Re: Installation questions - 500GB Hard Drive
First, thanks for your interest in assisting me. Will reply in-line.
"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B.AE3A8BEE@Guy.com...
> BeBopaLula wrote:
>
> > Platform Configuration:
> > 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> > HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> > Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager
> > - BootUS.
> > System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
> >
> > Issue:
> > I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive
> > (OEM) model WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my
> > 40GB HD-D withW98se OS operational as that primary drive.
>
> Are you trying to replicate your two-drive setup, by replacing drive-2
> with a 500 gb drive? And if so, you want to continue to have drive-2
> formatted as FAT-32, with Win-XP on it?
Yes, my idea was to replace the secondary 20GB HD-D 2 with the WD 500GB
(having XP Pro OS on the first partition ~ 8 GB of that drive; remaining
~10.6 GB was storage) .
And yes, I think I still prefer the notion of having XP formatted as FAT32,
and present on the 500GB Drive.
>
> > Questions:
> > What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
> > Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
> > Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?
>
> You mention motherboard and BIOS support for 48-bit LBA below.
> Assuming for the moment that your motherboard and BIOS supports 48-bit
> LBA, then simply booting your system from a DOS floppy with fdisk and
> format on it should allow you to setup the 500 gb drive as FAT-32,
> with what-ever partition arrangement you want - even just a single
> large partition (you will need to use the updated version of
> fdisk.exe).
Yes, the reports I've gotten thus far are that the MoBo / Chipset (?) / BIOS
allegedly will support a large hard drive.
The MoBo is some Dell PWA Planar (Phoenix I believe it is, according to a
scan. Some info is rather scant and hard to find, especially from Dell.)
Oh, might as well add that this is a Optiplex GX240, if that's of any use.
Continuing, I tried an Intel Tool (LBA CHECKING TOOL), whose instructions
said I must first "install" a Large HD-D for it to check, otherwise it'd
just show some wrror or other. I then removed HD-D 2 (20GB) and put the 500
GB HD-D in it's place. The Intel 48bitLbaChk.exe tool reported thus:
Scanning System for Available ATA/ATAPI Devices:
Searching for Primary Master.....ATA Device Found!
Searching for Primary Slave......ATA Device Found!
Searching for Secondary Master...ATAPI Device Found!
Searching for Secondary Slave....ATAPI Device Found!
ATA Device Results:
Device 0, BIOS reports 37(GB), Device reports 37(GB)
Device 1, BIOS reports 465(GB), Device reports 465(GB)
Intel 48-bit LBA BIOS Test Complete --> PASSED
It appears that your BIOS is currently 48-bit LBA capable,
and you have a 48-bit LBA hard drive installed.
So, that is what the tool said. I also assume that the reported size iof 465
GB s "ok", as it's in Decimal, and not the actual Binary (? is that right ?)
Again - and I have no experience with this - I'd suppose I'd want to have XP
in some partition of say 8 - 10 GB (is that sensible ?), and then some
several 20 GB or so partitions (so as to keep cluster sizes smaller than
that ridiculous 32 KB which my unpartitioned 40 GB FAT32 W98se has
allocated).
So, several/many 20 GB partitions to facilitate usage and aid in
Scandisk/Defragging without taking a lifetime to do so (?) and then a
working partition of some very large size which would generally be kept
empty after whatever work (vid editing/music editing, and so forth ?) was
completed.
So, I wasn't thinking of a more or less unpartitioned 500 GB drive. Wouldn't
that be a maintenance nightmare ?
I believe I have the updated Fdisk.exe (downloaded from MS). I also
understand that if one wants to create a Boot Floppy, or some floppy by
wuich to employ that updated one, one must add that to the Floppy as an
"afterthought" if one doesn't replace the original. Is that right?
Fdisk Does Not Recognize Full Size of Hard Disks Larger than 64 GB
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;263044
I also read this:
Working With Large Hard Drives - The issues and the Limits
Source page:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mosaddique/Working with Large Hard Drives.html
<paste>
Please note that the above Microsoft fix will add the new Fdisk.exe to the
C:\Windows\Command and C:\Windows\Options directories. So if you are going
to be using an existing boot floppy, you will need to copy the new version
of Fdisk.exe to it. Similarly, if you create a Startup Disk, the new version
of Fdisk.exe must still be copied to the floppy, since the Microsoft fix
does NOT update the directory C:\Windows\Command\EBD, where the files reside
from which the Startup disk is created.
NOTE:
This fix is not designed for 48-bit logical block addressing (LBA) of hard
disks, and it does not support hard disks larger than 137 GB.
</paste>
>
> However, doing that will lead to a situation where you will have large
> clusters (allocation units) that are not efficient for handling small
> files.
So, the "Native" (or even updated) version will leave me only with 32 Kb
cluster size, is that what you mean?
Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> more efficient) cluster size.
I'll go there and check that out. Thanks.
If your goal is to have XP on that
> drive, then formatting it with 4kb clusters will work fine, and in my
> experience win-98 will be able to see that drive and work with it (but
> now you need to consider the 137 gb boundary situation).
Yes, I understand; and that is how it currently is (4 KB clusters on that
second HD-D with XP on it) and the reason why I wanted to remain with FAT32,
so I could use stuff (to whatever limited degree that it allows) within XP
that I could see and access from within 98se. I really like 98se and have
never developed a real liking for XP (that's another subject though. haha)
OK... 137 GB boundary.... yes... where it gets "confusing" and forbodes
doom. lol
>
> Have a look at this:
>
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm
I had done that: Intel® Application Accelerator 48-bit LBA Test Program for
Windows* Me/98 SE/98
that's where I got that 48bit LBA Check Tool from. Had I known you'd later
refer to this as you have now, I wouldn't have wasted your time writing
about it above. Sorry.
>
> > Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said
> > operation?
>
> XP will not format / create a FAT-32 partition on a new drive larger
> than 32 gb. That is an artificial limitation placed on XP by
> Microsoft as a way to force you to use NTFS on large partitions.
Yes. I now understand that (I think) in very simple terms, thanks to you.
So, I had no problem dealing with that non-issue before as the HD-S which
had XP that I was working with was a 20 GB model. Had it been, of say 40 GB
size, then I'd have to have implemeted NTFS ? Is that what you're saying ?
(The ms b******* :-/ )
Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463
>
> > Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as
> > being my current setup ) ?
>
> I'm not sure if you want to keep your existing drive-1 (with win-98)
> and add this new 500 gb drive as drive-2, or if you want the new 500
> gb drive to be drive-1 (and put win-98 on it).
Yes, I *think* (unless someone can show me the fault of my ways; my
thinking) I want to keep the 40 GB -W98se as HD-D 1 Primary and have the 500
GB HD-D as drive 2 (with XP on it).
Reason: My w98se is very customized and I'd hate to have to re-install and
do all I've done to it all over again (Even if I could remember all that
I'd did do in the way of customization). It is also my true primary OS. The
one I "know" and love.
>
> > Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to
> > have two distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?
>
> I don't think it's useful to divide a drive into 2 partitions with the
> intent of using the second partition as a backup. A mechanical or
> electrical failure within the drive is just as likely to prevent you
> from accessing the second partition as it is the first one.
I was thinking to have a W98se OS as a "secondary" (tertiary, actually)
drive on the 500 GB HD-D-2, as a backup to my actual used and useful primary
W98se on HD-D-1. I only use XP for the very few programs which won't run in
98se, and as a 'test bed' fir things which were working in 98se and then
might suddenly have become problematic. So, basically, *one* XP system is
more than enough for me, whereas, a second 98se would be more useful and
important. Does that make any sense ?
Also, I want to make it clear that my intention was to have the 500 GB hard
drive partitioned into quite a few "sub-drives" (Logical something or other;
is that what they're called ?). Again, unless someone thinks that's a lame
idea.
>
> > Detailed questions:
> > The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that
> > a "Overlay" type thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues
> > (or problems, if one elects to move the HD-D to another
> > System) with employing such a method to make the
> > large HD-D operational.
>
> There is an overlay driver that can be used if your motherboard
> doesn't support 48-bit LBA, but it won't be installed unless you
> specifically want it to be (or maybe if the WD software thinks you
> need it). But yes, those tools are what you need to prepare the drive
> for FAT-32 use using a more rational cluster size.
So, if I use the Western Digital Lifeguard tool, and it detects the bottom
line of my hardware is 'all go", then it will go ahead (though it cannot
actually partition, is that right ?) and enable setup/format and won't
necessarily do the Dynamic Drive Overlay thing. Is that right ? It can still
do what it needs to, without necessarily employing the DDO aspect ? That'd
be fine then I guess.
>
> > The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type
> > tool as well ? Same question as above, if it is.
>
> You are referring to this:
>
> http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
Yes, broadly speaking. in a very general sort of way. This one immediately
above (Chipsets) is a general Intel page of great Info (and intimidating and
confusing) and explores in depth the nature of the Intel app/ Chipsets/ and
more. And yes, I've scoped about there and is one reason I'm now asking here
in the MS Newsgroup. <G>
Just to set my own mind stright, the one regarding the Intel Application
Accelerator *test tool* is the link you offered up-top;
here:
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009302.htm which is
the 48-bit LBA Test Program for Windows* Me/98 SE/98
Cutting to the chase, the page/item itself I'm actually most closely
referring to is:
Intel® Application Accelerator Product Overview
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-020801.htm
and even more so:
Notice for Customers Using Western Digital* Hard Drives Larger than 137GB
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/cs-009319.htm
and any additional sub pages this one might point to. Narrowing in:
Downloads
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/fil...663&OSFullName=&lang=eng&strOSs=18&submit=Go!
Readme
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/ENG/readme.txt
Release Notes
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/ENG/Release_23.htm
Just for the record, when I look in W98se Device Manager for these Drivers,
it seems they're mostly already present in there.
>
> To be honest, I do recall that the IAA has been mentioned in
> conjunction with the 137 gb issue, but they (Intel) don't seem to come
> right out and say that the IAA will replace ESDI_506.PDR for win-98.
Is that the specific issue/problem at hand ? The crux of it and the
potential for recognizing - or not recognizing - full drive capacity ?
>
> But that is the crux of the matter.
AHA ! <S>
If you have an IDE (Parallel-ATA)
> drive larger than 137 gb, win-98 will not function properly with it
> when you attempt to read or write beyond the 137 gb sector of the
> drive. The root of the problem is the driver ESDI_506.PDR. Why don't
> you try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
> ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok.
I've verged on the edge of soing this sort of thing (both regarding the WD
Lifeguard Tool as well as this Intel App Accelerator, but worried that I'd
mess it up. (Also read that removing the WD DDO could be problematic.
Additionally, I also read about how there are some issues (a DMA checkbox
which gets disabled when Intel App accelerator is installed and doesn't come
back when Intel Application Accelerator is un-installed. A "known issue", as
they put it. There was another issue about things becoming invisible (I
think that was with the WD Lifeguard Tool, if it was removed - if it could
be removed. So, upshot was, I was/am reluctant to just "test" in a chancy
fashion.
However, I also am curious as to which method would best effect a successful
outcome without adding more than I'd actually need.
Having said that.... returning to your point:
<paste>
"...try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
> ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok."
</paste>
OK... and if it doesn't, then what ? <G>
>
> > The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed
> > first, prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
> > Is that necessary,
>
> I would install the chipset updater.
OK... Though most (if not all) related files seem to be present on-board
here already. Also, The latest-latest version is not applicable to W98se.
One must employ an older version IIRC.
>
> > I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed
> > workarounds) as to the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format /
> > Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That in some cases an
> > updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
> > some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances.
> > Is that true, or am I mistaken ?
>
> You need to clarify if you want to create a single 500 gb partition as
> FAT-32, and if you want win-98 to be able to perform maintainence on
> it or if you want XP to do the maintainence.
No... not a single 500GB partition, but several partitions (logical Drives,
is that what they're called ?)
And I generally prefer wotking with W98se as a rule, but admittedly, never
had a reason to employ any Native XP maintenance utilities in any way
whatsoever. My WinXP is pretty sparse and rarely used.
Short version: Unless otherwise recommended - and as my actual working
knowledge of XP utilities are concerned, so limited - I'd just as soon
employ W98se as the workhorse of the two. Again, unless there's a definite
asset/efficacy in having XP do that.
>
> My experience is that win-98 tools (even the ME versions of those
> tools) will not work if you format the drive with too many clusters.
> Again, the number of clusters is a function of volume-size and chosen
> cluster-size. Which again takes me back to the first question - do
> you want a single 500 gb partition, or several smaller partitions?
At least several smaller clusters. Now, what you're saying is that if I
somehow format the 500 GB drive so as the file system basically becomes 4 Kb
clusters, then the number of clusters will be excessive and there will be a
problem - a BIG problem. Is that it ? So, if that's the case, and one can
allocate things to keep beneath that cap (say 8Kb or even 16 Kb sized
clusters), then that is the only way to go. Otherwise, a huge HD-D which
cannot be maintained - or worse still, accessed or data lost - would be less
than a large hard drive. Read: useless.
So, is that what and why you've been querying me about it ?
> > I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an
> > autorun of Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in
> > this case) will likely cause possible corruption of Data on
> > that large HD-D. True or not ?
>
> First, know that there are 2 scandisk programs. One is the DOS
> scandisk (scandisk.exe) and the other is windows scandisk
> (scandskw.exe / diskmaint.dll).
Yes, I believe I understand that.
>
> DOS scandisk does not use esdi_506.DLL (it uses bios int-13 calls) so
> if your bios is 48-bit LBA compatible then dos scandisk will not screw
> up your drive (but it will take a LONG time to run).
Because it must scan 500 GB's ? LOL Pray don't crash !!!!
Incidentally, on that note: When I've used the Windows GUI Scandisk, I've
done so in a "clean-boot" mode, and not in "Safe Mode" as 'safe mode' scan
seemed very slow. Though not exactly related, I can imagine how slow it
might be.
>
> > If true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested
> > disabling of Scandisk autorun in such a crash scenario ?
>
> You do not want to install win-98 on the 500 gb drive, or expose the
> drive to win-98 until you have tackled the 137 gb problem, which means
> replacing esdi_506.PDR with something else.
OK, but the testing of the large 500 GB for the 48Bit LBA BIOS capability in
DOS from W98se was OK though ?
Now, 98 Guy (great handle. <s>), There are many links you've offered below,
and i must inspect those thoroughly to be able to continue onward. I will do
so, though I'd not gotten that far as yet. I hope for two things. 1) That my
mega post here will not be unbearable. 2) that the info i've provided -
along with any clues that I *might be getting it* will be of some use in
coming to a speedy end and solution.
I'll be back. No... wait a minute. I have already been there to that
ite, - at least in part - and downloaded a BIGHDD30.zip file (apparently
the link to BigHDD20 was dead.
>
> First, read this:
I'll re-read. Thank you.
)
>
> http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_Break_137Gb_barrier_t78592.html
>
> Then download a modified esdi_506.PDR from here:
>
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/readme.txt
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001111F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4001119F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102001F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102186F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102222F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102225F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4102226F.ZIP
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/26/1113604/4903000F.ZIP
>
> > Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8
> > -12 GB, and then several 20 GB partitions and then a few
> > very large partitions(working type for editing and so-forth),
> > is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party Partitioning
> > application is required for what I need to do ?
>
> If you are going to keep your partitions to less than 32 gb, then you
> don't need to use a third-party partitioning tool because the
> cluster-size will not be so large to be inefficient.
But what about the actual *number of clusters* ? Will that become an issue
in itself ?
>
> You're going to end up with a whack of drive letters, but if you're OK
> with that, well then to each his own.
LOL. I had given that modest (repeat: modest) thought. haha
But you will still be faced
> with the 137 gb problem.
The never-ending 137 GB issue. Will it ever go away ? lol
>
> > When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does
> > that mean that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each
> > partition is no larger than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that
> > the max and only visible/usable size of a partition on such a
> > setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,
>
> It means that when the drive attempts to access a sector beyond the
> 137 gb point on the drive, it will wrap around back to sector zero
> instead, and screw up your MBR or FAT tables.
To make light of such a disaster, that sounds... er... rather
"inconvenient". <sg>.
>
> It doesn't matter that you might have a bunch of small volumes on the
> drive, none of them larger than 20 or 30 gb. On a 500 gb drive, there
> will be a 137 gb point on it - unless you decide to NOT use most of
> the drive and only create a bunch of partitions that take you up to
> the 137 gb point (but not past it).
That would be useless wouldn't it ?
>
> I personally have never attached an IDE/PATA drive larger than 80 gb
> to a win-98 system, so I've never seen / experienced first-hand what
> actually happens at the 137 gb access point, nor have I verified that
> the modified esdi_506.pdr actually works (but those on the msfn.org
> forum have).
But, someone must have ... somewhere ? I always read stuff like "overcome
the 137 GB limit" and people writing of 'success" but it's alwats beeen kind
of cryptic and not so easy to accomplish as what I've been led (mis-led ?)
to believe. :-(
>
> What I have done is work with 160, 250 and 500 gb SATA drives on
> win-98, so I know the extent that win-98 is compatible with those,
> along with varying the cluster size and hence the number of clusters
> on a given volume.
I think I've scoped in on some of those rather arcane and mega posts of
highly technical prowess. Both you and at least two other persons. Franc
Zabkar (I believe) and someone else - whose name I cannot presently recall.
OK... 'nuff said for now...
Thank you very much for the help / ideas / suggestions / links and all
you've offered. Above and beyond that, thank you for having taken of your
time to read and reply (and to sit once again through this one big ___ post
of mine). It was very kind of you.<S>
I'll see what I can do.....
Cheers,
BeBopalula