Solve : Fat 32 partition not visible in DOS?

1.	Solve : Fat 32 partition not visible in DOS?
Answer» Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 12:44:51 AM No mention of 'drive overlay' in this KB.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126855 look for: "Real-Mode Driver Support for Translation" That's a drive overlay. Quote The IDE interface allows 65,536 cylinders, 16 heads, and 255 sectors Yes, it does- using the CHS access method. Thus the reason CHS was dumped for LBA around 1993. Quote 32-bit disk access This is not the least bit relevant. Windows 95 and 98 will be using "32-bit disk access" by default anyway, so that only applies to windows for workgroups anyway. And wether the driver that interfaces with the IDE controller is running in real mode or protected mode is redundant. Quote 28-bit logical block address WHy would I search for that? That pretty much PROVES that it doesn't have 48-bit LBA, which is going to be needed for very large drives on any operating system, regardless of your whimsical FANTASIES regarding how SATA has these superpowers to circumvent software limitations. SATA is compatible with PATA at the software level. Windows98 Doesn't support SATA normally, so you have to set it to compatible, so now the software sees it as a IDE controller. And get this- IT ACTS LIKE AN IDE CONTROLLER. it doesn't magically provide access to more of the drive then an equivalent PATA drive, And a normal PATA drive is no more restricted in size then a SATA drive. they both use the same ATA protocol, one just happens to transmit the data serially rather then via a parallel cable. If you choose to believe that transferring data serially as opposed to in parallel instills the device with which it is used with the magical power to manipulate software that is using it so that it supports 48-bit LBA, then go ahead, but please don't spread such nonsense if you can HELP it. Quote Using MS-DOS with a very large drive is NOT recommended. Of course it isn't. older software is simply not going to be compatible with newer hardware, without additional drivers. I'm curious, though, weren't you just saying that using the new hardware (SATA) would give the drive magical powers to circumvent the limitations of the software? So am I correct to believe that using MS-DOS with a very large drive is NOT recommended, except in those cases where they have a SATA drive because SATA has whimsical powers beyond comprehension? Quote Please don't ask why, I am getting tired of this. That's what you said, but I heard this: Quote I am right and you are wrong, I am singing the I am right song ad infinitum... Asserting you know what you are talking about doesn't make it so. Asserting that 32-bit disk access makes a difference is contrary to the fact that it doesn't. Saying that SATA has whimsical abilities beyond standard PATA is utter and complete nonsense that you most likely just made up on the spot. Quote But if you can provide a real-world case were ... SATA and PATA and CHS and LBA all work the same. I don't need to quote a real world case for you to know that if you drop a apple, it will fall. People saying that I, or anybody else, needs to provide a real world case to prove their assertions wrong have gotten the ball mixed up; especially in cases of Occam's Razor like claiming that SATA has superpowers. Anyway, in conclusion, it's also rather silly to think any of that matters since their first drive, which is also far larger then the 504MB, works fine and can be accessed fine, so congratulations on managing to somehow find a completely irrelevant article and asserting it has something to do with the problem when it doesn't)I am right and you are wrong. Please don't take it personally. Using a SATA interface will allow Windows 98 SE to read a drive larger than 128 GB (137GB). However, the utilities written for MS-DOS will or will not work right. The problem is that you have not idea of what you are talking about and you write a bunch of nonsense and insist that it is so because you say it is. The reference to 32 bit was not to memory. It was to the four byte entries that the OS has for the hard drive. Those four bytes are given to a driver that talks to the hardware and translates drive address to a data stream that conforms to some IDE protocol. The older IDE protocol was not expendable in a simple manner. The new protocol had to be backward compatible, yet allow addressing above 28 bits. They choose 48 bit so they will never have to do it again. But 40 bit would have been enough. The hardware protocol for PATA was set before the SATA was made. The 28 bit structure was not made to be extended. So a the designers hard to do a workaround. Windows 98 used a 32 bit reference for the location of sectors on the hard drive. But the driver, which was not in the kernel, could only use the 28 bits to interface with the IDE. If it had been a 32 bit protocol instead of 28 bit, Windows 98 atapi driver would have been able to use drives beyond 2 terabytes. The old atapi driver can only use 28 bits because that was the standard protocol at the time. Do some reading on the 28 bit stuff please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA Do the math. it is 2^32 x 512 which is way beyond 128 GB. When they did the first IDE protocol, somebody reasoned that was absurd, and cut it down to 28 bits. I could not find who that guy was. Maybe he lives on an island now. I am not trying to hard on you. It is understandable that some people can not do arithmetic unless they have a calculator at hand. It is now Sunday morning and I am awake now, so watch out. I am onto you! Wow, BC_P and Geek-9PM duking it out! This is better than Torchwood! I thought that although SATA electronics and connectors differ from Parallel ATA, the technology is software compatible and OS transparent. I await developments... There are millions, if not thousands of posts where many have used SATA with Windows 98SE. It is very clear there are doing it. Many BC has trouble understand plain language without a lot of computer federalism. Here are just two: Quote PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: 98SE with SATA? [Login to view extended thread Info.] I just set up a new computer with a SATA HD and Windows 98/SE. SE didn't care a bit. I had absolutely NO problem with it till I tried to upgrade to XP pro. To load XP-Pro, I had to use the SATA driver disk that came with the mobo. XP can be such a pain in the Bxxx! But, yes, 98/SE ran just great on the SATA drive. Shadow Cool Quote graveur sata DAN posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 3:52 AM Bonjour a tous. je viens d'installer sur ma machine un graveur dvd Sata. malheureusement win 98 lui ne semble pas reconaitre mon lecteir dvd! qu'en pensez vous et auriez vous une solution a me proposer? D'avance merci de votre aide.i ========= Bonsoir Peut-?tre avec un convertisseur SATA / IDE : http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00071913.html http://www.ldlc.com/articles/AL00000018-1/ide-2-sata-kit.html Mais pas test? sur W98 Herser How this helps. The finer details of this 'discussion' are not within my grasp but I do believe the moral of the story is. Old stuff has trouble with new stuff and when playing in such waters one is bound to run into limitations. With the hodge podge of technology we have inherited there will be many unique circumstances where limitations arise. Since hardware is set in stone(unless you are rich) the mobo and BIOS limitations are highly inflexible our main source of possible solutions is in advanced software. Thus, out with Win98 DOS and in with whatever I can find that works. In my case the way I can to do my HD maintenance outside of the XP environment is with the software provided by Terabyte. I am sure there are other options but at this point my needs are filled. As time permits I may experiment with things like freeDOS, linux and proper multibooting. If any of you want to see the nitty gritty of the investigation that went on to help me get up and running imaging partitions outside of XP on large HDs have a read at: http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1297230229/0 Cheers all and thanks for your inputs.Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 11:06:50 AM I am right and you are wrong. Please don't take it personally. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stating "SATA has whimsical pixie powers to overcome Software limitations" is extraordinary. Saying that "despite what microsoft says, 32-bit disk access uses a secret method of drive communication that enables larger hard drives to be accessed" is an extraordinary claim. You provide no evidence at all, let alone extraordinary evidence. In fact, you go so far as to assert that anybody else would have to prove you wrong by citing real world cases, something which you yourself did not do. Quote Using a SATA interface will allow Windows 98 SE to read a drive larger than 128 GB (137GB). However, the utilities written for MS-DOS will or will not work right. No. It will not. SATA is ATA is IDE and windows98 accesses a SATA drive in the exact same way and that SATA drive reacts to windows the exact same way an IDE drive would. Quote The problem is that you have not idea of what you are talking about and you write a bunch of nonsense and insist that it is so because you say it is. That's what you're doing, actually. What you are doing is providing links to wholly irrelevant articles (like that one saying how to get large hard drive support in older versions of windows, that means, support for drives larger then 504MB, a barrier which the OP has clearly had no problem getting around since their primary drive is accessed fine. Quote The reference to 32 bit was not to memory. It was to the four byte entries that the OS has for the hard drive. Those four bytes are given to a driver that talks to the hardware and translates drive address to a data stream that conforms to some IDE protocol. again, 32-bit disk access REFERS to the fact that the driver runs in protected mode. it doesn't use some magical 32-bit LBA access method nor would storing "sector counts" (regardless of the size of the field) allow access to exterior portions of the drive. Quote The hardware protocol for PATA was set before the SATA was made. The 28 bit structure was not made to be extended. ATA-1 didn't even have LBA. You can't explain that. Quote So a the designers hard to do a workaround. Windows 98 used a 32 bit reference for the location of sectors on the hard drive. No. It doesn't. there wasn't an LBA beyond 28-bit when windows98 was created, so you are talking out your censored. Quote Do the math. it is 2^32 x 512 which is way beyond 128 GB. When they did the first IDE protocol, somebody reasoned that was absurd, and cut it down to 28 bits. I could not find who that guy was. Maybe he lives on an island now. repeat after me- 32-bit disk access refers to the CPU operating mode that the driver runs in. THAT IS IT. in fact, that is EXACTLY what microsoft says in regard to 32-bit disk access: Quote 32-bit disk access (32BDA), also known as FastDisk, is a set of protected-mode drivers that direct int13 calls to the hard disk controller through a protected mode interface. For the latter the hard disk controller has to supply an appropriate virtual device driver (VxD). Windows ships with one such driver BUILT in: wdctrl. Unfortunately, this device only supports controllers that are strictly compatible with the WD1003 standard; this excludes SCSI, ATA-2, LBA or CHS translation, disks with more than 1024 cylinders and even some commonplace features of ATA such as block mode. If it detects one of these during the initialization phase it will refuse to load. In today's computers, this means that wdctrl will rarely do the job and an external VxD must be used. 32BDA has two advantages over disk access through the BIOS. First, since the FastDisk VxD is re-entrant, it enables Windows to use virtual memory for DOS sessions. Using virtual memory without 32BDA could create a deadlock situation if a page fault is generated during the execution of BIOS routines. Since the BIOS is not re-entrant, it is not possible to use a BIOS call to read the page from disk until the first BIOS call has terminated; on the other hand, this BIOS thread must remain suspended until the swapped out page has been read. So 32BDA enables Windows to manage memory much more efficiently with one or more DOS sessions open. The second advantage of 32-bit disk access is that it saves two (relatively slow) switches between virtual and protected mode per disk I/O call. Take, for instance, a disk read performed by a DOS application. In the absence of 32BDA, each such call causes the following sequence of events: 1 Application calls INT21 to read from disk 2 Windows traps the call, switches to protected mode 3 Windows switches to real mode, returns to DOS 4 DOS makes int13 call to BIOS disk routines 5 Windows traps the call, switches to protected mode 6 Windows switches to real mode, returns to BIOS 7 BIOS acts upon int13 call and does the read 8 Windows traps the return from int13, switches to PM 9 Windows switches to RM, returns the result to DOS 10 DOS receives the result, passes on to application 11 Windows traps the return from DOS, switches to PM 12 Windows switches to RM, returns result to application 13 Application receives the result from the INT21 call Using 32-bit disk access replaces steps 6 to 8 by a single call to the FastDisk VxD. This removes two mode switches, resulting in a usually small disk performance improvement. (Steps 3-11 also apply to native Windows applications). Right, they just "forgot" the third point "oh yeah and even though we just said it didn't support LBA addressing at all, it totally does and it uses sector counts to do it and other stuff, so you just have to go all 2 to the power of 32 and you gots your max cluster addressing. You can't just go around adding a few bit widths here and assuming that if something is 32-bit it enables some other unrelated 32-bit access mode. By the same token I may as well say that running a 32-bit application and a 16-bit application enabled 48-bit LBA- right, since 32-bit +16-bit is 48. or that running two 32-bit applications at once gives your CPU 64-bit instructions, and then if you run a 16-bit program you get 48-bit LBA (64-16). but don't try to access a drive using fat32, because then you will be back to to normal 16-bit access (48-32=16) I know how to do math, I also know that providing 2 to the power of arbitrary numeric designations, particularly when those designations refer explicitly to the CPU operating mode, is completely redundant and hardly constitutes a claim of any sort. Quote I am not trying to hard on you. It is understandable that some people can not do arithmetic unless they have a calculator at hand. 32-bit disk access runs in 32-bit protected mode. That is why it's called 32-bit disk access. That is the only reason. I mean, I could take arbitrary powers of two from any number I see, but I wouldn't want to take that task from you. Quote It is now Sunday morning and I am awake now, so watch out. I am onto you! This is you awake? I would have assumed you were asleep, what with the dreamy nonsense you are spouting (and then you claim I'm the one spouting nonsense without proof, haha) Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 01:36:06 PM There are millions, if not thousands of posts where many have used SATA with Windows 98SE. It is very clear there are doing it. Many BC has trouble understand plain language without a lot of computer federalism. I never said that a SATA drive couldn't be used with windows98. those quotes only have people who managed to find out that you could indeed use the IDE compatible mode. that's it. they say nothing of "oh yeah and now I can access more of the drive because of SATA's magical pixie powers". Quote from: Salmon Trout on February 13, 2011, 01:12:47 PM Wow, BC_P and Geek-9PM duking it out! This is better than Torchwood! I thought that although SATA electronics and connectors differ from Parallel ATA, the technology is software compatible and OS transparent. I await developments... SATA has two modes- compatible/IDE, where it can be accessed and is seen as if it were a standard IDE/ATA device; or AHCI, which requires a AHCI driver that windows98 doesn't have and is thus redundant. This debate is particularly funny in that he keeps saying that I have no real-world evidence, then says he has none either. What he doesn't know is that I have several windows98 PCs and I have already done a LOT of experimentation with SATA and IDE and I KNOW that a good portion of everything he has stated so far is complete and utter tosh. Perhaps he should start providing evidence for his extraordinary claims rather then making extraordinary claims and saying "you can't prove me wrong" even though I already did so several times.When you use a SATA device there is no issue. SATA has 48 LBA. Alwasy did. Never havd 28 bit LBA. The problem is only with drivers that were written explicitly for an early ersion of the ATA standard that preceded SATA. The 48-bit Logical Block Addressing is a method which extends the capacity of IDE ATA/ATAPI devices beyond a previous limit of 137.4 GB. This limit applies to IDE ATA/ATAPI devices only. The older design specification for the ATA interface only provided 28-bits with which to address the devices. This meant that a hard disk could only have a maximum of 268,435,456 sectors of 512 bytes , the ATA interface to a maximum of 137.4 gigabytes. With 48-bit addressing the limit is 144 petabytes (144,000,000 gigabytes). Unlikely they will ever do a 64 bit LBA. Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 09:42:09 PM When you use a SATA device there is no issue. SATA has 48 LBA. Always did. http://www.48bitlba.com/sataharddrives.htm Quote 48-bit LBA requirements for SATA hard drives are the same as those for IDE hard drives. You will need to make sure you have the correct Windows Service Packs installed and EnableBigLba registry value set for Windows 2000. If not, your SATA hard drive will not be recognized at full capacity. Regarding 48-bit LBA BIOS compatibility, in theory that is also required. In reality, since SATA technology is basically newer relative to 48-bit LBA we expect all motherboards which support SATA will also have 48-bit LBA compatibility in the BIOS. Most likely, you will not need to check for this if you are having problems installing your SATA hard drive. You should make sure you have the latest Windows Service Packs and drivers installed first. Not that it matters since Windows 98 does not support 48-bit LBA. Quote Never havd 28 bit LBA. That's irrelevant. What you are saying is that since SATA "only supports " 48-bit LBA (which is wrong. since SATA is ATA and all ATA standards are backwards compatible in that you can use a ATA-4 drive in a computer capable of using ATA-6 and you can use an ATA-6 drive in a older computer capable of only ATA-4; in "compatible/IDE" mode, (which is required for any OS that doesn't have native SATA drivers) SATA drives act just like a standard ATA drive, including backwards compatibility with software expecting to be able to interface with it using older drivers, this includes 28-bit LBA. Quote The problem is only with drivers that were written explicitly for an early ersion of the ATA standard that preceded SATA. Drivers which are used by older operating systems that don't have SATA drivers, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. SATA doesn't magically make these drivers work in a new mode. Quote The 48-bit Logical Block Addressing is a method which extends the capacity of IDE ATA/ATAPI devices beyond a previous limit of 137.4 GB. This limit applies to IDE ATA/ATAPI devices only. SATA drives are IDE/ATA drives too. Those same limits apply if the software in question is interfacing with the drive as if it was an older ATA revision, which it can do because in order for it to see it at all it needs to be set to "compatible" in the BIOS in which case the SATA drive is seen as a standard ATA-6 (or 7) drive to the system, and any ATA-6 (or 7) drive can be interacted with using even ATA-4 drivers, which coincidentally are the ones Windows98 uses by default, most likely this is because ATA-4 was the newest revision when windows98 was released. Quote The older design specification for the ATA interface only provided 28-bits with which to address the devices. no. 28-bit LBA was in ATA-1 through ATA-4. ATA-4 hasn't been used in new PCs since 1998. Windows 98 interacts with IDE drives (and SATA drives are IDE drives, FYI) using a driver that uses ATA-4 commands. that ATA subset includes 28-bit LBA, SATA drives are ATA drives, thus they are backward compatible with the ATA command languages of previous revisions of ATA- that includes 28-bit addressing. Without third-party hacks Windows 98 will not support 48-bit LBA. Quote the ATA interface to a maximum of 137.4 gigabytes ATA-6 uses 48-bit LBA. It isn't limited to 137.4GB. You keep saying "ATA" instead of "PATA", since a SATA drive is a ATA drive. I assume that since you are trying to for some reason say that since SATA is newer it only supports 48-bit LBA (something easily disprovable with a little research, or simply the basic knowledge that all versions of ATA are generally backward compatible, and that SATA is/was in fact part of the ATA-7 specification. You say Toh mah toe I say Tu may tu It is still Tomato and tastes the same. Only early drivers for the PATA were written with the 28 bit LBA. All drivers written for the SATA always have 48 LBA. There is no generic binary low-level driver that can do both PATA and SATA. Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 10:51:28 PM Only early drivers for the PATA were written with the 28 bit LBA. ATA-4. I just told you. which was in use ~1998. Earlier then that there was no 28-bit LBA that drivers could use. Quote All drivers written for the SATA always have 48 LBA. Windows 98 doesn't have SATA Drivers. DOS doesn't have SATA drivers. Quote There is no generic binary low-level driver that can do both PATA and SATA. ATA drivers (such as those used in operating systems before SATA) can use SATA drives. Set SATA mode in BIOS to "compatible" and you can install XP without additional SATA drivers just fine. I know because I've actually done it. XP doesn't see SATA drives, it sees them just as it would a PATA drive- two IDE Controllers with a master and a slave each. Same with windows 98, difference is Windows XP SP1a supports 48-bit LBA (ATA-6) and Windows98 does not.

Answer»
Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 12:44:51 AM

No mention of 'drive overlay' in this KB.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126855

look for: "Real-Mode Driver Support for Translation" That's a drive overlay.

Quote

The IDE interface allows 65,536 cylinders, 16 heads, and 255 sectors

Yes, it does- using the CHS access method. Thus the reason CHS was dumped for LBA around 1993.
Quote

32-bit disk access

This is not the least bit relevant. Windows 95 and 98 will be using "32-bit disk access" by default anyway, so that only applies to windows for workgroups anyway. And wether the driver that interfaces with the IDE controller is running in real mode or protected mode is redundant.
Quote

28-bit logical block address

WHy would I search for that? That pretty much PROVES that it doesn't have 48-bit LBA, which is going to be needed for very large drives on any operating system, regardless of your whimsical FANTASIES regarding how SATA has these superpowers to circumvent software limitations.

SATA is compatible with PATA at the software level. Windows98 Doesn't support SATA normally, so you have to set it to compatible, so now the software sees it as a IDE controller. And get this-

IT ACTS LIKE AN IDE CONTROLLER.

it doesn't magically provide access to more of the drive then an equivalent PATA drive, And a normal PATA drive is no more restricted in size then a SATA drive. they both use the same ATA protocol, one just happens to transmit the data serially rather then via a parallel cable. If you choose to believe that transferring data serially as opposed to in parallel instills the device with which it is used with the magical power to manipulate software that is using it so that it supports 48-bit LBA, then go ahead, but please don't spread such nonsense if you can HELP it.

Quote

Using MS-DOS with a very large drive is NOT recommended.

Of course it isn't. older software is simply not going to be compatible with newer hardware, without additional drivers. I'm curious, though, weren't you just saying that using the new hardware (SATA) would give the drive magical powers to circumvent the limitations of the software? So am I correct to believe that using MS-DOS with a very large drive is NOT recommended, except in those cases where they have a SATA drive because SATA has whimsical powers beyond comprehension?

Quote

Please don't ask why, I am getting tired of this.

That's what you said, but I heard this:
Quote

I am right and you are wrong, I am singing the I am right song
ad infinitum...

Asserting you know what you are talking about doesn't make it so. Asserting that 32-bit disk access makes a difference is contrary to the fact that it doesn't. Saying that SATA has whimsical abilities beyond standard PATA is utter and complete nonsense that you most likely just made up on the spot.

Quote

But if you can provide a real-world case were ...

SATA and PATA and CHS and LBA all work the same. I don't need to quote a real world case for you to know that if you drop a apple, it will fall. People saying that I, or anybody else, needs to provide a real world case to prove their assertions wrong have gotten the ball mixed up; especially in cases of Occam's Razor like claiming that SATA has superpowers.

Anyway, in conclusion, it's also rather silly to think any of that matters since their first drive, which is also far larger then the 504MB, works fine and can be accessed fine, so congratulations on managing to somehow find a completely irrelevant article and asserting it has something to do with the problem when it doesn't)I am right and you are wrong. Please don't take it personally.

Using a SATA interface will allow Windows 98 SE to read a drive larger than 128 GB (137GB). However, the utilities written for MS-DOS will or will not work right.

The problem is that you have not idea of what you are talking about and you write a bunch of nonsense and insist that it is so because you say it is.

The reference to 32 bit was not to memory. It was to the four byte entries that the OS has for the hard drive. Those four bytes are given to a driver that talks to the hardware and translates drive address to a data stream that conforms to some IDE protocol.

The older IDE protocol was not expendable in a simple manner. The new protocol had to be backward compatible, yet allow addressing above 28 bits. They choose 48 bit so they will never have to do it again. But 40 bit would have been enough.

The hardware protocol for PATA was set before the SATA was made. The 28 bit structure was not made to be extended. So a the designers hard to do a workaround. Windows 98 used a 32 bit reference for the location of sectors on the hard drive. But the driver, which was not in the kernel, could only use the 28 bits to interface with the IDE. If it had been a 32 bit protocol instead of 28 bit, Windows 98 atapi driver would have been able to use drives beyond 2 terabytes.

The old atapi driver can only use 28 bits because that was the standard protocol at the time. Do some reading on the 28 bit stuff please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA

Do the math. it is 2^32 x 512 which is way beyond 128 GB. When they did the first IDE protocol, somebody reasoned that was absurd, and cut it down to 28 bits. I could not find who that guy was. Maybe he lives on an island now.

I am not trying to hard on you. It is understandable that some people can not do arithmetic unless they have a calculator at hand.

It is now Sunday morning and I am awake now, so watch out. I am onto you!
Wow, BC_P and Geek-9PM duking it out! This is better than Torchwood! I thought that although SATA electronics and connectors differ from Parallel ATA, the technology is software compatible and OS transparent. I await developments...

There are millions, if not thousands of posts where many have used SATA with Windows 98SE. It is very clear there are doing it. Many BC has trouble understand plain language without a lot of computer federalism.

Here are just two:
Quote

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: 98SE with SATA? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
I just set up a new computer with a SATA HD and Windows 98/SE.
SE didn't care a bit. I had absolutely NO problem with it till I tried to upgrade to XP pro. To load XP-Pro, I had to use the SATA driver disk that came with the mobo. XP can be such a pain in the Bxxx!
But, yes, 98/SE ran just great on the SATA drive.
Shadow Cool

Quote

graveur sata
DAN posted on Monday, April 19, 2010 3:52 AM
Bonjour a tous.
je viens d'installer sur ma machine un graveur dvd Sata.
malheureusement win 98 lui ne semble pas reconaitre mon lecteir dvd!
qu'en pensez vous et auriez vous une solution a me proposer?
D'avance merci de votre aide.i
=========
Bonsoir
Peut-?tre avec un convertisseur SATA / IDE :
http://www.ldlc.com/fiche/PB00071913.html
http://www.ldlc.com/articles/AL00000018-1/ide-2-sata-kit.html
Mais pas test? sur W98
Herser

How this helps.
The finer details of this 'discussion' are not within my grasp but I do believe the moral of the story is. Old stuff has trouble with new stuff and when playing in such waters one is bound to run into limitations. With the hodge podge of technology we have inherited there will be many unique circumstances where limitations arise. Since hardware is set in stone(unless you are rich) the mobo and BIOS limitations are highly inflexible our main source of possible solutions is in advanced software. Thus, out with Win98 DOS and in with whatever I can find that works. In my case the way I can to do my HD maintenance outside of the XP environment is with the software provided by Terabyte. I am sure there are other options but at this point my needs are filled.

As time permits I may experiment with things like freeDOS, linux and proper multibooting. If any of you want to see the nitty gritty of the investigation that went on to help me get up and running imaging partitions outside of XP on large HDs have a read at:

http://radified.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1297230229/0

Cheers all and thanks for your inputs.Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 11:06:50 AM

I am right and you are wrong. Please don't take it personally.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stating "SATA has whimsical pixie powers to overcome Software limitations" is extraordinary. Saying that "despite what microsoft says, 32-bit disk access uses a secret method of drive communication that enables larger hard drives to be accessed" is an extraordinary claim. You provide no evidence at all, let alone extraordinary evidence. In fact, you go so far as to assert that anybody else would have to prove you wrong by citing real world cases, something which you yourself did not do.
Quote

Using a SATA interface will allow Windows 98 SE to read a drive larger than 128 GB (137GB). However, the utilities written for MS-DOS will or will not work right.

No. It will not. SATA is ATA is IDE and windows98 accesses a SATA drive in the exact same way and that SATA drive reacts to windows the exact same way an IDE drive would.

Quote

The problem is that you have not idea of what you are talking about and you write a bunch of nonsense and insist that it is so because you say it is.

That's what you're doing, actually. What you are doing is providing links to wholly irrelevant articles (like that one saying how to get large hard drive support in older versions of windows, that means, support for drives larger then 504MB, a barrier which the OP has clearly had no problem getting around since their primary drive is accessed fine.
Quote

The reference to 32 bit was not to memory. It was to the four byte entries that the OS has for the hard drive. Those four bytes are given to a driver that talks to the hardware and translates drive address to a data stream that conforms to some IDE protocol.

again, 32-bit disk access REFERS to the fact that the driver runs in protected mode. it doesn't use some magical 32-bit LBA access method nor would storing "sector counts" (regardless of the size of the field) allow access to exterior portions of the drive.

Quote

The hardware protocol for PATA was set before the SATA was made. The 28 bit structure was not made to be extended.

ATA-1 didn't even have LBA. You can't explain that.

Quote

So a the designers hard to do a workaround. Windows 98 used a 32 bit reference for the location of sectors on the hard drive.

No. It doesn't. there wasn't an LBA beyond 28-bit when windows98 was created, so you are talking out your *censored*.

Quote

Do the math. it is 2^32 x 512 which is way beyond 128 GB. When they did the first IDE protocol, somebody reasoned that was absurd, and cut it down to 28 bits. I could not find who that guy was. Maybe he lives on an island now.

repeat after me- 32-bit disk access refers to the CPU operating mode that the driver runs in. THAT IS IT. in fact, that is EXACTLY what microsoft says in regard to 32-bit disk access:

Quote

32-bit disk access (32BDA), also known as FastDisk, is a set of protected-mode drivers that direct int13 calls to the hard disk controller through a protected mode interface. For the latter the hard disk controller has to supply an appropriate virtual device driver (VxD).

Windows ships with one such driver BUILT in: *wdctrl. Unfortunately, this device only supports controllers that are strictly compatible with the WD1003 standard; this excludes SCSI, ATA-2, LBA or CHS translation, disks with more than 1024 cylinders and even some commonplace features of ATA such as block mode. If it detects one of these during the initialization phase it will refuse to load. In today's computers, this means that *wdctrl will rarely do the job and an external VxD must be used.

32BDA has two advantages over disk access through the BIOS. First, since the FastDisk VxD is re-entrant, it enables Windows to use virtual memory for DOS sessions. Using virtual memory without 32BDA could create a deadlock situation if a page fault is generated during the execution of BIOS routines. Since the BIOS is not re-entrant, it is not possible to use a BIOS call to read the page from disk until the first BIOS call has terminated; on the other hand, this BIOS thread must remain suspended until the swapped out page has been read.

So 32BDA enables Windows to manage memory much more efficiently with one or more DOS sessions open.

The second advantage of 32-bit disk access is that it saves two (relatively slow) switches between virtual and protected mode per disk I/O call. Take, for instance, a disk read performed by a DOS application. In the absence of 32BDA, each such call causes the following sequence of events:

1 Application calls INT21 to read from disk
2 Windows traps the call, switches to protected mode
3 Windows switches to real mode, returns to DOS
4 DOS makes int13 call to BIOS disk routines
5 Windows traps the call, switches to protected mode
6 Windows switches to real mode, returns to BIOS
7 BIOS acts upon int13 call and does the read
8 Windows traps the return from int13, switches to PM
9 Windows switches to RM, returns the result to DOS
10 DOS receives the result, passes on to application
11 Windows traps the return from DOS, switches to PM
12 Windows switches to RM, returns result to application
13 Application receives the result from the INT21 call

Using 32-bit disk access replaces steps 6 to 8 by a single call to the FastDisk VxD. This removes two mode switches, resulting in a usually small disk performance improvement. (Steps 3-11 also apply to native Windows applications).

Right, they just "forgot" the third point "oh yeah and even though we just said it didn't support LBA addressing at all, it totally does and it uses sector counts to do it and other stuff, so you just have to go all 2 to the power of 32 and you gots your max cluster addressing.

You can't just go around adding a few bit widths here and assuming that if something is 32-bit it enables some other unrelated 32-bit access mode. By the same token I may as well say that running a 32-bit application and a 16-bit application enabled 48-bit LBA- right, since 32-bit +16-bit is 48. or that running two 32-bit applications at once gives your CPU 64-bit instructions, and then if you run a 16-bit program you get 48-bit LBA (64-16). but don't try to access a drive using fat32, because then you will be back to to normal 16-bit access (48-32=16)

I know how to do math, I also know that providing 2 to the power of arbitrary numeric designations, particularly when those designations refer explicitly to the CPU operating mode, is completely redundant and hardly constitutes a claim of any sort.

Quote

I am not trying to hard on you. It is understandable that some people can not do arithmetic unless they have a calculator at hand.

32-bit disk access runs in 32-bit protected mode.

That is why it's called 32-bit disk access. That is the only reason. I mean, I could take arbitrary powers of two from any number I see, but I wouldn't want to take that task from you.
Quote

It is now Sunday morning and I am awake now, so watch out. I am onto you!

This is you awake? I would have assumed you were asleep, what with the dreamy nonsense you are spouting (and then you claim I'm the one spouting nonsense without proof, haha)

Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 01:36:06 PM

There are millions, if not thousands of posts where many have used SATA with Windows 98SE. It is very clear there are doing it. Many BC has trouble understand plain language without a lot of computer federalism.

I never said that a SATA drive couldn't be used with windows98. those quotes only have people who managed to find out that you could indeed use the IDE compatible mode. that's it. they say nothing of "oh yeah and now I can access more of the drive because of SATA's magical pixie powers".

Quote from: Salmon Trout on February 13, 2011, 01:12:47 PM

Wow, BC_P and Geek-9PM duking it out! This is better than Torchwood! I thought that although SATA electronics and connectors differ from Parallel ATA, the technology is software compatible and OS transparent. I await developments...

SATA has two modes- compatible/IDE, where it can be accessed and is seen as if it were a standard IDE/ATA device; or AHCI, which requires a AHCI driver that windows98 doesn't have and is thus redundant.

This debate is particularly funny in that he keeps saying that I have no real-world evidence, then says he has none either. What he doesn't know is that I have several windows98 PCs and I have already done a LOT of experimentation with SATA and IDE and I KNOW that a good portion of everything he has stated so far is complete and utter tosh. Perhaps he should start providing evidence for his extraordinary claims rather then making extraordinary claims and saying "you can't prove me wrong" even though I already did so several times.When you use a SATA device there is no issue. SATA has 48 LBA. Alwasy did. Never havd 28 bit LBA. The problem is only with drivers that were written explicitly for an early ersion of the ATA standard that preceded SATA.
The 48-bit Logical Block Addressing is a method which extends the capacity of IDE ATA/ATAPI devices beyond a previous limit of 137.4 GB. This limit applies to IDE ATA/ATAPI devices only. The older design specification for the ATA interface only provided 28-bits with which to address the devices. This meant that a hard disk could only have a maximum of 268,435,456 sectors of 512 bytes , the ATA interface to a maximum of 137.4 gigabytes. With 48-bit addressing the limit is 144 petabytes (144,000,000 gigabytes). Unlikely they will ever do a 64 bit LBA.
Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 09:42:09 PM

When you use a SATA device there is no issue. SATA has 48 LBA. Always did.

http://www.48bitlba.com/sataharddrives.htm

Quote

48-bit LBA requirements for SATA hard drives are the same as those for IDE hard drives. You will need to make sure you have the correct Windows Service Packs installed and EnableBigLba registry value set for Windows 2000. If not, your SATA hard drive will not be recognized at full capacity.

Regarding 48-bit LBA BIOS compatibility, in theory that is also required. In reality, since SATA technology is basically newer relative to 48-bit LBA we expect all motherboards which support SATA will also have 48-bit LBA compatibility in the BIOS. Most likely, you will not need to check for this if you are having problems installing your SATA hard drive. You should make sure you have the latest Windows Service Packs and drivers installed first.

Not that it matters since Windows 98 does not support 48-bit LBA.

Quote

Never havd 28 bit LBA.

That's irrelevant. What you are saying is that since SATA "only supports " 48-bit LBA (which is wrong. since SATA is ATA and all ATA standards are backwards compatible in that you can use a ATA-4 drive in a computer capable of using ATA-6 and you can use an ATA-6 drive in a older computer capable of only ATA-4; in "compatible/IDE" mode, (which is required for any OS that doesn't have native SATA drivers) SATA drives act just like a standard ATA drive, including backwards compatibility with software expecting to be able to interface with it using older drivers, this includes 28-bit LBA.
Quote

The problem is only with drivers that were written explicitly for an early ersion of the ATA standard that preceded SATA.

Drivers which are used by older operating systems that don't have SATA drivers, so I'm not sure what the relevance is. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. SATA doesn't magically make these drivers work in a new mode.

Quote

The 48-bit Logical Block Addressing is a method which extends the capacity of IDE ATA/ATAPI devices beyond a previous limit of 137.4 GB. This limit applies to IDE ATA/ATAPI devices only.

SATA drives are IDE/ATA drives too. Those same limits apply if the software in question is interfacing with the drive as if it was an older ATA revision, which it can do because in order for it to see it at all it needs to be set to "compatible" in the BIOS in which case the SATA drive is seen as a standard ATA-6 (or 7) drive to the system, and any ATA-6 (or 7) drive can be interacted with using even ATA-4 drivers, which coincidentally are the ones Windows98 uses by default, most likely this is because ATA-4 was the newest revision when windows98 was released.

Quote

The older design specification for the ATA interface only provided 28-bits with which to address the devices.

no. 28-bit LBA was in ATA-1 through ATA-4. ATA-4 hasn't been used in new PCs since 1998. Windows 98 interacts with IDE drives (and SATA drives are IDE drives, FYI) using a driver that uses ATA-4 commands. that ATA subset includes 28-bit LBA, SATA drives are ATA drives, thus they are backward compatible with the ATA command languages of previous revisions of ATA- that includes 28-bit addressing. Without third-party hacks Windows 98 will not support 48-bit LBA.

Quote

the ATA interface to a maximum of 137.4 gigabytes

ATA-6 uses 48-bit LBA. It isn't limited to 137.4GB. You keep saying "ATA" instead of "PATA", since a SATA drive is a ATA drive. I assume that since you are trying to for some reason say that since SATA is newer it only supports 48-bit LBA (something easily disprovable with a little research, or simply the basic knowledge that all versions of ATA are generally backward compatible, and that SATA is/was in fact part of the ATA-7 specification.

You say Toh mah toe
I say Tu may tu
It is still Tomato and tastes the same.

Only early drivers for the PATA were written with the 28 bit LBA.

All drivers written for the SATA always have 48 LBA.

There is no generic binary low-level driver that can do both PATA and SATA.
Quote from: Geek-9pm on February 13, 2011, 10:51:28 PM

Only early drivers for the PATA were written with the 28 bit LBA.

ATA-4. I just told you. which was in use ~1998. Earlier then that there was no 28-bit LBA that drivers could use.

Quote

All drivers written for the SATA always have 48 LBA.

Windows 98 doesn't have SATA Drivers. DOS doesn't have SATA drivers.

Quote

There is no generic binary low-level driver that can do both PATA and SATA.

ATA drivers (such as those used in operating systems before SATA) can use SATA drives. Set SATA mode in BIOS to "compatible" and you can install XP without additional SATA drivers just fine. I know because I've actually done it. XP doesn't see SATA drives, it sees them just as it would a PATA drive- two IDE Controllers with a master and a slave each. Same with windows 98, difference is Windows XP SP1a supports 48-bit LBA (ATA-6) and Windows98 does not.

Solve : Fat 32 partition not visible in DOS?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment