2, W98, W98SE and WMe versions of FDISK (with exception for check for DOS version 7.1 or 8.0)? Is there different letter ordering? Are there different requirements on partition type, size, position? Or should I just make one version working on all systems?
Kill the versioncheck on and fix the ME version and release that. Supposedly M$ has already corrected some small bugs in the ME version so you won't need to do as much ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated installer with new files [11-7-2006]:

* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Display Errors FORMAT.COM + FDISK.EXE Fix:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=85573

Direct download [110 KB, English]:

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

This NEWer FDISK.EXE Fix replaces OLDer Q263044 FDISK.EXE Fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=263044

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have tried to correct wrong display in Windows 98 SE FDISK.EXE and FORMAT.COM.

Hmmm....

If you are a good programmer you could have a look at FreeDOS FDISK. It is mostly done, it works

(I tested up to 10GB), and full LBA48 support up to 2 TB (if anyone needs this, I don't) should be easily doable if not yet present. It unfortunately seems to lack a maintainer by now.

BTW, FreeDOS FDISK fakes the (slightly silly) M$-FDISK design ... and does not have advanced features like partition resising without data loss.

BTW: The newest FreeDOS DEFRAG 1.2.1 should support FAT32 now !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are a good programmer you could have a look at FreeDOS FDISK. It is mostly done, it works

(I tested up to 10GB), and full LBA48 support up to 2 TB (if anyone needs this, I don't) should be easily doable if not yet present. It unfortunately seems to lack a maintainer by now.

I'm not good programmer (better to say no programmer at all).

I tested Q263044 fdisk and it worked with many partitions and with 250GB disk.

AFAIK there is nothing like LBA48 support in FDISK, LBA48 must be supported by BIOS.

The advantage of Q263044 fdisk is that it is localized to many languages.

Everything what I did was correction of display in case of disk above 99999 MB.

I have not heard about any problem with MS Q263044 FDISK yet.

In fact there is absolutely no feedback so I don't know if everything is correct or not.

Petr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have tried to correct wrong display in Windows 98 SE FDISK.EXE and FORMAT.COM.

Hmmm....

If you are a good programmer you could have a look at FreeDOS FDISK. It is mostly done, it works

(I tested up to 10GB)

10GB isn't saying much... M$'s own FDISK has a higher limit than that :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I succesfully partitioned a 160 Gb (2x80 RAID 0) volume with Free FDISK... :o

Anyway i would ALWAYS prefer open source softwares over clodes ones, due to the possibility to adapt and improve them.

As already mentioned:

FreeDOS defrag is a project to recreate all of the features of the traditional defrag program. But it will go very much beyond the posibilities of the commercial product.

It will support FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 and will leave your long file names intact. Which means that it will still be a great utility for people using old versions of windows, like win95 or win98.

Official website ;)

Edited by patchworks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! I thought I had this topic all figgered out, and then I read

this entire thread, front to back. Yeeeeks! I'm hosed! :lol:

Y'know, they say that ignorance is Bliss and I guess that's true.

I fixed the problem with the Windows 98/SE boot floppy that I've used for

years, not being able to set up LARGE HD's. I started using a Win-ME

boot disk. In spite of a few small partition size 'irregularities', the ME

FDISK and Format allowed me to set up my brand new 200 gig IDE drive

just last week. I know that format reports the wrong disk size, but that

just didn't bother me. It formatted the HD partition out to its max size

anyway, without ever a whimper.

Now I find I'm using faulty software. OH Yukkkkk!

I think I'll say a big "10-4" LLXX's comment "Kill the versioncheck on and fix the ME version and release that. Supposedly M$ has already corrected some small bugs in the ME version so you won't need to do as much."

I'm not sure if the 'versioncheck' would have to be "fixed" if the boot disk was just 100% ME from the format on....

I love my ME Boot disk, because it also installs CD drivers when it boots up my system. :wub:

I'd really love to have that "fixed" version of ME's Format. The ME format already does the job, but like what's already been said, it mucks up the numbers on the partition size.

I still use it exclusively, whether I'm formatting a HD for Winders 98 or Winders XP. :thumbup

Heck, I'd even make a monetary contribution to someone fixing that annoying little glitch. :whistle:

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

Andromeda43 B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andromeda, if you had read this thread you would see that this fix has nothing to do with LBA. So this fix is purely cosmetical. However this fix still doesn't fix the display problem with HDD's over 60 GB, so it's pretty useless to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andromeda, if you had read this thread you would see that this fix has nothing to do with LBA. So this fix is purely cosmetical. However this fix still doesn't fix the display problem with HDD's over 60 GB, so it's pretty useless to me.

What "problem with HDD's over 60 GB"?

I don't know about any remaining problem? Please report it.

Petr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andromeda, if you had read this thread you would see that this fix has nothing to do with LBA. So this fix is purely cosmetical. However this fix still doesn't fix the display problem with HDD's over 60 GB, so it's pretty useless to me.

What "problem with HDD's over 60 GB"?

I don't know about any remaining problem? Please report it.

Petr

It was easy to correct this behavior by extending the size to 6 characters, this correction is already made in Windows Me FORMAT.COM. Unfortunately there is another limit - the size in megabytes is 16-bit integer and therefore the biggest displayable size is 65,535.99 MB. 80 GB disk appears as 10758 MB disk (76293 - 65536).

It would be possible to rewrite the display routine but I'm nit sure if it is worth the effort.

I was confused about FDISK and FORMAT. Do you have an alternative for the MS-DOS format tool?

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...