Do USB 2.0 hardrives have the same 137GB limitations under Windows 98 / 98SE and ME?

Would LLXX's 137GB patch work on a USB hardrive?

I highly doubt that esdi_506.pdr has anything to do with USB storage. I am currently using a 320 GB (decimal gigabytes) harddisk in a USB enclosure w/o problems. My local harddisks also aren't being accessed via esdi_506.

hmm, that is probably right which means the limit for usb 2.0 hdds are 2tb

Well that is good news!

I think this alone will be a crucial factor in the survival of Windows 98 long into the future.

Lets just hope and prey Windows 98 will be able to support USB 3 when its released.

hmm, i dunno when will it be realeased?

if you could make another generic driver it could work

I don't think there are any plans for USB 3.0 yet (unless its as a wireless technology???) but just in general, I think Win9x's big test for long time survival will be if it can handle the next interface upgrade.

Edited March 21, 200719 yr by galahs

I have a 500 Gig Seagate on Windows Me and it has about 250 gig filled on it so far with no problems. And i also have (2) 250 Gig Western Digitals hooked up for over a year with no problems. I have read in a couple places USB

DOES NOT have the 137 Gig limitation. And if you see the drives i have listed above in this post i have had no problems. So you are safe and can add the big USB harddrive to your computer with no problems.

Let's make this clear...

The modded driver ESDI_506.PDR:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=78592

compatible with Hard Drives (HD) larger than 137 GB is used by Windows 9x [95/98/ME] only if the hard drive(s) is/are (E)IDE/(U)ATA/(U)DMA [PATA] and only if the hard drive(s) is/are connected to the motherboard chipset (E)IDE controller(s) interface(s).

The mobo chipset + mobo (E)IDE controller(s) must be 48-bit LBA compliant = they must support HDs > 137 GB.

Otherwise, if the (E)/IDE/(U)ATA/(U)DMA [PATA] or SRAM USB [fake HD] drive(s) is/are connected to any other drive controller/interface, like SCSI, RAID, SATA, USB, FireWire etc, the modded ESDI_506.PDR driver does *not* apply.

If using VIA [or any other non-Intel] motherboard chipsets, these usually install their own HD drivers, which [all newer versions] should be compatible with HDs > 137 GB. In such cases ESDI_506.PDR is *not* used.

Glossary:

http://www.mdgx.com/glossary.htm

ATA = Advanced Technology Attachment (ANSI standard for Integrated Drive Electronics).

EIDE = Enhanced Integrated Device Electronics (Hard Disk Drive interface).

IDE = Integrated Device (Drive) Electronics (Hard Disk Drive interface).

ATAPI = Advanced Technology Attachment Packet Interface.

DMA = Direct Memory Access.

U-ATA = Ultra Advanced Technology Attachment (EIDE/ATA disk controller/drive).

UDMA = Ultra Direct Memory Access (EIDE/ATA disk controller/drive).

Ultra ATA = Ultra Advanced Technology Attachment (EIDE/ATA disk controller/drive).

Ultra DMA = Ultra Direct Memory Access (EIDE drive controller).

SATA = Serial Advanced Technology Attachment Hard Disk Drive standard (Western Digital).

PATA = Parallel Advanced Technology Attachment Hard Disk Drive standard.

RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive (Independent) Disks.

SCSI = Small Computers System Interface Hard Disk Drive standard.

SRAM = Static Random Access Memory.

USB = Universal Serial Bus standard.

VIA = VIA Technologies (Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturer).

When in doubt, there's always Wikipedia:

http://www.wikipedia.org/

HTH [Hope This Helps]

Thanks for the MDGx

Wwwwow! I can hook a USB HDD up to w98se!! Didn't think I could do that

I have an ASUS CUV4X mobo with P3-coppermine and VIA VT82C694Z NB (AGP4x + 133 FSB) and VIA VT82C686A SB (UDMA and USB).

The features and setup pages don't say specify USB 1 or 2. However, the appendix gives a definition of USB with "supports synchronous and asynchronous transfer types over the same set of wires up to 12Mbit/sec. USB 2.0 provides twice the transfer rate of USB 1.0"

The driver is VIA Tech 3038 PCI to USB Universal Host Controller by MS, dated 4-23-1999, file version 4.10.2223 (system32\drivers\uhcd.sys, usbhub.sys, usbd.sys ; system\vmm32\ntkern; system\usbui.dll; system).

----

What do I have to do? Are any features a must for 98se? Do they require their own proprietary drivers (probably not available now)?

Try the Native USB mass storage drivers:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=43605

Let's make this clear...

The modded driver ESDI_506.PDR:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=78592

is used by Windows 9x [95/98/ME] only if the hard drive(s) is/are (E)IDE/(U)ATA/(U)DMA [PATA] and only if the hard drive(s) is/are connected to the motherboard chipset (E)IDE controller(s) interface(s).

You're wrong in at least this:

A SATA drive will use ESDI_506.PDR if the SATA interface has not been configured (via bios) to be used in RAID mode (or to be controlled through the RAID controller).

If you connect a SATA drive and DO NOT select it to be controlled by the RAID controller, then the SATA drive will be mapped to appear as an EIDE hard drive and EDSI_506.PDR will be used to access it.

A SATA drive does not have to be used as part of a RAID set in order to be controlled by the RAID controller. Even a single SATA drive can be set such that it is controlled by the RAID controller.

If Win-98 is installed on a SATA drive that is controlled by a RAID controller, it will use DOS-compatibility mode access until the motherboard drivers are installed, specifically the RAID drivers. Once the raid drivers are installed, the raid controller will appear as a SCSI controller in the device manager list.

Regarding specifically what I think is the first Intel chipset with SATA-Raid support (ICH5R) I have not been able to get ICH5R working correctly in RAID mode on Win-98, but have done so with ITE and Silicon Image controllers (SATA-1.5).

One thing I haven't heard of yet is whether or not SATA-3.0 has been known to work under win-98.

Finally, I believe that if you remove (or rename) ESDI_506.PDR, such that win-98 won't (can't) find it during startup, then win-98 will resort to compatibility mode (DOS-mode?) to access all hard drives, which presumably means that you can then use drives larger than 137 gb no problem - but with some unspecified (or un-quantified) reduction in performance. What I don't know is if there is any other down-side to this.

then win-98 will resort to compatibility mode (DOS-mode?) to access all hard drives, which presumably means that you can then use drives larger than 137 gb no problem

I'm not so sure about this. I experienced data corruption when writing to a drive connected via a RAID controller in dos mode.

You're wrong in at least this:

A SATA drive will use ESDI_506.PDR if the SATA interface has not been configured (via bios) to be used in RAID mode (or to be controlled through the RAID controller).

If you connect a SATA drive and DO NOT select it to be controlled by the RAID controller, then the SATA drive will be mapped to appear as an EIDE hard drive and EDSI_506.PDR will be used to access it.

Sorry, I have no experience with SATA in Win9x.

But I know that if Win9x doesn't properly recognize the SATA controller [or whatever other drive controller] as a "familiar" [iDE or other standard] drive, it will default to the slower "MS-DOS compatibility mode", and will eventually ask for a better driver to match the hardware.

Even if a SATA controller appears as a fake (E)IDE controller to the Win9x device manager, in certain cases ESDI_506.PDR cannot correctly map the drive, depending on the specific SATA controller manufacturer, because some don't care to provide backward compatibility with IDE/ATAPI [PATA] standards.

But if using a SATA-to-(E)IDE converter hooked directly into the drive interface to connect the SATA drive to the standard mobo (E)IDE controller [instead of connecting the SATA drive to the SATA controller, either in RAID or normal mode, that doesn't matter], then any SATA drive will appear as standard (E)IDE, and the ESDI_506.PDR driver will recognize and use it.

HTH