need 98 Guy's help

98 Guy, some time ago (maybe 2 years or so) you posted extensive
information on partition sizes, cluster sizes, and whether Win 98 tools
(scandskw, defrag) worked properly. Wish I'd saved them!

Did you happen to save your posts or still have that information
available?

Specifically what I'd like to do is increase the size of a current 126GB
(fat32) partition. The tools here (scandskw and defrag) have been
updated to the last used for Win ME. Would like to make the partition at
least 50% (190GB) larger but am concerned as to whether the house
keeping tools will poop-out and screw-up the partition!

If you (or anyone else) have (has) the extensive information you posted
on partition/cluster sizes and the effectiveness of scandskw and defrag
on partitions over 127GB, I'd REALLY appreciate it !!

Thanks

 

someone watching wrote:

> 98 Guy, some time ago (maybe 2 years or so) you posted extensive
> information on partition sizes, cluster sizes, and whether Win 98
> tools (scandskw, defrag) worked properly. Wish I'd saved them!
>
> Did you happen to save your posts or still have that information
> available?

Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com) should also
still have them.

> Specifically what I'd like to do is increase the size of a
> current 126GB (fat32) partition. The tools here (scandskw
> and defrag) have been updated to the last used for Win ME.

> Would like to make the partition at least 50% (190GB) larger
> but am concerned as to whether the house keeping tools will
> poop-out and screw-up the partition!

Your main concern should not be about scandisk and defrag.

Your first concern should be the issue regarding win-98's protected mode
hard disk driver (esdi_506.pdr).

If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with it if
it's larger than 128 gb.

It doesn't matter *how* you partition or format the drive. It doesn't
matter if you create several partitions or logical drives and they're
all less than 128 gb. If the drive itself is larger than 128 gb then it
will become screwed up if Win98 tries to access it (write to it) past
the 128 gb point on the drive.

Again, if the drive is an IDE type, connected to the system's
motherboard using the typical (wide) ribbon cable, and you are using the
original Win-98 driver file (esdi_506.pdr) then you really can't use a
hard drive larger than 128 gb.

If your system has a certain Intel chipset, then you can replace the
esdi_506.pdr with an alternative that is found inside a package called
the "Intel Application Accelerator". If that is not the case for you,
then there are two alternative sources for modified versions of the esdi
driver. One you have to pay for, and one is free. Information about
both of those can be found on the msfn.org website in windows 9x/me
forum.

If you have an external USB drive, or an internal or external SATA
drive, then this issue of the 128 gb limitation can be somewhat easily
ignored or dealt with.

 

Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
Answered within:

"98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message news:4A003E12.BBCB3A02@guy.com...
> someone watching wrote:
>
>> 98 Guy, some time ago (maybe 2 years or so) you posted extensive
>> information on partition sizes, cluster sizes, and whether Win 98
>> tools (scandskw, defrag) worked properly. Wish I'd saved them!
>>
>> Did you happen to save your posts or still have that information
>> available?
>
> Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com) should also
> still have them.
>


If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would be
appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)


>> Specifically what I'd like to do is increase the size of a
>> current 126GB (fat32) partition. The tools here (scandskw
>> and defrag) have been updated to the last used for Win ME.
>
>> Would like to make the partition at least 50% (190GB) larger
>> but am concerned as to whether the house keeping tools will
>> poop-out and screw-up the partition!
>
> Your main concern should not be about scandisk and defrag.
>
> Your first concern should be the issue regarding win-98's protected
> mode
> hard disk driver (esdi_506.pdr).
>
> If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with it if
> it's larger than 128 gb.
>


All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's, 500's
and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information from these
drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have partition sizes
less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the critical factor, not
HDD size)


> It doesn't matter *how* you partition or format the drive. It doesn't
> matter if you create several partitions or logical drives and they're
> all less than 128 gb. If the drive itself is larger than 128 gb then
> it
> will become screwed up if Win98 tries to access it (write to it) past
> the 128 gb point on the drive.
>
> Again, if the drive is an IDE type, connected to the system's
> motherboard using the typical (wide) ribbon cable, and you are using
> the
> original Win-98 driver file (esdi_506.pdr) then you really can't use a
> hard drive larger than 128 gb.
>


OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches from
Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch for 98,
also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS patched esdi_506.pdr.
Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully use
Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?


> If your system has a certain Intel chipset, then you can replace the
> esdi_506.pdr with an alternative that is found inside a package called
> the "Intel Application Accelerator". If that is not the case for you,
> then there are two alternative sources for modified versions of the
> esdi
> driver. One you have to pay for, and one is free. Information about
> both of those can be found on the msfn.org website in windows 9x/me
> forum.
>
> If you have an external USB drive, or an internal or external SATA
> drive, then this issue of the 128 gb limitation can be somewhat easily
> ignored or dealt with.

We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have kept
all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB USB drive can
be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and defrag even if there
is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy, that'd be something)

Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
(scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For example, a
slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of 16,384 bytes. But didn't
you try using 4K clusters and report on the effectiveness of Win's disk
tools? (again, this is all from memory from some time back)

The plan here is to keep 98 as long as possible, but with multimedia
file sizes ever growing I need to take advantage of whatever 98 can do.
Thus, the larger the partition it can handle (even with mods) the
better, but also in some cases the smaller the cluster size the better
(I have MANY TENS of THOUSANDS of small sized files which make much
better use of disk space with small clusters). But you did the work to
know what was what when it come to partition/cluster size, access times
(?) etc. on 98 so I appreciate your input!

Thanks

 

Before you accept further info regarding this activity, read this heading
and related via Google and other archived materials from this group pursuant
this purported knowledge this entity proposes:

"The fraud who is 98 Guy - Ninety8 Guy -- was Re: Using Defrag from Win2000"

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"someone watching" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:eJisZ0YzJHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
> Answered within:
>
> "98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message news:4A003E12.BBCB3A02@guy.com...
> > someone watching wrote:
> >
> >> 98 Guy, some time ago (maybe 2 years or so) you posted extensive
> >> information on partition sizes, cluster sizes, and whether Win 98
> >> tools (scandskw, defrag) worked properly. Wish I'd saved them!
> >>
> >> Did you happen to save your posts or still have that information
> >> available?
> >
> > Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com) should also
> > still have them.
> >
>
>
> If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would be
> appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)
>
>
> >> Specifically what I'd like to do is increase the size of a
> >> current 126GB (fat32) partition. The tools here (scandskw
> >> and defrag) have been updated to the last used for Win ME.
> >
> >> Would like to make the partition at least 50% (190GB) larger
> >> but am concerned as to whether the house keeping tools will
> >> poop-out and screw-up the partition!
> >
> > Your main concern should not be about scandisk and defrag.
> >
> > Your first concern should be the issue regarding win-98's protected
> > mode
> > hard disk driver (esdi_506.pdr).
> >
> > If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with it if
> > it's larger than 128 gb.
> >
>
>
> All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's, 500's
> and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information from these
> drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have partition sizes
> less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the critical factor, not
> HDD size)
>
>
> > It doesn't matter *how* you partition or format the drive. It doesn't
> > matter if you create several partitions or logical drives and they're
> > all less than 128 gb. If the drive itself is larger than 128 gb then
> > it
> > will become screwed up if Win98 tries to access it (write to it) past
> > the 128 gb point on the drive.
> >
> > Again, if the drive is an IDE type, connected to the system's
> > motherboard using the typical (wide) ribbon cable, and you are using
> > the
> > original Win-98 driver file (esdi_506.pdr) then you really can't use a
> > hard drive larger than 128 gb.
> >
>
>
> OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches from
> Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch for 98,
> also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS patched esdi_506.pdr.
> Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully use
> Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?
>
>
> > If your system has a certain Intel chipset, then you can replace the
> > esdi_506.pdr with an alternative that is found inside a package called
> > the "Intel Application Accelerator". If that is not the case for you,
> > then there are two alternative sources for modified versions of the
> > esdi
> > driver. One you have to pay for, and one is free. Information about
> > both of those can be found on the msfn.org website in windows 9x/me
> > forum.
> >
> > If you have an external USB drive, or an internal or external SATA
> > drive, then this issue of the 128 gb limitation can be somewhat easily
> > ignored or dealt with.
>
> We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have kept
> all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB USB drive can
> be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and defrag even if there
> is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy, that'd be something)
>
> Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
> (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For example, a
> slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of 16,384 bytes. But didn't
> you try using 4K clusters and report on the effectiveness of Win's disk
> tools? (again, this is all from memory from some time back)
>
> The plan here is to keep 98 as long as possible, but with multimedia
> file sizes ever growing I need to take advantage of whatever 98 can do.
> Thus, the larger the partition it can handle (even with mods) the
> better, but also in some cases the smaller the cluster size the better
> (I have MANY TENS of THOUSANDS of small sized files which make much
> better use of disk space with small clusters). But you did the work to
> know what was what when it come to partition/cluster size, access times
> (?) etc. on 98 so I appreciate your input!
>
> Thanks
>
>

 

someone watching wrote:

> Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
> Answered within:



> > Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com)
> > should also still have them.
>
> If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would
> be appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)

Subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
Date: Feb 22, 2007 to Feb 26, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/ch8935

See also:

Subject:
Win-98 and large hard drives, custom cluster size (new information)
Date: July 21, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/cn2yur

> > If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with
> > it if it's larger than 128 gb.
>
> All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's,
> 500's and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information
> from these drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have
> partition sizes less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the
> critical factor, not HDD size)

> OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches
> from Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation
> Patch for 98, also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS
> patched esdi_506.pdr.

> Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully
> use Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?

You can read and write to the hard drives you mention above because you
have the RLoew version of esdi_506.pdr. If you did not have it, you
wouldn't be able to do it. This is assuming the drives are IDE and not
SATA.

Microsoft released a 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 version of esdi_506.pdr in
March 2000. The .2226 version was for certain models of IBM laptops. I
think the reason for these updates was only to correct a problem with
certain phoenix bios's in conjunction with hard drives larger than 32
gb.

The .2225 file is named 243450USA8.EXE and can be downloaded from:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98se/update/5638-6151/w98/en-us/243450usa8.exe

There is no limitation that I'm aware of regarding the max size of a
volume that win-98 can recognize, other than perhaps the max limit of
the FAT32 file system, which is either 2 tb or 8 tb (terra-byte).

The main issue with regard to win-98 (and specifically it's hard-drive
maintainence tools) is the number of clusters that a volume has.

> We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have
> kept all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB
> USB drive can be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and
> defrag even if there is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy,
> that'd be something)

I'd have to go back and read my old posts. First thing is to replace
the win-98 versions of scandisk and defrag with the files from Windows
Me. Second thing is to not create a volume that exceeds a certain
number of clusters (I forget what the limit is for windows-me scandisk
and defrag).

> Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
> (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For
> example, a slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of
> 16,384 bytes. But didn't you try using 4K clusters and report
> on the effectiveness of Win's disk tools? (again, this is all
> from memory from some time back)

Yes. If you read those posts, you'll get a better idea of where the
limitations are.

> Thanks

Your welcome.

 

Thanks a lot for your efforts. I'm going to try the >128GB partition
with default cluster sizes (hopefully will have time soon). Would also
like to experiment with smaller cluster sizes on some partitions, again
when time permits.

Will save your posts, they are a valuable resource.
Thanks very much!
___
"98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message news:4A0102B4.EE4A7B08@guy.com...
> someone watching wrote:
>
> > Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
> > Answered within:
>
>
>
> > > Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com)
> > > should also still have them.
> >
> > If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would
> > be appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)
>
> Subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
> Date: Feb 22, 2007 to Feb 26, 2007
> http://tinyurl.com/ch8935
>
> See also:
>
> Subject:
> Win-98 and large hard drives, custom cluster size (new information)
> Date: July 21, 2007
> http://tinyurl.com/cn2yur
>
> > > If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with
> > > it if it's larger than 128 gb.
> >
> > All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's,
> > 500's and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information
> > from these drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have
> > partition sizes less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the
> > critical factor, not HDD size)
>
> > OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches
> > from Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation
> > Patch for 98, also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS
> > patched esdi_506.pdr.
>
> > Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully
> > use Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?
>
> You can read and write to the hard drives you mention above because
you
> have the RLoew version of esdi_506.pdr. If you did not have it, you
> wouldn't be able to do it. This is assuming the drives are IDE and
not
> SATA.
>
> Microsoft released a 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 version of esdi_506.pdr
in
> March 2000. The .2226 version was for certain models of IBM laptops.
I
> think the reason for these updates was only to correct a problem with
> certain phoenix bios's in conjunction with hard drives larger than 32
> gb.
>
> The .2225 file is named 243450USA8.EXE and can be downloaded from:
>
>
http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98se/update/5638-6151/w98/en-u
s/243450usa8.exe
>
> There is no limitation that I'm aware of regarding the max size of a
> volume that win-98 can recognize, other than perhaps the max limit of
> the FAT32 file system, which is either 2 tb or 8 tb (terra-byte).
>
> The main issue with regard to win-98 (and specifically it's hard-drive
> maintainence tools) is the number of clusters that a volume has.
>
> > We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have
> > kept all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB
> > USB drive can be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and
> > defrag even if there is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy,
> > that'd be something)
>
> I'd have to go back and read my old posts. First thing is to replace
> the win-98 versions of scandisk and defrag with the files from Windows
> Me. Second thing is to not create a volume that exceeds a certain
> number of clusters (I forget what the limit is for windows-me scandisk
> and defrag).
>
> > Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
> > (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For
> > example, a slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of
> > 16,384 bytes. But didn't you try using 4K clusters and report
> > on the effectiveness of Win's disk tools? (again, this is all
> > from memory from some time back)
>
> Yes. If you read those posts, you'll get a better idea of where the
> limitations are.
>
> > Thanks
>
> Your welcome.

 

someone watching wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your efforts. I'm going to try the >128GB partition
> with default cluster sizes (hopefully will have time soon). Would also
> like to experiment with smaller cluster sizes on some partitions, again
> when time permits.
>
> Will save your posts, they are a valuable resource.
> Thanks very much!
> ___
> "98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message news:4A0102B4.EE4A7B08@guy.com...
>> someone watching wrote:
>>
>>> Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
>>> Answered within:
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com)
>>>> should also still have them.
>>> If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would
>>> be appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)
>> Subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
>> Date: Feb 22, 2007 to Feb 26, 2007
>> http://tinyurl.com/ch8935
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> Subject:
>> Win-98 and large hard drives, custom cluster size (new information)
>> Date: July 21, 2007
>> http://tinyurl.com/cn2yur
>>
>>>> If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with
>>>> it if it's larger than 128 gb.
>>> All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's,
>>> 500's and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information
>>> from these drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have
>>> partition sizes less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the
>>> critical factor, not HDD size)
>>> OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches
>>> from Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation
>>> Patch for 98, also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS
>>> patched esdi_506.pdr.
>>> Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully
>>> use Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?
>> You can read and write to the hard drives you mention above because
> you
>> have the RLoew version of esdi_506.pdr. If you did not have it, you
>> wouldn't be able to do it. This is assuming the drives are IDE and
> not
>> SATA.
>>
>> Microsoft released a 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 version of esdi_506.pdr
> in
>> March 2000. The .2226 version was for certain models of IBM laptops.
> I
>> think the reason for these updates was only to correct a problem with
>> certain phoenix bios's in conjunction with hard drives larger than 32
>> gb.
>>
>> The .2225 file is named 243450USA8.EXE and can be downloaded from:
>>
>>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98se/update/5638-6151/w98/en-u
> s/243450usa8.exe
>> There is no limitation that I'm aware of regarding the max size of a
>> volume that win-98 can recognize, other than perhaps the max limit of
>> the FAT32 file system, which is either 2 tb or 8 tb (terra-byte).
>>
>> The main issue with regard to win-98 (and specifically it's hard-drive
>> maintainence tools) is the number of clusters that a volume has.
>>
>>> We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have
>>> kept all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB
>>> USB drive can be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and
>>> defrag even if there is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy,
>>> that'd be something)
>> I'd have to go back and read my old posts. First thing is to replace
>> the win-98 versions of scandisk and defrag with the files from Windows
>> Me. Second thing is to not create a volume that exceeds a certain
>> number of clusters (I forget what the limit is for windows-me scandisk
>> and defrag).
>>
>>> Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
>>> (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For
>>> example, a slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of
>>> 16,384 bytes. But didn't you try using 4K clusters and report
>>> on the effectiveness of Win's disk tools? (again, this is all
>>> from memory from some time back)
>> Yes. If you read those posts, you'll get a better idea of where the
>> limitations are.
>>
>>> Thanks
>> Your welcome.
>
>

Again, before you believe this entity and purported activities related
to large drives and 9X and 98 Guy/Ninety 8 Guy, note specifically:

1. The tests purported as done were NEVER finished pursuant to 98 Guy's
own statements in related discussions.
The cross-tests [2 sets created by me] were specifically designed to
address issues with these drives, partitions, fats, cluster size,
Windows limitations, and other factors which 98 Guy has repeatedly ignored.

2. These two [2] sets of tests were defined to actually show this
purported ability under "real world" conditions. Neither has been performed.

3. The issues with large drives and particular systems has been
repeatedly discussed in this group hundreds of times, WITH testing
results contrary to 98 Guy's purported results.

4. 98 Guy used this group to create a sense of validity for the supposed
results. Why the MVPs failed to take this party/entity to task for
these presentations is a questionable issue. It appears there was a
distinct FAILURE by these parties during these discussions/postings to
address variables which they knew to exist.

5. That this is set of UNFINISHED and UNSUPPORTED testing is now used as
the basis for continued discussions here and elsewhere, brings question
of the motive involved.
Repeated discussions since these fraudulent testing results were
posted in this group, fail to address hardware required, CMOS/BIOS
issues, required changes to the system, limitations within other areas
of the OS, and other known issues repeatedly discussed in this forum,
48bit, and other sites and forums, which have documented the actual
issues one will need to address when attempting use of these larger drives.

Historical and present issues when dealing with large hard drives and
various issues involved:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...iscussion/search?q=large+hard+drives&start=0&

*The last test 98 Guy was to have performed and ignored:*
http://groups.google.com/group/micr..._discussion/msg/1136037409b0f092?dmode=source


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

MEB, certainly is obvious you have an ax to grind with 98 Guy!
Personally I think you waste your time replying in the manner seen here.
That ANGRY, belittling input is only a reflection of an immature
childish person writing. How old are you?

Please, exercise some self-control, push your keyboard aside for a
while, stay out of this discussion; I value 98 Guys input else I'd have
never asked for it! As for your input, well, when this post is sent I
may just go ahead and add you to the blocked senders list!

Pretty simple to get rid of annoyances!!

As an aside, I've been a newsgroup participant ever since they were
invented. It's been DECADES, and never have I ever seen such anger,
bitterness, backbiting, fighting, maliciousness, name-calling,
belittling, PRIDE etc.etc.etc between people as in recent years. Things
have REALLY deteriorated from where they were even just a decade ago.
Now, in more and more public forums, we see LOTS of people with a LOT of
anger, who are divisive, who've never grown up, who only serve to create
a BAD environment for others. Quite sad! Quite a pathetic statement
regarding the state of society.

Hope it all changes, for the BETTER, soon!
___

"MEB" <meb-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edM#flmzJHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> someone watching wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for your efforts. I'm going to try the >128GB partition
> > with default cluster sizes (hopefully will have time soon). Would
also
> > like to experiment with smaller cluster sizes on some partitions,
again
> > when time permits.
> >
> > Will save your posts, they are a valuable resource.
> > Thanks very much!
> > ___
> > "98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message
news:4A0102B4.EE4A7B08@guy.com...
> >> someone watching wrote:
> >>
> >>> Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
> >>> Answered within:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com)
> >>>> should also still have them.
> >>> If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would
> >>> be appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)
> >> Subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
> >> Date: Feb 22, 2007 to Feb 26, 2007
> >> http://tinyurl.com/ch8935
> >>
> >> See also:
> >>
> >> Subject:
> >> Win-98 and large hard drives, custom cluster size (new
information)
> >> Date: July 21, 2007
> >> http://tinyurl.com/cn2yur
> >>
> >>>> If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with
> >>>> it if it's larger than 128 gb.
> >>> All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's,
> >>> 500's and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information
> >>> from these drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have
> >>> partition sizes less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the
> >>> critical factor, not HDD size)
> >>> OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches
> >>> from Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation
> >>> Patch for 98, also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS
> >>> patched esdi_506.pdr.
> >>> Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully
> >>> use Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?
> >> You can read and write to the hard drives you mention above because
> > you
> >> have the RLoew version of esdi_506.pdr. If you did not have it,
you
> >> wouldn't be able to do it. This is assuming the drives are IDE and
> > not
> >> SATA.
> >>
> >> Microsoft released a 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 version of
esdi_506.pdr
> > in
> >> March 2000. The .2226 version was for certain models of IBM
laptops.
> > I
> >> think the reason for these updates was only to correct a problem
with
> >> certain phoenix bios's in conjunction with hard drives larger than
32
> >> gb.
> >>
> >> The .2225 file is named 243450USA8.EXE and can be downloaded from:
> >>
> >>
> >
http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98se/update/5638-6151/w98/en-u
> > s/243450usa8.exe
> >> There is no limitation that I'm aware of regarding the max size of
a
> >> volume that win-98 can recognize, other than perhaps the max limit
of
> >> the FAT32 file system, which is either 2 tb or 8 tb (terra-byte).
> >>
> >> The main issue with regard to win-98 (and specifically it's
hard-drive
> >> maintainence tools) is the number of clusters that a volume has.
> >>
> >>> We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have
> >>> kept all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB
> >>> USB drive can be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and
> >>> defrag even if there is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy,
> >>> that'd be something)
> >> I'd have to go back and read my old posts. First thing is to
replace
> >> the win-98 versions of scandisk and defrag with the files from
Windows
> >> Me. Second thing is to not create a volume that exceeds a certain
> >> number of clusters (I forget what the limit is for windows-me
scandisk
> >> and defrag).
> >>
> >>> Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
> >>> (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For
> >>> example, a slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of
> >>> 16,384 bytes. But didn't you try using 4K clusters and report
> >>> on the effectiveness of Win's disk tools? (again, this is all
> >>> from memory from some time back)
> >> Yes. If you read those posts, you'll get a better idea of where
the
> >> limitations are.
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >> Your welcome.
> >
> >
>
> Again, before you believe this entity and purported activities related
> to large drives and 9X and 98 Guy/Ninety 8 Guy, note specifically:
>
> 1. The tests purported as done were NEVER finished pursuant to 98
Guy's
> own statements in related discussions.
> The cross-tests [2 sets created by me] were specifically designed to
> address issues with these drives, partitions, fats, cluster size,
> Windows limitations, and other factors which 98 Guy has repeatedly
ignored.
>
> 2. These two [2] sets of tests were defined to actually show this
> purported ability under "real world" conditions. Neither has been
performed.
>
> 3. The issues with large drives and particular systems has been
> repeatedly discussed in this group hundreds of times, WITH testing
> results contrary to 98 Guy's purported results.
>
> 4. 98 Guy used this group to create a sense of validity for the
supposed
> results. Why the MVPs failed to take this party/entity to task for
> these presentations is a questionable issue. It appears there was a
> distinct FAILURE by these parties during these discussions/postings to
> address variables which they knew to exist.
>
> 5. That this is set of UNFINISHED and UNSUPPORTED testing is now used
as
> the basis for continued discussions here and elsewhere, brings
question
> of the motive involved.
> Repeated discussions since these fraudulent testing results were
> posted in this group, fail to address hardware required, CMOS/BIOS
> issues, required changes to the system, limitations within other areas
> of the OS, and other known issues repeatedly discussed in this forum,
> 48bit, and other sites and forums, which have documented the actual
> issues one will need to address when attempting use of these larger
drives.
>
> Historical and present issues when dealing with large hard drives and
> various issues involved:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/sea
rch?q=large+hard+drives&start=0&
>
> *The last test 98 Guy was to have performed and ignored:*
>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg
/1136037409b0f092?dmode=source
>
>
> --
> ~
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
> Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
> http://peoplescounsel.org
> The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
> _______
>

 

someone watching wrote:
> MEB, certainly is obvious you have an ax to grind with 98 Guy!
> Personally I think you waste your time replying in the manner seen here.
> That ANGRY, belittling input is only a reflection of an immature
> childish person writing. How old are you?
>
> Please, exercise some self-control, push your keyboard aside for a
> while, stay out of this discussion; I value 98 Guys input else I'd have
> never asked for it! As for your input, well, when this post is sent I
> may just go ahead and add you to the blocked senders list!
>
> Pretty simple to get rid of annoyances!!
>
> As an aside, I've been a newsgroup participant ever since they were
> invented. It's been DECADES, and never have I ever seen such anger,
> bitterness, backbiting, fighting, maliciousness, name-calling,
> belittling, PRIDE etc.etc.etc between people as in recent years. Things
> have REALLY deteriorated from where they were even just a decade ago.
> Now, in more and more public forums, we see LOTS of people with a LOT of
> anger, who are divisive, who've never grown up, who only serve to create
> a BAD environment for others. Quite sad! Quite a pathetic statement
> regarding the state of society.
>
> Hope it all changes, for the BETTER, soon!

Yeah, block me.. rely upon this entity... don't bother to post in here
when you discover bad clusters, corrupted fats, and other issues, and
you wonder how to recover that information necessary for your business
or otherwise...

As for my purported anger,,, I specifically advised 98 Guy that any
time he posted information that could harm or damage computers or
security of users systems I would make sure to advise others of this
activity.

That you choose to rely upon this false information is your "cross to
bare", I have no intention of allowing this false information to
continue to be fostered and fomented in this group as if it comes as
sanctioned or qualified.

So save your self, block me...I have no intention of allowing this occur.

> ___
>
> "MEB" <meb-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:edM#flmzJHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> someone watching wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot for your efforts. I'm going to try the >128GB partition
>>> with default cluster sizes (hopefully will have time soon). Would
> also
>>> like to experiment with smaller cluster sizes on some partitions,
> again
>>> when time permits.
>>>
>>> Will save your posts, they are a valuable resource.
>>> Thanks very much!
>>> ___
>>> "98 Guy" <98@guy.com> wrote in message
> news:4A0102B4.EE4A7B08@guy.com...
>>>> someone watching wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Glad to see your response (wiping my brow) !
>>>>> Answered within:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I still have all that info. Google groups (deja.com)
>>>>>> should also still have them.
>>>>> If you have a SUBJECT line I can search for (on Deja) that would
>>>>> be appreciated (and would save a lot of time!)
>>>> Subject: Cluster size and exploring the limits of FAT-32
>>>> Date: Feb 22, 2007 to Feb 26, 2007
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ch8935
>>>>
>>>> See also:
>>>>
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Win-98 and large hard drives, custom cluster size (new
> information)
>>>> Date: July 21, 2007
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cn2yur
>>>>
>>>>>> If your hard drive an IDE type, then you will have problems with
>>>>>> it if it's larger than 128 gb.
>>>>> All HDD's here are over 128GB. I use 160's, 250's, 320's, 400's,
>>>>> 500's and all work well. I've retrived all sorts of information
>>>>> from these drives which are well over the 128GB size, but all have
>>>>> partition sizes less than 128GB (I thought partition size was the
>>>>> critical factor, not HDD size)
>>>>> OK, I think I get it now. Some time ago I purchased some patches
>>>>> from Rudolph Loew (High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation
>>>>> Patch for 98, also had custom BIOS work done). So I have HIS
>>>>> patched esdi_506.pdr.
>>>>> Does that mean I CAN make partitions over 128GB and successfully
>>>>> use Win98SE and the WinME scandskw and defrag?
>>>> You can read and write to the hard drives you mention above because
>>> you
>>>> have the RLoew version of esdi_506.pdr. If you did not have it,
> you
>>>> wouldn't be able to do it. This is assuming the drives are IDE and
>>> not
>>>> SATA.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft released a 4.10.2225 and 4.10.2226 version of
> esdi_506.pdr
>>> in
>>>> March 2000. The .2226 version was for certain models of IBM
> laptops.
>>> I
>>>> think the reason for these updates was only to correct a problem
> with
>>>> certain phoenix bios's in conjunction with hard drives larger than
> 32
>>>> gb.
>>>>
>>>> The .2225 file is named 243450USA8.EXE and can be downloaded from:
>>>>
>>>>
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/win98se/update/5638-6151/w98/en-u
>>> s/243450usa8.exe
>>>> There is no limitation that I'm aware of regarding the max size of
> a
>>>> volume that win-98 can recognize, other than perhaps the max limit
> of
>>>> the FAT32 file system, which is either 2 tb or 8 tb (terra-byte).
>>>>
>>>> The main issue with regard to win-98 (and specifically it's
> hard-drive
>>>> maintainence tools) is the number of clusters that a volume has.
>>>>
>>>>> We also have 500GB SATA drives in USB enclosures but again, have
>>>>> kept all partitions to less than 128GB. Are you saying a 500GB
>>>>> USB drive can be successfully used with Win98SE and scandskw and
>>>>> defrag even if there is ONE 500GB extended partition? (boy,
>>>>> that'd be something)
>>>> I'd have to go back and read my old posts. First thing is to
> replace
>>>> the win-98 versions of scandisk and defrag with the files from
> Windows
>>>> Me. Second thing is to not create a volume that exceeds a certain
>>>> number of clusters (I forget what the limit is for windows-me
> scandisk
>>>> and defrag).
>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, you wrote extensively on cluster size and how these tools
>>>>> (scandskw and defrag) worked with various cluster sizes. For
>>>>> example, a slightly <32GB partition uses a cluster size of
>>>>> 16,384 bytes. But didn't you try using 4K clusters and report
>>>>> on the effectiveness of Win's disk tools? (again, this is all
>>>>> from memory from some time back)
>>>> Yes. If you read those posts, you'll get a better idea of where
> the
>>>> limitations are.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>> Your welcome.
>>>
>> Again, before you believe this entity and purported activities related
>> to large drives and 9X and 98 Guy/Ninety 8 Guy, note specifically:
>>
>> 1. The tests purported as done were NEVER finished pursuant to 98
> Guy's
>> own statements in related discussions.
>> The cross-tests [2 sets created by me] were specifically designed to
>> address issues with these drives, partitions, fats, cluster size,
>> Windows limitations, and other factors which 98 Guy has repeatedly
> ignored.
>> 2. These two [2] sets of tests were defined to actually show this
>> purported ability under "real world" conditions. Neither has been
> performed.
>> 3. The issues with large drives and particular systems has been
>> repeatedly discussed in this group hundreds of times, WITH testing
>> results contrary to 98 Guy's purported results.
>>
>> 4. 98 Guy used this group to create a sense of validity for the
> supposed
>> results. Why the MVPs failed to take this party/entity to task for
>> these presentations is a questionable issue. It appears there was a
>> distinct FAILURE by these parties during these discussions/postings to
>> address variables which they knew to exist.
>>
>> 5. That this is set of UNFINISHED and UNSUPPORTED testing is now used
> as
>> the basis for continued discussions here and elsewhere, brings
> question
>> of the motive involved.
>> Repeated discussions since these fraudulent testing results were
>> posted in this group, fail to address hardware required, CMOS/BIOS
>> issues, required changes to the system, limitations within other areas
>> of the OS, and other known issues repeatedly discussed in this forum,
>> 48bit, and other sites and forums, which have documented the actual
>> issues one will need to address when attempting use of these larger
> drives.
>> Historical and present issues when dealing with large hard drives and
>> various issues involved:
>>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/sea
> rch?q=large+hard+drives&start=0&
>> *The last test 98 Guy was to have performed and ignored:*
>>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg
> /1136037409b0f092?dmode=source
>>
>> --
>> ~
>> --
>> MEB
>
>


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

Part of the purpose of participating through the newsgroups is that you will
get input from a number of sources. Part of the problem is that you need to
assess the reliability of those different sources. That there is a
difference of opinion over the advice you have received, regardless of how
that is expressed, should be a warning to you that caution over and above
the normal is required.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"someone watching" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:uMpXLEszJHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> MEB, certainly is obvious you have an ax to grind with 98 Guy!
> Personally I think you waste your time replying in the manner seen here.
> That ANGRY, belittling input is only a reflection of an immature
> childish person writing. How old are you?
>
> Please, exercise some self-control, push your keyboard aside for a
> while, stay out of this discussion; I value 98 Guys input else I'd have
> never asked for it! As for your input, well, when this post is sent I
> may just go ahead and add you to the blocked senders list!
>
> Pretty simple to get rid of annoyances!!
>
> As an aside, I've been a newsgroup participant ever since they were
> invented. It's been DECADES, and never have I ever seen such anger,
> bitterness, backbiting, fighting, maliciousness, name-calling,
> belittling, PRIDE etc.etc.etc between people as in recent years. Things
> have REALLY deteriorated from where they were even just a decade ago.
> Now, in more and more public forums, we see LOTS of people with a LOT of
> anger, who are divisive, who've never grown up, who only serve to create
> a BAD environment for others. Quite sad! Quite a pathetic statement
> regarding the state of society.
>
> Hope it all changes, for the BETTER, soon!

 

Re: need 98 Guy's help: FOLLOWUP

Had some time to 'experiment' before committing to destroying volumes
with critical data to see if a partition >128Gb would work ... and it
did. Here's the information:

Used a 400GB backup drive, FDISK'ed as one large extended drive,
partitioned into one 122GB volume and the balance (249GB) into another
volume. Formatted with Win98SE FORMAT.COM (4/23/1999). Used the /c and
/z:32 switches (wanted 16K clusters). Format rejected that cluster size
and was only happy with 32K clusters on the 249GB volume. Format
otherwise went fine.

Filled the HDD with 330GB of data (out of a possible 372GB) using XXCOPY
and CLONED data so every file had an integrity check PASS before next
file was cloned. Checked the HDD volumes with WinME scandskw; went
perfectly (and scandskw log showed no errors). Defraged the HDD with
WinME defrag and it went perfectly. DVD's from the HDD play perfectly.

So I'm quite happy knowing W98 when setup properly can not only handle
HDD's larger the 128GB but also very large volumes (was nearly running
out of drive letters there were so many volumes)!
___

As an aside; I had RLoew do a custom BIOS patch for 48-bit LBA (this
computer is over 11+ years old), also bought his esdi_506.pdr patch.
Also using WinME scandskw and defrag for disk tools.

Will have to find another (newer) FORMAT utility. Want to force smaller
clusters on certain volumes to achieve greater effeciency of space,
would like to see IF it will work. If you know of one that's free,
please let me know!

Thanks again to 98 Guy whos research over the years has helped keep this
ol' PC moving along even after LIGHT YEARS of technological jumps in PC
technology.