Memory hold

Right, and you also fail to mention: You stated you needed to run in disk
computability mode. Has that changed?
IF SO, then how did you manage that change which allowed standard access?

Moreover, you also failed to finished the assigned tests that were
presented during those prior discussions. Has that changed?
IF SO, where did you post the test results?

What we keep trying to address to you.... you need to be careful of the
overly-broad statements you continue to make here, and elsewhere.
Whether *you* wish to "consider" something is not important and no one
cares,,, what they care about is whether you HAVE taken all necessary
considerations in your postings.
Think about it....

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



"98 Guy" <98.DeleteThis@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49CAD348.D2A4B02D@Guy.com...
> MEB wrote:
>
> > For some reason the SATA and BIOS support aspects seems to have
> > eluded 98 Guy.. again
>
> As I've just stated, you have to go far back to find hardware that is
> not 48-bit LBA compatible.
>
> And I've chosen my current hardware carefully so that I have appropriate
> SATA support under win-98. And it wasn't hard to do.
>
> And I've written about that aspect many times over the past few years
> here.

In message <4E832DD6-EDDA-4AC2-B783-68E2C85DEDDD RemoveThis @microsoft.com>, Justin
<Justin RemoveThis @discussions.microsoft.com> writes:
>Whats the top amount of memory a windows 98 can handle up to cause im
>thinking about buying a external drive for it and i need to know how much it
>can handle so i can buy the right amount of gigabytes
>
>thank you to who ever answers

Note that he said EXTERNAL. (Much of the discussion here seems to have
been about drives connected directly to the motherboard controllers.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I've got *plenty* of common sense! I just choose to ignore it." - Calvin

MEB wrote:

> Right, and you also fail to mention: You stated you needed to
> run in disk computability mode. Has that changed?

You should at least quote the item you're responding to. Oh, I see
you've top-posted. Usenet is really going down the tubes when it comes
to posting style...

I said that one way to get around the problem of ESDI_506.PDR was to
simply not use it - by removing the file and forcing win98 to run in
compatibility mode.

But I don't have to do that with my systems with SATA drives because I
have win-98 drivers for the raid controller.

> Moreover, you also failed to finished the assigned tests that were
> presented during those prior discussions. Has that changed?
> IF SO, where did you post the test results?

Still got a memory like a steel trap, eh MEB?

To be honest, either I forgot what exactly the details were for that
test (what exactly was I supposed to do), or they (the details) were
never posted.

> What we keep trying to address to you.... you need to be careful
> of the overly-broad statements you continue to make here, and
> elsewhere.

I ran win-98 on a 500gb SATA hard drive partitioned as a single FAT32
volume with 4kb cluster size (120 million clusters) and I filled the
drive 85% full of 1gb DVD VOB files. Win-98 functioned just fine. What
were the problems with that setup? Windows didn't / couldn't create a
swap file on it. Windows ME scandisk and Defrag wouldn't run on it.
Does Win98 need a swap file when it's got 1gb of ram? Probably not.

Would I use that setup for a working win-98 system? No. I'd still use
a 500 gb drive, but I'd have a 64 gb primary partition (formatted with
4kb cluster size) and install win98, office2k, and a whack of other apps
on that drive, and the remaining 400-odd gig I might parition into at
most two volumes (probably 8k or 16kb cluster size) and store multimedia
files on those.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Is it that win-98, even with a SATA drive and SATA drivers, is not
_really_ workable when the drive is larger than 128 gb? Do you want
that to be the case? Or you don't want me to be the one to get the
credit for trying it and finding that it works?

You can always spend a few hundred bucks for the components and try it
yourself and then post here how it doesn't work.

MEB wrote:

> > I said that one way to get around the problem of ESDI_506.PDR was
> > to simply not use it - by removing the file and forcing win98 to
> > run in compatibility mode.
>
> WITH BIOS and controller support... overly-broad!! Fails to make
> sure others understand the issues

What issues?

If the motherboard or bios doesn't impliment 48-bit LBA then it's not
likely that fdisk and format would even let you format the entire drive
anyways. Given a system with a post-2002 motherboard (ie a system that
can do 48-bit LBA) then yes, that system's int13 bios routines will be
able to fully and correctly access any IDE drive regardless of capacity,
and so will win-98 when it's using DOS "compatibility mode" drive
access.

> > But I don't have to do that with my systems with SATA drives
> > because I have win-98 drivers for the raid controller.
>
> Ahhhh, so you eventually found drivers for the RAID, so where
> were they found?

You apparently never read what I posted previously. Well, read it here.
Again:

---------------
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general,
alt.windows98
From: 98 Guy <98 RemoveThis @Guy.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:15:57 -0400
Local: Mon, Jul 23 2007 7:15 pm
Subject: Windows 98 large file-count tests on large volume
(500 gb hard drive)

File copy test - Windows 98

Hardware Details:

Motherboard: ASRock Dual VSTA:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=775Dual-vsta
CPU: Intel Celeron 3.46 ghz
Chipset: VIA PT880 Pro/Ultra Chipset
Driver download (VIA Hyperion Pro Driver Package):
http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_HyperionPro_V512A.zip
Onboard lan: Via Rhine II / Lan driver: fetnd5av.sys
http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VT6107_VT8231_VT8233_VT8235_VT8237_VT8...
Installed memory: 512 mb, DDR
USB 2.0 Root Hub (driver: usbhub20.sys)
VIA PCI to USB Enhanced Host Controller (driver: usbehci.sys)
http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M.zip

Hard drive: Western Digital WD5000KS (500 gb) SATA
Hard drive is controlled by on-board VIA VT8237A Raid controller
(viamraid.mpd, ios.vxd, viamvsd.vxd)
----------------

Does that answer your question?

> > To be honest, either I forgot what exactly the details were for
> > that test (what exactly was I supposed to do), or they (the
> > details) were never posted.
>
> They were posted by me, EXACTLY as they were to be performed,
> AND *you even modified them to your desired test activities*,
> WHICH YOU NEVER FINISHED OR POSTED RESULTS FOR.

You said the same thing in the past, and I've told you I've never seen
them, and I've asked you to re-post those instructions, and you've
refused, just as you're again refusing to do so.

> As for the 1gb VOB files test, you were to have tried massive
> quantities of directories and files,,, as a normal/common usage
> would use. That was a key part of the tests you failed to perform.

The following was posted during the July 2007 time-frame. If it doesn't
address what you've just written, then tell me *exactly* how, or why:

-----------------
Windows-98se CD was copied to it's own directory on the hard drive,
and all cab files were unpacked into their own separate subdirectory.
In addition to the unpacked cabs, I copied all files in my win-98
system and system32 directories. So this sub-directory has 2000 files
(129 mb). The over-all size of the win-CD directory is therefore 767
mb (5565 files, 366 folders).

I replicated that directory 541 times in a tree as follows:

c:\file test (root test directory)

\Super-1
\Super-2
\Super-3

In each of the above three directories, 10 subdirectories (0001
through 0010). In each of those 10 directories, 18 subdirectories
(000A through 000R). In each of those, a copy of the above-described
win98-CD source files.

The file-properties dialog box for c:\file test takes 10 to 15 minutes
to arrive at a final tally, which is:

Size: 405 gb (435,633,783 bytes) 441,899,741,184
Contains: 3,010,665 Files, 199,119 Folder

Based on the size (135 gb) and time-stamps of the Super-x directories,
I calculated that the file-copy rate was effectively 11.5 mb per
second (it took 3.5 hours to copy the contents of Super-1 to Super-2).

chkdsk c:

487,431,968 kilobytes total disk space
52,323,392 kilobytes free

4096 bytes in each allocation unit
121,857,992 total allocation units on disk
13,080,848 available allocation units on disk

I re-started the computer in DOS and ran DOS-scandisk. I left it
running, will check back in a few hours to see how it finished.

Conclusion / Comments:

Well, basically, I almost filled a 500 gb hard drive with a replicated
set of files that range in size from a few bytes to a few mb in size.
A grand total of over 3 million files spread across almost 200,000
directories. Windows was functional during and after this file-copy
process, and the system continues to boot and function normally.

If anyone out there is not satisfied that my test methodology was not
sufficient to correctly test win-98 for a file-count limitation or a
directory-size limitation that may arise given current modern large
hard drives available today, please speak up and describe an alternate
test method.

As a comment, I don't believe that creating a set of zero-byte files
will necessarily accomplish or test windows-98 with the same level of
"stress" as the test I describe here.
----------------------

> AHHHH, here we go, you suffer from delusions you found something
> that no one else had tried.... tsk,tsk.. what's wrong, need an
> ego boost?

I'm trying to understand why you have such a problem with what I've
posted about win-98 and large drive support. If there was an ego factor
involved here, then why do I post these results without using my real
name? How does being anonymous jive with having an ego?

> DURING those prior discussions WE [the group, in which a half/dozen
> or so of us directly participated] directed you to several dozen
> sites and linked materials FROM WHICH YOU OBTAINED your information..

Yes, there were some links to Microsoft technet and KB items that
attempted to explain the behavior of certain items (DOS scandisk for
one) and I described how that information was wrong (according to
microsoft, I shouldn't have been able to run DOS scandisk on a volume
larger than 128 gb or with more than 4.17 million clusters, but I did).

Can you post even a single example of one of those sites or linked
materials formed an important or intrinsic part or was necessary for me
to carry out my investigations of large hard drive support under win-98?

> care to guess WHY that information was already available?....
> think it might have been from prior test results? ...
> think others might have tested these factors already? ....

Please post an example of this *information* that was the result of
*prior* tests that was done by *others* that was mentioned during the
2007 time frame when I was posting my own results that you think I
needed or relied upon in order to do what I did.

Do you actually try to be this moronic, or does it come naturally?

"98 Guy" <98 RemoveThis @Guy.com> wrote in message news:49CB7BCA.903425B4@Guy.com...
> MEB wrote:
>
> > > I said that one way to get around the problem of ESDI_506.PDR was
> > > to simply not use it - by removing the file and forcing win98 to
> > > run in compatibility mode.
> >
> > WITH BIOS and controller support... overly-broad!! Fails to make
> > sure others understand the issues
>
> What issues?
>
> If the motherboard or bios doesn't impliment 48-bit LBA then it's not
> likely that fdisk and format would even let you format the entire drive
> anyways. Given a system with a post-2002 motherboard (ie a system that
> can do 48-bit LBA) then yes, that system's int13 bios routines will be
> able to fully and correctly access any IDE drive regardless of capacity,
> and so will win-98 when it's using DOS "compatibility mode" drive
> access.
>
> > > But I don't have to do that with my systems with SATA drives
> > > because I have win-98 drivers for the raid controller.
> >
> > Ahhhh, so you eventually found drivers for the RAID, so where
> > were they found?
>
> You apparently never read what I posted previously. Well, read it here.
> Again:
>
> ---------------
> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,
> microsoft.public.win98.disks.general,
> alt.windows98
> From: 98 Guy <98 RemoveThis @Guy.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:15:57 -0400
> Local: Mon, Jul 23 2007 7:15 pm
> Subject: Windows 98 large file-count tests on large volume
> (500 gb hard drive)
>
> File copy test - Windows 98
>
> Hardware Details:
>
> Motherboard: ASRock Dual VSTA:
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=775Dual-vsta
> CPU: Intel Celeron 3.46 ghz
> Chipset: VIA PT880 Pro/Ultra Chipset
> Driver download (VIA Hyperion Pro Driver Package):
> http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_HyperionPro_V512A.zip
> Onboard lan: Via Rhine II / Lan driver: fetnd5av.sys
> http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VT6107_VT8231_VT8233_VT8235_VT8237_VT8...
> Installed memory: 512 mb, DDR
> USB 2.0 Root Hub (driver: usbhub20.sys)
> VIA PCI to USB Enhanced Host Controller (driver: usbehci.sys)
> http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M.zip
>
> Hard drive: Western Digital WD5000KS (500 gb) SATA
> Hard drive is controlled by on-board VIA VT8237A Raid controller
> (viamraid.mpd, ios.vxd, viamvsd.vxd)
> ----------------
>
> Does that answer your question?

No. During your postings of that era, these either did not work or did not
provide the support required, or you were unaware of them.
I still see no PCIe/ePCI for 98, where's that one.

>
> > > To be honest, either I forgot what exactly the details were for
> > > that test (what exactly was I supposed to do), or they (the
> > > details) were never posted.
> >
> > They were posted by me, EXACTLY as they were to be performed,
> > AND *you even modified them to your desired test activities*,
> > WHICH YOU NEVER FINISHED OR POSTED RESULTS FOR.
>
> You said the same thing in the past, and I've told you I've never seen
> them, and I've asked you to re-post those instructions, and you've
> refused, just as you're again refusing to do so.
>
> > As for the 1gb VOB files test, you were to have tried massive
> > quantities of directories and files,,, as a normal/common usage
> > would use. That was a key part of the tests you failed to perform.
>
> The following was posted during the July 2007 time-frame. If it doesn't
> address what you've just written, then tell me *exactly* how, or why:
>
> -----------------
> Windows-98se CD was copied to it's own directory on the hard drive,
> and all cab files were unpacked into their own separate subdirectory.
> In addition to the unpacked cabs, I copied all files in my win-98
> system and system32 directories. So this sub-directory has 2000 files
> (129 mb). The over-all size of the win-CD directory is therefore 767
> mb (5565 files, 366 folders).
>
> I replicated that directory 541 times in a tree as follows:
>
> c:\file test (root test directory)
>
> \Super-1
> \Super-2
> \Super-3
>
> In each of the above three directories, 10 subdirectories (0001
> through 0010). In each of those 10 directories, 18 subdirectories
> (000A through 000R). In each of those, a copy of the above-described
> win98-CD source files.

Ask yourself WHAT IS THE KNOWN/PURPORTED SYSTEM LIMITATION>.. exceed that..
Don't ask again what these are, you were repeatedly directed to these
during those prior discussions.

>
> The file-properties dialog box for c:\file test takes 10 to 15 minutes
> to arrive at a final tally, which is:
>
> Size: 405 gb (435,633,783 bytes) 441,899,741,184
> Contains: 3,010,665 Files, 199,119 Folder
>
> Based on the size (135 gb) and time-stamps of the Super-x directories,
> I calculated that the file-copy rate was effectively 11.5 mb per
> second (it took 3.5 hours to copy the contents of Super-1 to Super-2).
>
> chkdsk c:
>
> 487,431,968 kilobytes total disk space
> 52,323,392 kilobytes free
>
> 4096 bytes in each allocation unit
> 121,857,992 total allocation units on disk
> 13,080,848 available allocation units on disk
>
> I re-started the computer in DOS and ran DOS-scandisk. I left it
> running, will check back in a few hours to see how it finished.
>
> Conclusion / Comments:
>
> Well, basically, I almost filled a 500 gb hard drive with a replicated
> set of files that range in size from a few bytes to a few mb in size.
> A grand total of over 3 million files spread across almost 200,000
> directories. Windows was functional during and after this file-copy
> process, and the system continues to boot and function normally.

The system is no longer the master system correct... XP exist upon the
disk...
What are the system/OS limitations, exceed those ...

>
> If anyone out there is not satisfied that my test methodology was not
> sufficient to correctly test win-98 for a file-count limitation or a
> directory-size limitation that may arise given current modern large
> hard drives available today, please speak up and describe an alternate
> test method.
>
> As a comment, I don't believe that creating a set of zero-byte files
> will necessarily accomplish or test windows-98 with the same level of
> "stress" as the test I describe here.
> ----------------------

No one gives a rats behind what you think, because you have yet to
understand what is required to provide proofed test results.

>
> > AHHHH, here we go, you suffer from delusions you found something
> > that no one else had tried.... tsk,tsk.. what's wrong, need an
> > ego boost?
>
> I'm trying to understand why you have such a problem with what I've
> posted about win-98 and large drive support. If there was an ego factor
> involved here, then why do I post these results without using my real
> name? How does being anonymous jive with having an ego?

Because this is the same misnomer you use elsewhere.... hence 98 Guy
symbolizes you, your entity...
I told you before to post as yourself, you are to afraid to do so....

>
> > DURING those prior discussions WE [the group, in which a half/dozen
> > or so of us directly participated] directed you to several dozen
> > sites and linked materials FROM WHICH YOU OBTAINED your information..
>
> Yes, there were some links to Microsoft technet and KB items that
> attempted to explain the behavior of certain items (DOS scandisk for
> one) and I described how that information was wrong (according to
> microsoft, I shouldn't have been able to run DOS scandisk on a volume
> larger than 128 gb or with more than 4.17 million clusters, but I did).

You never tested the disk properly, so no, you proved nothing.

>
> Can you post even a single example of one of those sites or linked
> materials formed an important or intrinsic part or was necessary for me
> to carry out my investigations of large hard drive support under win-98?

Duh, 48bit, Microsoft, Axel216, MSFN, MDGx, and the list goes on.....

>
> > care to guess WHY that information was already available?....
> > think it might have been from prior test results? ...
> > think others might have tested these factors already? ....
>
> Please post an example of this *information* that was the result of
> *prior* tests that was done by *others* that was mentioned during the
> 2007 time frame when I was posting my own results that you think I
> needed or relied upon in order to do what I did.

Look, no one cares what you supposedly proofed, because you never proofed
it. And your present test will not do so either. You know what the original
test was defined as, do that. Manipulate the files , meaning: open -
modify - move - create - delete - mass delete - create large files within
98, manipulate those - use the end of the disk - run monitoring programs and
report ALL errors - use the system in a fashion which would reflect normal
usage... do so for an extended period [a month or more]. POST EVERY
MODIFICATION made to your system.

You can post YOUR links to YOUR materials, you know full well, as do all of
the regulars who post here, what was presented to you during those
discussions. Anyone with a few brain cells also knows you are aware of those
links/postings, I have no intention of posting them again.

*We* are also well aware of your *pleadings to help you* with those issues
you posted while trying to get your ASROCK to work [and that included almost
every aspect of the board and devices],, which we did and were glad to help.

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

Why are you such an absolute and utter fool?

Did you lose half your savings in the market crash?

Is that why you're such an angry, disagreeable bastard?