Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:40:20 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Starting over: W98 on >8GB HDD w/o EZ-Drive
Matt Hanson wrote: > > Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:45:00 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Starting over: W98 on >8GB HDD w/o EZ-Drive > > Are there anny other Librettoratti with Windows 98 on a >8GB HDD not using > EZ-Drive or other drive overlay out there? David, Lee... you guys out > there? > > --- Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> : > I'm wonder what other people who've put W98 on large, >8GB hard drives have > experienced. If you only create >primary< type 0b partitions, and not > logical ones, would you still run into this problem? 0b is for partitions < 8 GB. To access anything beyond 8 GB, DOS/Win9x needs to use int13 extensions. 0C is just a signal to DOS/Win9x to invoke these functions. So a (primary or logical) FAT32 partition < 8 GB is no problem at all. <snip> > > I'm wondering if I can just fix things on this HDD as they are by > re-installing W98, and if that's not enough, maybe deleting the G: data > drive, creating a new one type 0c, and restoring the data from backup. And > I'm still pondering whether or not the FAT32 file system on G: was in fact > corrupted when W98's scandisk on C: made corrections to files on G:. I > would think W2K's chkdsk would have complained too if that were the fact. >From here, relying on your info, that seems the easiest way to go. Don't forget to format G:, probably best done from Win2K. > I'm also trying to sort out how to go about backing up W2K boot files now > on C: so that after a fresh W98 installation there, I can copy them back > and have W2K's boot loader start when the system turns on. I guess > Boot.ini, Ntldr, Ntdetect.com, and maybe Ntbootdd.sys are the ones, along > with the \cmdcons folder and the cmdldr file for the Recovery Console. But > I'm not clear yet on whether or not the fresh W98 installation might set > something somewhere that will cause the boot sequence to ignore the W2K > boot files I copy back. The boot sector also needs entries specific for Win2K. It references MSDOS.SYS & IO.SYS in the W9x case, for Win2K I think it'll reference a.o., NTDETECT.COM. W98 format will definitely write its own bootsector, wiping out the Win2K (NT) boot file references. You need to fix it by booting from the Win2K recovery boot floppies and using FIXBOOT (IIRC). <snip> : > > 5. Assign other logical partitions as you see fit. (They should be of > > type 0C automatically) > > I've been told that FDISK will >not< in fact create a logical partition of > type 0C. That because FDISK doesn't recognize a logical partition as being > bootable. And part of the definiation of a type 0c partition is that it is > bootable. That is utter, complete rubbish, Matt. Bootable has absolutely nothing to do with the FAT32 partition type. The bootable flag in the MBR partiton record is a completely separate item from the partition type. Say if this 0C bootable story were true, 0B type would not be bootable, eh? And looking back at your PM partition dump of a several posts back, what was the type of your bootable C: partition? BTW from the XOSL docs it can be concluded that it is possible to boot DOS/Win9x from logical FAT/FAT32 partitions. > So if any Libretto folks have created partitions using only FDISK when > installing Windows 98(SE) without drive overlay, they should be seeing the > same problems with scandisk errors on files and folders on >8GB partitions > from what you've described. No? Stil don't get what you mean. <snip> : > > > I think that's basically what I did at one point, and I don't recall > > > having scandisk run into the problems I've been seeing with my setup > > > now where it finds corrupted files and folders. I know that Partition > > > Magic wouldn't be able to see past 8GB without EZ-Drive. > > > > ...in a Libretto. > > But perhaps, in a desktop it *is* able to see beyond 8 GB. > > Oh... absolutely! All I need to do is put the drive in a desktop, boot > from a W98 bootable floppy, and run PM from there. There it has no > problems. But no matter how I tried to tweak W98 and partitions on my >8GB > HHDs, PM was never able to see the entire drive properly without drive > overlay installed. Yes... it does seem to rely on that Int13 extensions > support that the Libbys lack in full. The libby does not lack it in full; all int13 extensions are present. Only the extended int13 disk size reporting function is crippled. It is because of the fact that all int13 extensions which are vital for daily use are indeed properly implemented, you don't need a drive overlay once the MBR and EMBR have entries using the full HD size. <snip> : > > > But it seems scandisk had no problems with such a setup. Right? > > > > Can't say / do not fully understand what you mean to say. > > Well... I'm still wondering if other people have successfully installed W98 > on >8GB HDDs by just using FDISK to do their partitioning... Haven't > installed EZ-Drive or other drive overlay... And in the end have never > experienced the problems I'm having with Scandisk seeing problems with > files & folders on partitions >8GB. If what you're saying about those > partitions needing to be type 0c is true, then I would think a lot of > people who relied solely on FDISK for partitioning would be running into > the same problems I'm having. Unless the guys feeding me information on > FDISK only setting type 0b logical partitions are mistaken. Yes these guys are wrong. This story that FDISK makes only 0B type logical FAT32 partitions is nonsense. I can confirm that myself (not in the Lib but in a desktop; you can't use FDISK in the Lib to access > 8 GB), it is even the way I found out about this 0B/0C difference. Can you ask these guys feeding you for a reference/URL? Philip
