1. Welcome Guest! In order to create a new topic or reply to an existing one, you must register first. It is easy and free. Click here to sign up now!.
    Dismiss Notice

Using Defrag from Win2000

Discussion in 'Microsoft Windows' started by letterman@invalid.com, Apr 11, 2009.

  1. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49E668EA.CF6A7BF0@Guy.com...
    > "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >
    >> What happens if I interrupt it halfway through its disk write?
    >> Like pull the plug?

    >
    > Look. I gave an example where I copied an open log file from an NT
    > system, and a day or two later that same file had either much less or
    > actually no data compared to the copy. That would not have happened
    > under a FAT32 system. The reason that the file contained less or no
    > data is because when the system lost power (and it probably lost power
    > when that file was NOT being written to) NTFS rolled back to an earlier
    > journaled version of that file. The current version of that file was
    > probably just fine, but NT and NTFS is programmed not to trust file
    > versions that aren't journaled, hence the data was lost. That wouldn't
    > have happened under FAT32 because it simply isin't journaled and the
    > file system or the operating system would have no basis or reason for
    > tampering with or altering the file once the system was restarted.


    [snip]

    > Under NTFS, if the system's power gets pulled, then upon re-start the
    > file system is looked at and any write transactions that weren't
    > classified as being completed are looked for and those files are
    > rolled-back to their last journaled state. That's why you lose data
    > under NTFS but not FAT32 in those situations.


    I can see where that might be possible, but the power fail event would
    have to happen right at the precise point between the actual write and
    the point where the write transaction was recorded in the journal log.
    In that case, the updated information for the file structure would be undone.
    The new data might be on the disk, but it has no logical files pointers to it.
    OTOH, if it happened during the write the data was mostly trashed
    anyway.

    You make a valid point there, but in your example of the IIS log file in your
    previous post, you stated that it was because the file was only closed
    once a day. An open file does not constitute a "transaction event".
    Opening a file only allocates resources (file handle). If the file was
    kept open, but still being written out periodically, you shouldn't have
    lost the whole file. Not saying it didn't happen :), but maybe something
    else was involved besides journaling.
     
  2. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49E66D3A.FF314CB8@Guy.com...
    > "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >
    >> > Every hard drive maker has links to their own drive-preparation
    >> > software. Most times that software is just a customized /
    >> > rebranded version of OnTrack Disc Manager.
    >> >
    >> > Western Digital has Data Lifeguard Tools:
    >> > http://support.wdc.com/download/dlg/DLG_V11_2.zip

    >>
    >> NO. That will NOT let you create and select any cluster size you
    >> like, for any partition size you like, in FAT32. Sorry, no go.
    >> Ditto on the rest below.

    >


    > I honestly don't know what more I can do to prove to you that this
    > capability exists, and that most if not all of the software I mentioned
    > in my previous posts do actually allow the same choices for cluster
    > size.



    > And for anyone else reading this, why don't you step forward and confirm
    > what I'm writing here?


    I didn't look at the software or pics you posted, but I will confirm
    that. You can choose cluster sizes with many third party tools.
    BootitNG, (what I usually use) allows it.
     
  3. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Ninty8 Guy" <Ninty8@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49E550B7.FBE4C213@Guy.com...

    > According to this:


    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
    > http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/Q184/0/06.ASP&NoWebContent=1
    >
    > "The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and
    > Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have
    > a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less
    > 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool
    > cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have
    > a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a
    > volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk
    > cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system
    > that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two
    > reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works
    > out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of
    > 127.53 gigabytes (GB)."
    >
    > I have found that if a win-98 system is booted into DOS mode, with
    > himem.sys loaded, that it will easily scan a hard drive that has a much
    > higher cluster-count than the 4.177 million claimed by Microsoft as the
    > upper limit for scandisk.


    Perhaps Microsoft wants to play it safe and assume some will boot
    a floppy that does not load himem.sys and possibly have scandisk run
    amok.


    > The largest drive I've tried it on so far had
    > 120 million clusters.


    I remember reading some of your posts about this.

    Just curious,, did you check how much total memory was reported
    by mem?

    If you did a /surface scan, was the correct number of clusters
    reported?

    It's probably safe to assume that none of the FAT was above 128GB.
    Were any directories? Did you try cross-linking files below 128GB
    with files above? Or 2 files above? Preferably specific known text
    files so that you could check the resultant chk* files to see if scandisk
    was actually where it thought it was.


    > Some of what Microsoft says on that page is true (or, at least, I don't
    > have any issues with it). Such as:


    > "The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the
    > FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per
    > cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this
    > equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes
    > (TB)."


    That may be so but,,
    Given that the size of the start and total LBA sector fields in the partition
    table are 32-bits wide, it's only possible for a basic partition disk (with
    512 byte sectors) to be 2TB. Above that you'd have to set it up as a GPT
    disk. Neither 98 or XP 32-bit support GPT disks.

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_FAQ.mspx
     
  4. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Ninety8 Guy wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >
    >> What happens if I interrupt it halfway through its disk write?
    >> Like pull the plug?

    >
    > Look. I gave an example where I copied an open log file from an NT
    > system, and a day or two later that same file had either much less or
    > actually no data compared to the copy. That would not have happened
    > under a FAT32 system. The reason that the file contained less or no
    > data is because when the system lost power (and it probably lost power
    > when that file was NOT being written to) NTFS rolled back to an earlier
    > journaled version of that file. The current version of that file was
    > probably just fine, but NT and NTFS is programmed not to trust file
    > versions that aren't journaled, hence the data was lost. That wouldn't
    > have happened under FAT32 because it simply isin't journaled and the
    > file system or the operating system would have no basis or reason for
    > tampering with or altering the file once the system was restarted.
    >
    >> Or maybe another program running causes a blue screen in the
    >> middle of a write operation?

    >
    > I think you have blue-screen on the brain. One of our developers has
    > an XP-pro system and I don't know what he does to it but it goes into
    > a blue-screen state at least once a day (actually 2 blue screens since
    > it's a dual monitor setup).
    >
    > The only time I see blue-screens on my win-98 systems is when I pull a
    > USB memory stick out of them when they have an open explorer window on
    > them. And that's a harmless blue screen.
    >
    >>> If an NTFS volume has to be rolled back to a journaled state
    >>> (for what-ever reason), then the odds are high that some user
    >>> data will be lost

    >>
    >> But that data might also well be lost using Win9x and FAT.

    >
    > No. You still don't understand.
    >
    > Under FAT32, if data is written to a file, there is no mechanism to
    > later trunkate the file and lose the last bit of data that was written
    > to the file if the system is unexpectedly turned off and restarted. If
    > a file is being added to over time (such as a user document or a system
    > log file) once the data is written to the drive, it stays there.


    No, you're missing my point. Suppose the disk is in the middle of writing
    out a large file (like a .wav file), and you pull the plug. What do YOU
    expect will be the result? Surely you don't expect the file to be intact,
    or in any way recoverable. Because it won't. The application that was
    writing it (like an audio editor) will have failed to write it out. There
    may be bits of it on the drive, but it's totally unrecoverable. (I'm not
    just talking about a text file here)

    > Under NTFS, if the system's power gets pulled, then upon re-start the
    > file system is looked at and any write transactions that weren't
    > classified as being completed are looked for and those files are
    > rolled-back to their last journaled state. That's why you lose data
    > under NTFS but not FAT32 in those situations.
    >
    >>> Microsoft has come to fear FAT32.

    >>
    >> Oh come on, now. (This is again a bit hyperbolic).
    >>
    >>> To the irrational extent that it intentionally crippled 2K
    >>> and XP from being able to create FAT32 volumes larger than
    >>> 32 gb. FAT32 is too open for them, possibly even public
    >>> domain (depending on what court verdict you read).

    >
    > You have nothing to say about that?


    Well, I don't believe that. That's just your spin on it.

    > (I'm going to continue this reply in my next post)
     
  5. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Bill Blanton wrote:
    > "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    > news:49E66D3A.FF314CB8@Guy.com...
    >> "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Every hard drive maker has links to their own drive-preparation
    >>>> software. Most times that software is just a customized /
    >>>> rebranded version of OnTrack Disc Manager.
    >>>>
    >>>> Western Digital has Data Lifeguard Tools:
    >>>> http://support.wdc.com/download/dlg/DLG_V11_2.zip
    >>>
    >>> NO. That will NOT let you create and select any cluster size you
    >>> like, for any partition size you like, in FAT32. Sorry, no go.
    >>> Ditto on the rest below.

    >>

    >
    >> I honestly don't know what more I can do to prove to you that this
    >> capability exists, and that most if not all of the software I mentioned
    >> in my previous posts do actually allow the same choices for cluster
    >> size.

    >
    >
    >> And for anyone else reading this, why don't you step forward and confirm
    >> what I'm writing here?

    >
    > I didn't look at the software or pics you posted, but I will confirm
    > that. You can choose cluster sizes with many third party tools.
    > BootitNG, (what I usually use) allows it.


    I wasn't just referring to that as a generality. Of course you have some
    freedom in some of those programs (like BING) to select the cluster size,
    but *ONLY within strict limits*. 98G said he could use 4K clusters on ANY
    size partition on FAT32, and I think that is B.S. And - I'd like to see
    some certifiable documentation on that - proving it.
     
  6. Ninety8 Guy

    Ninety8 Guy Guest

    Bill Blanton wrote:

    > > I have found that if a win-98 system is booted into DOS mode,
    > > with himem.sys loaded, that it will easily scan a hard drive
    > > that has a much higher cluster-count than the 4.177 million
    > > claimed by Microsoft as the upper limit for scandisk.

    >
    > Perhaps Microsoft wants to play it safe and assume some will
    > boot a floppy that does not load himem.sys and possibly have
    > scandisk run amok.


    But even that is not true.

    If I run scandisk without himem.sys, it usually (or always?) refuses to
    run, stating explicitly that it needs himem.sys to be loaded.

    > > The largest drive I've tried it on so far had
    > > 120 million clusters.

    >
    > I remember reading some of your posts about this.
    >
    > Just curious,, did you check how much total memory was
    > reported by mem?


    You mean system ram?

    I've run it with both 512mb and 1024 mb of ram. Didn't make a
    difference - scandisk (dos version) ran fine either time. I really
    don't think that the entire table(s) are completely loaded or present in
    system RAM at any given moment when scandisk is running, unless perhaps
    if the FAT tables are less than some arbitrarily small size (4 mb? 8
    mb?)

    > If you did a /surface scan, was the correct number of clusters
    > reported?


    In the case of the 500 gb drive with 120 million clusters, I stopped
    scandisk after 24 - 36 hours of continuous running (I projected it would
    have taken 3 days to complete based on it's progress). So no, in that
    case I did not have the opportuning for the scan to be finished before
    being presented the option to do a surface scan. I'm not familiar with
    the /surface option - does that cause scandisk to immediately skip the
    initial file system checks and go straight into the surface scan?

    But even in that case, chkdsk correctly reported the number of clusters.

    > It's probably safe to assume that none of the FAT was above 128GB.


    You have to remember that on motherboards that are 48-bit LBA
    compatible, that at the BIOS or DOS level there is no problem with
    drives larger than 128 gb. Basically any motherboard made during or
    after 2002 will have no hard drive size restrictions, and in that
    situation DOS is inherently capable of seeing and properly reading /
    writing to the entire drive.

    But Win-98se will have a problem at the 128 gb boundary unless it's
    protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) is replaced with something else.
    Several modified versions of that file are available, as well as an
    alternative that's part of the Intel Application Accelerator for a
    select few 8xx chipsets, as well as running the drives under a raid
    controller if a win-98 driver is available.

    > Given that the size of the start and total LBA sector fields
    > in the partition table are 32-bits wide, it's only possible
    > for a basic partition disk (with 512 byte sectors) to be 2TB.


    For one thing, it depends on whether or not the sector size on a given
    hard drive is 512 bytes or something larger. I believe it's possible
    that some drives might indeed have 4kb sector size.

    But in any case, the way I understand it, given a sector size of 512
    bytes and a cluster size of 32kb, that FAT32 is limited to 2tb volume
    size and 8tb ultimate hard drive size. Basically 4 volumes of 2tb each
    on an 8tb drive, with each volume having 67 million clusters.

    > Above that you'd have to set it up as a GPT
    > disk. Neither 98 or XP 32-bit support GPT disks.


    Hard drive capacity seems to be doubling every 2 years during the past
    decade. In January this year, Western Digital started shipping the
    first 2tb drives. If this rate holds, we should (or could) roughly
    expect to see 8tb drives in 4 years. Plenty of time left to keep using
    FAT32.
     
  7. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Ninety8 Guy wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >
    >>> Every hard drive maker has links to their own drive-preparation
    >>> software. Most times that software is just a customized /
    >>> rebranded version of OnTrack Disc Manager.
    >>>
    >>> Western Digital has Data Lifeguard Tools:
    >>> http://support.wdc.com/download/dlg/DLG_V11_2.zip

    >>
    >> NO. That will NOT let you create and select any cluster size you
    >> like, for any partition size you like, in FAT32. Sorry, no go.
    >> Ditto on the rest below.

    >
    > Ok.
    >
    > At this point, you're either trying to pull my leg, or you really
    > believe what you've just posted.
    >
    > So because I don't know, I'll assume you really do believe what you've
    > just posted.
    >
    > With regard to the WD Data Lifeguard software that you claim will not
    > let you choose your own FAT32 cluster size when preparing a drive, I
    > will post the following as proof of that capability or functionality.


    Wait a minute. I did NOT say THAT. *What I said was*, you do NOT have
    complete freedom in selecting any cluster size for a large partition when
    using FAT32. There is a big difference there.

    > Today I performed a drive-preparation session with the WD software and
    > an 80 GB WD hard drive. I took digital photographs of the screen during
    > each step of this process. The links to each photo is posted below.


    OK, I'll take a look at them. But since I'm on dialup, it may take me
    some time.

    If what you say is true, I'll have to go back and find the Microsoft article
    which lists the cluster size limitations.

    > Picture 1 is the main screen for the Western Digital Data Lifeguard
    > tools. Pictures 2 through 16 shows the entire process of selecting and
    > formatting an 80 gb WD hard drive as FAT32 with 4kb cluster size.
    > Pictures 8 through 12 specifically show the various cluster-size options
    > for FAT32. In this example, the 4kb cluster size is selected.
    >
    > After the drive has been formatted and the DOS system files placed on
    > it, picture 17 shows chkdsk being run from a floppy after the system has
    > been booted from the formatted drive. Chkdsk clearly shows 4kb cluster
    > size, and about 19.5 million total clusters. Picture 18 shows the
    > system booting from the drive immediately after the post screen.
    > Several dos files were copied to the drive prior to this picture.
    > Himem.sys can be seen loading. Picture 19 is a dir command showing the
    > files in the root directory. Pictures 20 through 25 show scandisk.exe
    > being run. Picture 26 shows chkdsk being run, and a VER command being
    > executed.
    >
    > I would have liked to post specific pages of the support documents for
    > that software, but they don't go into enough detail to show that yes,
    > you can use this software to choose your own cluster size when
    > formatting a fat32 volume.
    >
    > Here are the pictures:
    >
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/01.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/02.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/03.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/04.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/05.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/06.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/07.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/08.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/09.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/10.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/11.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/12.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/13.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/14.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/15.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/16.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/17.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/18.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/19.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/20.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/21.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/22.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/23.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/24.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/25.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/26.jpg
    >
    > I honestly don't know what more I can do to prove to you that this
    > capability exists, and that most if not all of the software I mentioned
    > in my previous posts do actually allow the same choices for cluster
    > size.
    >
    > If you want to be stubborn and chose to disregard these pictures and not
    > try this for yourself then I guess we have nothing more to talk about.
    >
    > And for anyone else reading this, why don't you step forward and confirm
    > what I'm writing here?
     
  8. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Well, I took a look at some of your jpgs, and it seems you're correct there.

    But: I just tried out 2 programs, Partition Magic, and BING (BootItNG), and
    neither one will allow me to create a 76 GB partition with 4K clusters.
    Both
    programs forced me to use 32 KB clusters. In fact, while I was in Partition
    Magic, I played around with that more, by selecting 4K for the cluster size,
    and steadily increasing the partition size, and the max partition size I
    could select was 24.623 GB with 4K clusters, and 49.199 GB with 8K clusters.
    So go figure.

    Ninety8 Guy wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >
    >>> Every hard drive maker has links to their own drive-preparation
    >>> software. Most times that software is just a customized /
    >>> rebranded version of OnTrack Disc Manager.
    >>>
    >>> Western Digital has Data Lifeguard Tools:
    >>> http://support.wdc.com/download/dlg/DLG_V11_2.zip

    >>
    >> NO. That will NOT let you create and select any cluster size you
    >> like, for any partition size you like, in FAT32. Sorry, no go.
    >> Ditto on the rest below.

    >
    > Ok.
    >
    > At this point, you're either trying to pull my leg, or you really
    > believe what you've just posted.
    >
    > So because I don't know, I'll assume you really do believe what you've
    > just posted.
    >
    > With regard to the WD Data Lifeguard software that you claim will not
    > let you choose your own FAT32 cluster size when preparing a drive, I
    > will post the following as proof of that capability or functionality.
    >
    > Today I performed a drive-preparation session with the WD software and
    > an 80 GB WD hard drive. I took digital photographs of the screen during
    > each step of this process. The links to each photo is posted below.
    >
    > Picture 1 is the main screen for the Western Digital Data Lifeguard
    > tools. Pictures 2 through 16 shows the entire process of selecting and
    > formatting an 80 gb WD hard drive as FAT32 with 4kb cluster size.
    > Pictures 8 through 12 specifically show the various cluster-size options
    > for FAT32. In this example, the 4kb cluster size is selected.
    >
    > After the drive has been formatted and the DOS system files placed on
    > it, picture 17 shows chkdsk being run from a floppy after the system has
    > been booted from the formatted drive. Chkdsk clearly shows 4kb cluster
    > size, and about 19.5 million total clusters. Picture 18 shows the
    > system booting from the drive immediately after the post screen.
    > Several dos files were copied to the drive prior to this picture.
    > Himem.sys can be seen loading. Picture 19 is a dir command showing the
    > files in the root directory. Pictures 20 through 25 show scandisk.exe
    > being run. Picture 26 shows chkdsk being run, and a VER command being
    > executed.
    >
    > I would have liked to post specific pages of the support documents for
    > that software, but they don't go into enough detail to show that yes,
    > you can use this software to choose your own cluster size when
    > formatting a fat32 volume.
    >
    > Here are the pictures:
    >
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/01.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/02.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/03.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/04.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/05.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/06.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/07.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/08.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/09.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/10.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/11.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/12.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/13.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/14.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/15.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/16.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/17.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/18.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/19.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/20.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/21.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/22.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/23.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/24.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/25.jpg
    > http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/15/2404980/26.jpg
    >
    > I honestly don't know what more I can do to prove to you that this
    > capability exists, and that most if not all of the software I mentioned
    > in my previous posts do actually allow the same choices for cluster
    > size.
    >
    > If you want to be stubborn and chose to disregard these pictures and not
    > try this for yourself then I guess we have nothing more to talk about.
    >
    > And for anyone else reading this, why don't you step forward and confirm
    > what I'm writing here?
     
  9. MEB

    MEB Guest

    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:49E66804.CFEE95F4@Guy.com...
    > MEB wrote:
    >
    > > Is there any reason, other than your own need for recognition,
    > > you continue to expound upon your purported tests

    >
    > I described what my experiences were running win-98 (and XP) on large
    > FAT-32 volumes with small cluster size.
    >
    > I described exactly what I did to test specifically the combination of
    > win-98 and drives with high cluster-counts. I may have said the tests
    > satisified my interests at the time. I never said that other tests
    > weren't possible.


    ONCE AGAIN, **you** verify your tests were incomplete, AND FALSE IN NATURE.

    >
    > I never said I wouldn't do any more tests, and I would do more if
    > someone had something specific in mind. You never described any such
    > specific test. You just blow hot air and spew generalities.


    BULLCRAP, as I pointed out to you in your last attempts at recognition as a
    supposed tester, AND which you verified in your posts JUST A FEW WEEKS ago,
    you are well aware of those tests. IF FACT I outlined the basics for you
    once again. SO "shove this where the sun don't shine".... though likely
    there isn't enough room as your head is up there already.

    >
    > The fact is that I'd be a fool to chase my tail to satisfy you. You've
    > never describe a specific test despite my many requests, and you'd never
    > believe my results even it I performed them.
    >
    > And why are you such a full-quoting fool?
    >
    > Why can't you learn to edit and clean up your posts?


    Because moron, I was out here when you were either still in diapers, or
    likely not even born.
    Shall I describe HOW netiquitte came about,, think phoneline downloads from
    BBSs with 2400 buad modems LONG DISTANCE and our determination that it was
    reasonable to cut posts which contained little relevant materials to the
    BONE for downloaders.

    IN TODAYS world even with a phone modem, you at least have 56K [or around
    there] so those concerns do not have the same relevance.. MOREOVER, as
    techincal discussions [which you have difficulty participating in due to
    apparent ignorance] are now listed in search engines. THEREFORE, ALL
    relevant information should be left within ANY post as cutting materials
    leaves the potential finder [via search engine query] with ineffective or
    partial information.

    NOW, IF {emphasis} you had half a brain I wouldn't have found it necessary
    to explain this to you for the THIRD time.

    >
    > Do you enjoy being such a lazy bastard?


    Do you enjoy being one of the most stupid people on this planet?

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

    MEB Guest

    Petr/MSFN
    LittyX/Lixaanli
    From one of the large drive esdi_506.pdr modifiers:

    FAQ
    ~~~
    1. Can this driver be used with drives less than 128Gb?
    > In most cases. The driver will switch over to extended commands past the

    268,435,200th sector. Drives between 268,435,201 and 268,435,455 sectors
    that do not implement the extended command set may malfunction at this
    boundary condition.

    2. Can this driver be used with SATA devices?
    > "Though Serial ATA will not be able to directly interface with legacy

    Ultra ATA hardware, it is fully compliant with the ATA protocol and
    thus is software compatible." - SATA standard.

    3. Differences between this and R.Loew's "High Capacity Disk Patch"?
    > 1. HCDP is commercial software. Enable48BitLBA is freeware.

    2. HCDP does not implement a separate register initialiser and commands
    section (read,read_noDMA,write,write_noDMA,verify). This driver uses
    a separated execution flow resulting in slightly better performance.
    3. HCDP freeware only accesses up to 145Gb. Enable48BitLBA concievably
    should work up to FAT32 addressing limit of 2048Gb (less one byte).

    4. What about limits on partition sizes?
    > This driver does not accept



    Recent discussions:
    http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129027
    http://www.msfn.org/board/Install-w98-Large-Drives-t113142.html
    http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=113142&st=20&p=774781&#entry774781

    I see see 98 Guy posted there with the same UNTESTED materials and
    suggestions... even directing to his supposed posts in this group as
    reference. EXCELLENT way to make fraud seem real.

    PARTICULARLY, as Ninety8 Guy or 98 Guy has once again {this discussion}
    confirmed the tests were NOT performed properly or fully.

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



    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:49E6AF57.D3ED6009@Guy.com...
    > Bill Blanton wrote:
    >
    > > > I have found that if a win-98 system is booted into DOS mode,
    > > > with himem.sys loaded, that it will easily scan a hard drive
    > > > that has a much higher cluster-count than the 4.177 million
    > > > claimed by Microsoft as the upper limit for scandisk.

    > >
    > > Perhaps Microsoft wants to play it safe and assume some will
    > > boot a floppy that does not load himem.sys and possibly have
    > > scandisk run amok.

    >
    > But even that is not true.
    >
    > If I run scandisk without himem.sys, it usually (or always?) refuses to
    > run, stating explicitly that it needs himem.sys to be loaded.
    >
    > > > The largest drive I've tried it on so far had
    > > > 120 million clusters.

    > >
    > > I remember reading some of your posts about this.
    > >
    > > Just curious,, did you check how much total memory was
    > > reported by mem?

    >
    > You mean system ram?
    >
    > I've run it with both 512mb and 1024 mb of ram. Didn't make a
    > difference - scandisk (dos version) ran fine either time. I really
    > don't think that the entire table(s) are completely loaded or present in
    > system RAM at any given moment when scandisk is running, unless perhaps
    > if the FAT tables are less than some arbitrarily small size (4 mb? 8
    > mb?)
    >
    > > If you did a /surface scan, was the correct number of clusters
    > > reported?

    >
    > In the case of the 500 gb drive with 120 million clusters, I stopped
    > scandisk after 24 - 36 hours of continuous running (I projected it would
    > have taken 3 days to complete based on it's progress). So no, in that
    > case I did not have the opportuning for the scan to be finished before
    > being presented the option to do a surface scan. I'm not familiar with
    > the /surface option - does that cause scandisk to immediately skip the
    > initial file system checks and go straight into the surface scan?
    >
    > But even in that case, chkdsk correctly reported the number of clusters.
    >
    > > It's probably safe to assume that none of the FAT was above 128GB.

    >
    > You have to remember that on motherboards that are 48-bit LBA
    > compatible, that at the BIOS or DOS level there is no problem with
    > drives larger than 128 gb. Basically any motherboard made during or
    > after 2002 will have no hard drive size restrictions, and in that
    > situation DOS is inherently capable of seeing and properly reading /
    > writing to the entire drive.
    >
    > But Win-98se will have a problem at the 128 gb boundary unless it's
    > protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) is replaced with something else.
    > Several modified versions of that file are available, as well as an
    > alternative that's part of the Intel Application Accelerator for a
    > select few 8xx chipsets, as well as running the drives under a raid
    > controller if a win-98 driver is available.
    >
    > > Given that the size of the start and total LBA sector fields
    > > in the partition table are 32-bits wide, it's only possible
    > > for a basic partition disk (with 512 byte sectors) to be 2TB.

    >
    > For one thing, it depends on whether or not the sector size on a given
    > hard drive is 512 bytes or something larger. I believe it's possible
    > that some drives might indeed have 4kb sector size.
    >
    > But in any case, the way I understand it, given a sector size of 512
    > bytes and a cluster size of 32kb, that FAT32 is limited to 2tb volume
    > size and 8tb ultimate hard drive size. Basically 4 volumes of 2tb each
    > on an 8tb drive, with each volume having 67 million clusters.
    >
    > > Above that you'd have to set it up as a GPT
    > > disk. Neither 98 or XP 32-bit support GPT disks.

    >
    > Hard drive capacity seems to be doubling every 2 years during the past
    > decade. In January this year, Western Digital started shipping the
    > first 2tb drives. If this rate holds, we should (or could) roughly
    > expect to see 8tb drives in 4 years. Plenty of time left to keep using
    > FAT32.
     
  11. Ninety8 Guy

    Ninety8 Guy Guest

    MEB wrote:

    > Petr/MSFN
    > LittyX/Lixaanli
    > From one of the large drive esdi_506.pdr modifiers:


    That information pertains exculsively to issues relating to the
    performance and spec's of two replacement options for win-98's native
    ESDI_506.PDR driver.

    With a functioning replacement for the native driver, any win-98 system
    using it will have the potential to be exposed to volumes that exceed
    the often quoted 4.177 million clusters (even if the clusters are the
    max size of 32 kb).

    Nobody in the MSFN forums (in any of the forums) seems to have discussed
    the phenomena of what happens when a FAT32 volume exceeds 4.177 million
    clusters - except me. Nobody there seems to have posted their own
    experience with formatting and running large FAT32 volumes with large
    cluster-counts exceeding 4.177 million clusters, or even medium sized
    volumes (less than 128 gb) that have more than 4.177 million clusters.

    > Recent discussions:
    > http://www.msfn.org/board/ ...
    >
    > I see see 98 Guy posted there with the same UNTESTED materials
    > and suggestions... even directing to his supposed posts in this
    > group as reference. EXCELLENT way to make fraud seem real.


    Yes, and you will notice that nobody in those threads criticized me or
    found fault in the material I posted. There are people there who are
    very technically minded and knowledgable and who would have posted
    rebuttals if there was any valid grounds to find fault in what I posted
    or my methods.

    Only you are so paranoid about the material I post on this topic. You
    claim to be an expert. You claim to know which tests should be
    performed, yet you do not come out and explain these tests in sufficient
    detail for someone else to actually perform them. Why is that?
     
  12. Ninety8 Guy

    Ninety8 Guy Guest

    "Bill in Co." wrote:

    > Well, I took a look at some of your jpgs, and it seems you're
    > correct there.
    >
    > But: I just tried out 2 programs, Partition Magic, and BING
    > (BootItNG), and neither one will allow me to create a 76 GB
    > partition with 4K clusters. Both programs forced me to use 32 KB
    > clusters. In fact, while I was in Partition Magic, I played
    > around with that more, by selecting 4K for the cluster size,
    > and steadily increasing the partition size, and the max partition
    > size I could select was 24.623 GB with 4K clusters, and 49.199 GB
    > with 8K clusters. So go figure.


    I posted the following in Feb 2007 (this was part of the series of posts
    I mentioned earlier in this thread:

    ----------------------------
    5) There is evidence that 6,291,204 clusters may represent some sort
    of "magic number". A third-party drive partition tool (PartitionMagic
    Pro Server 8.05) resorted to this cluster count when an existing 32 gb
    partition was manually resized to 4kb cluster size. Norton Disk
    Doctor and Speed Disk was found to work properly using this cluster
    count, but not on a volume with a slightly larger cluster count of 7.8
    million clusters (see note 7 below). This 6.3 million cluster count,
    combined with 32kb cluster size, results in a volume size of 206 gb.
    Perhaps this set of parameters is the reason for the 200 gb hard drive
    size which emerged in early to mid 2003. A dir command is also
    performed instantly with no delays in computing free space given a
    volume with 6.3 million clusters.
    ------------------------------

    So yes, I know that some drive formatting tools do have an in-built
    limitation when it comes to the number of clusters it will allow when
    creating a fat32 volume. In the above case, if using Partition Magic
    and setting the cluster size to 4kb, that results in a maximum allowable
    volume size of 24.575 gb by my math.

    So there are two classes of drive-preparation tools: Those that limit
    FAT32 volumes to 6.3 million clusters (regardless of cluster size), and
    those that don't. In my experience, many don't. What is so special
    about the number 6.3m I don't know. But even so, 6.3 million is still
    larger than 4.177 million.

    Microsoft's claim that the max number of clusters for a FAT32 drive is
    4.177 million is obviously false, and especially in practice under DOS,
    win-98 and XP.
     
  13. MEB

    MEB Guest

    MSFN accepted them because they presumed {wrongly} you had actually done
    the tests... had anyone known who you actually are [as we do in this group]
    they certainly would have brought you to task over there as well. Moreover,
    the most knowledgeable had already moved on, and the matters were being
    discussed by third parties {such as yourself} *NOT* the creators of the
    large/big drive modifications who likely WOULD have understood potential
    issues, both with the format size, intended use, hardware necessities,
    system limitations, and other NECESSARY system modifications, which you
    ALWAYS ignore.

    The tests you continue to claim you know nothing about, WERE explained at
    the time they were posted AND as recently as your last series of posts here
    {which you, yourself, then referenced within those postings}. As you
    constantly post the links to your fraudulent statements regarding your test
    results, and the links to those necessary test were placed within those same
    discussions BY ME, it is patently clear you are aware of those tests.

    DO THE TESTS. As I told you back then, and as recently as your last BS
    discussions {and now including this one} on this issue:::
    The world WILL embrace your findings IF and ONLY IF *you actually do the
    tests and completely finish them*. Otherwise you are doing nothing but
    creating yet another "urban myth" and WILL be *personally responsible* for
    any parties who have had difficulties, lost data, or any other issues as
    might apply due to your non-existent testing and deliberately fraudulent
    statements related thereto. IN FACT, should any business or other wish to
    personally sue you, they would apparently have just cause. I remind you: YOU
    state that no one else has presented these findings EXCEPT YOU, care to
    guess why???

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



    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:49E731B4.35E11E01@Guy.com...
    > MEB wrote:
    >
    > > Petr/MSFN
    > > LittyX/Lixaanli
    > > From one of the large drive esdi_506.pdr modifiers:

    >
    > That information pertains exculsively to issues relating to the
    > performance and spec's of two replacement options for win-98's native
    > ESDI_506.PDR driver.
    >
    > With a functioning replacement for the native driver, any win-98 system
    > using it will have the potential to be exposed to volumes that exceed
    > the often quoted 4.177 million clusters (even if the clusters are the
    > max size of 32 kb).
    >
    > Nobody in the MSFN forums (in any of the forums) seems to have discussed
    > the phenomena of what happens when a FAT32 volume exceeds 4.177 million
    > clusters - except me. Nobody there seems to have posted their own
    > experience with formatting and running large FAT32 volumes with large
    > cluster-counts exceeding 4.177 million clusters, or even medium sized
    > volumes (less than 128 gb) that have more than 4.177 million clusters.
    >
    > > Recent discussions:
    > > http://www.msfn.org/board/ ...
    > >
    > > I see see 98 Guy posted there with the same UNTESTED materials
    > > and suggestions... even directing to his supposed posts in this
    > > group as reference. EXCELLENT way to make fraud seem real.

    >
    > Yes, and you will notice that nobody in those threads criticized me or
    > found fault in the material I posted. There are people there who are
    > very technically minded and knowledgable and who would have posted
    > rebuttals if there was any valid grounds to find fault in what I posted
    > or my methods.
    >
    > Only you are so paranoid about the material I post on this topic. You
    > claim to be an expert. You claim to know which tests should be
    > performed, yet you do not come out and explain these tests in sufficient
    > detail for someone else to actually perform them. Why is that?
     
  14. Ninety8 Guy

    Ninety8 Guy Guest

    Full-Quoting and Top-Posting Lazy MEB scrawled:

    > MSFN accepted them because ...


    MSFN is run by a bunch of extreme weenies who are uber-macroshaft
    appologists and sycophants. The only thing that concerns them is when
    you talk about anything related to Micro$haft product keys, WGA, WPA,
    etc, and to some degree any pointers as to how to obtain or circumvent
    license restrictions for any copyrighted product.

    Other than that, they really don't care what you post. So if you were
    expecting some sort of "official" stamp of approval to be applied to
    technical info as it gets posted there, you won't find it.

    (more hot air from MEB captured and stored underground)

    > The tests you continue to claim you know nothing about, WERE
    > explained at the time they were posted AND as recently as your
    > last series of posts here


    You posted no details. Nothing that could be systematically followed.

    > As you constantly post the links to your fraudulent statements
    > regarding your test results,


    You claim that the material I posted was fraudulent?

    You are truely a sick person.

    > DO THE TESTS.


    POST THE INSTRUCTIONS.

    > The world WILL embrace your findings IF and ONLY IF *you
    > actually do the tests and completely finish them*.


    The world will respect your intellect if you post the details of the
    test proceedures.
     
  15. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49E6AF57.D3ED6009@Guy.com...
    > Bill Blanton wrote:
    >
    >> > I have found that if a win-98 system is booted into DOS mode,
    >> > with himem.sys loaded, that it will easily scan a hard drive
    >> > that has a much higher cluster-count than the 4.177 million
    >> > claimed by Microsoft as the upper limit for scandisk.

    >>
    >> Perhaps Microsoft wants to play it safe and assume some will
    >> boot a floppy that does not load himem.sys and possibly have
    >> scandisk run amok.

    >
    > But even that is not true.
    >
    > If I run scandisk without himem.sys, it usually (or always?) refuses to
    > run, stating explicitly that it needs himem.sys to be loaded.


    I just tried this booting a floppy without loading himem. Scandisk runs on
    an 8MB (yea "Mega") volume that has a 1994 cluster count. It
    also runs on A:. It won't run on an 8GB volume or a 128GB
    volume. Complains about the need for himem.sys. I didn't feel
    like looking for the cutoff point, but it may be siginificant. FAT
    size vs. memory available to DOS.

    None of those drives contained any files (except A:) , so it must be
    going by the size (or cluster count)


    >> > The largest drive I've tried it on so far had
    >> > 120 million clusters.

    >>
    >> I remember reading some of your posts about this.
    >>
    >> Just curious,, did you check how much total memory was
    >> reported by mem?

    >
    > You mean system ram?


    What's available to DOS.

    > I've run it with both 512mb and 1024 mb of ram. Didn't make a
    > difference - scandisk (dos version) ran fine either time. I really
    > don't think that the entire table(s) are completely loaded or present in
    > system RAM at any given moment when scandisk is running, unless perhaps
    > if the FAT tables are less than some arbitrarily small size (4 mb? 8
    > mb?)


    I don't know, but it would be a herculean effort to jump around the FAT
    without it completely loaded. Fragged files. Clusters crossing the boundary
    of what was loaded. Unloading the data segment, reloading other data,
    possibly back and forth, depending.




    >> If you did a /surface scan, was the correct number of clusters
    >> reported?

    >
    > In the case of the 500 gb drive with 120 million clusters, I stopped
    > scandisk after 24 - 36 hours of continuous running (I projected it would
    > have taken 3 days to complete based on it's progress). So no, in that
    > case I did not have the opportuning for the scan to be finished before
    > being presented the option to do a surface scan. I'm not familiar with
    > the /surface option - does that cause scandisk to immediately skip the
    > initial file system checks and go straight into the surface scan?


    No, it does the normal FAT, Dir, etc. scan and then goes on to the
    surface scan.


    > But even in that case, chkdsk correctly reported the number of clusters.
    >
    >> It's probably safe to assume that none of the FAT was above 128GB.

    >
    > You have to remember that on motherboards that are 48-bit LBA
    > compatible, that at the BIOS or DOS level there is no problem with
    > drives larger than 128 gb. Basically any motherboard made during or
    > after 2002 will have no hard drive size restrictions, and in that
    > situation DOS is inherently capable of seeing and properly reading /
    > writing to the entire drive.
    >
    > But Win-98se will have a problem at the 128 gb boundary unless it's
    > protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) is replaced with something else.


    That's what I was getting at basically. So, DOS doesn't have a problem,
    but the native Windows driver does?


    >
    >> Given that the size of the start and total LBA sector fields
    >> in the partition table are 32-bits wide, it's only possible
    >> for a basic partition disk (with 512 byte sectors) to be 2TB.

    >
    > For one thing, it depends on whether or not the sector size on a given
    > hard drive is 512 bytes or something larger. I believe it's possible
    > that some drives might indeed have 4kb sector size.


    That's why I said "(with 512 byte sectors)" I have no idea if 98
    can handle drives with 4k sectors. I don't think 4k sector HDDs
    are available yet.


    > But in any case, the way I understand it, given a sector size of 512
    > bytes and a cluster size of 32kb, that FAT32 is limited to 2tb volume
    > size and 8tb ultimate hard drive size. Basically 4 volumes of 2tb each
    > on an 8tb drive, with each volume having 67 million clusters.


    The problem is in the 32-bit LBA sector start field in the partition tables.
    32-bits * 512 (sector size) = 2TB.

    A partition can't start above that value.

    You could conceivably start at 1.99TB, and have a 2TB partition which
    would allow for a 3.99TB disk, however there's a lot of 32-bit code that
    won't be able to handle the sector count being greater than a dword.



    >> Above that you'd have to set it up as a GPT
    >> disk. Neither 98 or XP 32-bit support GPT disks.

    >
    > Hard drive capacity seems to be doubling every 2 years during the past
    > decade. In January this year, Western Digital started shipping the
    > first 2tb drives. If this rate holds, we should (or could) roughly
    > expect to see 8tb drives in 4 years. Plenty of time left to keep using
    > FAT32.


    Or switch over to exFAT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...06-ddd1-4ca2-b727-c2dff5e30f61&displaylang=en
     
  16. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:udX0wZmvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

    > But: I just tried out 2 programs, Partition Magic, and BING (BootItNG), and neither one will allow me to create a 76 GB partition
    > with 4K clusters. Both
    > programs forced me to use 32 KB clusters. In fact, while I was in Partition
    > Magic, I played around with that more, by selecting 4K for the cluster size, and steadily increasing the partition size, and the
    > max partition size I could select was 24.623 GB with 4K clusters, and 49.199 GB with 8K clusters. So go figure.


    I'll confirm that too :eek:) .

    Just triied with BING as you did. No error message, it just ignored what I
    specified. Oh well,, I've never been that concerned with cluster size.

    As far as wasting bits..I have more disks than I know what to do with anyway.
    Im using some as paperweights.
     
  17. Bill Blanton

    Bill Blanton Guest

    "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:uXn5LhkvJHA.1748@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    > Bill Blanton wrote:
    >> "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    >> news:49E66D3A.FF314CB8@Guy.com...
    >>> "Bill in Co." wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Every hard drive maker has links to their own drive-preparation
    >>>>> software. Most times that software is just a customized /
    >>>>> rebranded version of OnTrack Disc Manager.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Western Digital has Data Lifeguard Tools:
    >>>>> http://support.wdc.com/download/dlg/DLG_V11_2.zip
    >>>>
    >>>> NO. That will NOT let you create and select any cluster size you
    >>>> like, for any partition size you like, in FAT32. Sorry, no go.
    >>>> Ditto on the rest below.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> I honestly don't know what more I can do to prove to you that this
    >>> capability exists, and that most if not all of the software I mentioned
    >>> in my previous posts do actually allow the same choices for cluster
    >>> size.

    >>
    >>
    >>> And for anyone else reading this, why don't you step forward and confirm
    >>> what I'm writing here?

    >>
    >> I didn't look at the software or pics you posted, but I will confirm
    >> that. You can choose cluster sizes with many third party tools.
    >> BootitNG, (what I usually use) allows it.

    >
    > I wasn't just referring to that as a generality. Of course you have some freedom in some of those programs (like BING) to select
    > the cluster size, but *ONLY within strict limits*. 98G said he could use 4K clusters on ANY size partition on FAT32, and I
    > think that is B.S. And - I'd like to see some certifiable documentation on that - proving it.


    It does go against what MS says. I don't doubt that he created the
    drive, but it does need a lot of testing to prove that it's stable. It's
    something to play around with, but I wouldn't use do it on a "mission
    critical" system or any "casual user" system for that matter.

    There's no harm in poking the system to see what it can do.
     
  18. Ninety8 Guy

    Ninety8 Guy Guest

    Bill Blanton wrote:

    > I just tried this booting a floppy without loading himem.
    > Scandisk runs on an 8MB (yea "Mega") volume that has a 1994
    > cluster count. It also runs on A:. It won't run on an 8GB
    > volume or a 128GB volume. Complains about the need for himem.sys.
    > I didn't feel like looking for the cutoff point, but it may be
    > siginificant. FAT size vs. memory available to DOS.


    The point being that scandisk knows when it needs more memory, and it
    asks for himem.sys in those situations (if himem is not already loaded).

    > I don't know, but it would be a herculean effort to jump around
    > the FAT without it completely loaded.


    What was the requirement? 4 bytes per cluster?

    I guess the only way to test that would be to run a system with a
    relatively low amount of ram (say, 32 mb) and see if scandisk will run
    on a drive with, say, 16 million clusters - with himem.sys loaded.

    > > But Win-98se will have a problem at the 128 gb boundary unless
    > > it's protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) is replaced with
    > > something else.

    >
    > That's what I was getting at basically. So, DOS doesn't have a
    > problem, but the native Windows driver does?


    That's been my experience. Dos uses the BIOS int-13 routines for drive
    access. Any motherboard that impliments 48-bit LBA will (or should)
    allow for full access of any hard drive that's currently available
    (certainly any IDE/PATA drive).

    Win-9x had the same problem as the first edition of XP-gold and win-2K
    (pre-sp4). They all had protected-mode drivers (drivers that completely
    bypassed the bios int-13 functions) and those drivers could not address
    sectors beyond the 128 gb point. This has nothing to do with the
    cluster size or how the drive is configured from a volume POV.

    This was fixed for XP with SP1, and for 2K with SP4 in the 2002
    time-frame. Microsoft did not release a fix for win-98se or ME, even
    though those OS's were still in their primary support phase.

    > That's why I said "(with 512 byte sectors)" I have no idea if 98
    > can handle drives with 4k sectors. I don't think 4k sector HDDs
    > are available yet.


    The discussion and planning for 4kb sector size has been happening in
    earnest since at least 2006. Apparently this requires a lot of work for
    the various OS's that are (or will be) around in the next 5 years.

    The current planning is that there will be some 4kb sector-size drives
    available starting 2011.

    http://www.tomshardware.com ews/idema-4kb-harddrive-sectors,2520.html

    http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/p3009/06p09/06p09.asp

    http://bigsector.org/
     
  19. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Bill Blanton wrote:
    > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:udX0wZmvJHA.5392@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    >> But: I just tried out 2 programs, Partition Magic, and BING (BootItNG),
    >> and
    >> neither one will allow me to create a 76 GB partition with 4K clusters.
    >> Both
    >> programs forced me to use 32 KB clusters. In fact, while I was in
    >> Partition
    >> Magic, I played around with that more, by selecting 4K for the cluster
    >> size,
    >> and steadily increasing the partition size, and the max partition size I
    >> could select was 24.623 GB with 4K clusters, and 49.199 GB with 8K
    >> clusters.
    >> So go figure.

    >
    > I'll confirm that too :eek:) .
    >
    > Just triied with BING as you did. No error message, it just ignored what I
    > specified. Oh well,, I've never been that concerned with cluster size.


    That's right. No error message. It just ignored it, and used 32 KB
    clusters.

    > As far as wasting bits..I have more disks than I know what to do with
    > anyway.
    > Im using some as paperweights.
     
  20. MEB

    MEB Guest

    Slack jawed and distinctly mentally challenged Ninety8 Guy spewed:

    "Ninety8 Guy" <Ninety8@Guy.com> wrote in message
    news:49E7C05F.60A913C0@Guy.com...
    > Full-Quoting and Top-Posting Lazy MEB scrawled:
    >
    > > MSFN accepted them because ...

    >
    > MSFN is run by a bunch of extreme weenies who are uber-macroshaft
    > appologists and sycophants. The only thing that concerns them is when
    > you talk about anything related to Micro$haft product keys, WGA, WPA,
    > etc, and to some degree any pointers as to how to obtain or circumvent
    > license restrictions for any copyrighted product.


    HAHAHA, and without their help and ours you would be what ... a cyber
    punk...

    SO, since you feel you are so much better than they are, point us to YOUR
    coding modifications, YOUR 48bit LBA drivers, YOUR WMP conversions, YOUR XP
    system modification tweaks, YOUR modified system files required for many
    enhanced aspects in any MS OS including 9X; heck point the world to anything
    that YOU have actually done ANYWHERE ...

    >
    > Other than that, they really don't care what you post. So if you were
    > expecting some sort of "official" stamp of approval to be applied to
    > technical info as it gets posted there, you won't find it.
    >
    > (more hot air from MEB captured and stored underground)
    >
    > > The tests you continue to claim you know nothing about, WERE
    > > explained at the time they were posted AND as recently as your
    > > last series of posts here

    >
    > You posted no details. Nothing that could be systematically followed.


    BS. Moreover, you have never followed anything even remotely related to
    systematic. What I defined was for systematic redundant testing of not only
    disk structure but system failure issues..

    >
    > > As you constantly post the links to your fraudulent statements
    > > regarding your test results,

    >
    > You claim that the material I posted was fraudulent?
    >
    > You are truely a sick person.


    It IS fraudulent, you just admitted in this discussion AGAIN, that you did
    not finish the tests which you CLAIMED to have performed.. Is it that you
    can't even keep track of your own postings, or is it that truth comes from
    your fingers, but your mind NEEDS to lie. Seek professional help, they have
    distinct treatment procedures for your problem.

    >
    > > DO THE TESTS.

    >
    > POST THE INSTRUCTIONS.


    You have them saved locally, use them. What happened, lose them? Google is
    your friend, search 2006 - 2007 for yourself in this group. In fact I
    suggest EVERYONE search for your postings in this group, you have provided
    us with LOTS to laugh about since your identities have appeared in here....
    and you certainly have wasted lots of MY time...

    >
    > > The world WILL embrace your findings IF and ONLY IF *you
    > > actually do the tests and completely finish them*.

    >
    > The world will respect your intellect if you post the details of the
    > test proceedures.


    HAHAHAHAHA, who's world; yours? and purported friends, tsktsk>>, This make
    believe world in which you falsely state facts, deliberately mislead
    readers, and in which you constantly have to admit *you ARE falsely stating
    material fact* when you come to THIS real world.

    Like I would wish to live in or be remotely concerned with YOUR world. Keep
    your crap out of this forum and you can post any lie you want anywhere you
    want, just as you have been doing for a least two years in multiple forums
    concerning these supposed tests you NEVER finished, and during which there
    was never any individual test attempted for more than two days. AND after
    which you IMMEDIATELY installed a stolen XP version to the disk, which you
    also bragged about in this forum.

    Interesting how both you and Blanton had almost this SAME exact discussion
    in 2007, and you posted this crap again in 2008, and now in 2009... hmm
    what was it, Using large hard drives in win-98, or was it ....

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

Share This Page