48-bit LBA support on Win98se?

[VirtualLarry]

I know that Microsoft never officially released a patch to Win98se for 48-bit LBA support in the native IDE drivers. Thus limiting the hardware that Win98se can be installed on to HDs 128GB or less.

Unless...

You run some 3rd-party disk controller drivers, that DO support 48-bit LBA. Such as the Promise Ultra100 TX2 or Ultra133 TX2. Which I do.

But what I was wondering is, I have them plugged into a mobo with the Intel 865PE chipset. Is there a version of IAA (Intel Application Accelerator) out there, that works with the 865PE (and replaces MS's IDE drivers), that does support 48-bit LBA (and the SATA ports on that mobo)?

Because if that could work, then I could conceivably run Win98se on a (large) SATA drive, and I wouldn't be stuck looking for working IDE drives, 10 years into the future.

 

[Keitero]

Is there a reason that you need to run Windows 98? You could run Virtual PC to run 98 on top of your favorite NT-based kernel. If you fancy *NIX, you can run VMWare or VirtualBox.

 

[bsobel]

Are you doing this because you have an actual need, or just curious if you can? FAT32 simply isnt reliable and the bigger the drive, ugh, the bigger the mess.

There are few 98 apps you couldn't run in a 98 virtual machine with faster than original speed anyhow...

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'd like to keep my main computer (including the legacy OSes) running for as long as possible.

(I'd like to "Gibson" it, if you've ever played Snatcher you'll get the reference.)

This means that I need to stock up on IDE drives now, and stockpile them for the future - unless I can find a way to get my OSes all running on SATA drives with 48-bit LBA support, which means that I can purchase modern HDs when one of mine dies.

This isn't just for experiment's sake.

Edit: FAT32 has been reliable for me, and it's more fixable when something does go wrong. I keep good backups, so that's not a worry anyways.

Edit: I found this at Intel, IAA for Win98se, version 2.3 (11/13/2002). Is that around the date that products started supporting 48-bit LBA?

From the Readme.htm:

Issues Resolved in 2.3 Beta Candidate 1.0 - Build 2135
ID: 260728 Device register set incorrectly for 48-bit LBA commands. Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows NT 4.0

That leads me to belive that 48-bit LBA IS implemented in these drivers. What do you think?

 

[bsobel]

Edit: FAT32 has been reliable for me

Your lucky.

and it's more fixable when something does go wrong

However this part is false.

 

[scruffypup]

I found fat32 to be very reliable overall,... years and tons of use without issue. So yes it can be.

It can be somewhat more flexible too,... depending on how you look at it,.... more operating systems can access it that NTFS for one!

@VirtualLarry,... check out this site:
http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm

It can be easy to do with somewhat "newer" motherboards and drivers (BIOS and chipset drivers),... much older motherboards and you might not want the hassles,...

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
This means that I need to stock up on IDE drives now, and stockpile them for the future - unless I can find a way to get my OSes all running on SATA drives with 48-bit LBA support, which means that I can purchase modern HDs when one of mine dies.

Three years from now, 120GB SDD will be as affordable per GB as 120GB ~ 160GB mechanical drives are today. How many mechanical drives do you reckon that you'll burn through in the next three years?

I notice that new 3.5" 120GB drives are becoming difficult to find, but new 2.5" 120GB drives are readily available and should be for a while. Another option in the foreseeable future is using notebook drives, whether IDE or SATA. For IDE, you'll need one of those 3.5" to 2.5" adapters, but SATA notebook drives share the same connectors as desktop drives for both data and power.

160GB desktop drives, however, are readily available. You could buy a few 160GB desktop drives, then manually change the capacity in firmware to 120GB. Seagate, Hitachi, and Samsung drives support manually setting the drive capacity in firmware using utilities available from the manufacturer. I'm not sure about Western Digital. There is no reason you couldn't do this with drives larger than 160GB (e.g. 200GB or more), but you'd be losing more capacity. With 160GB, you're only giving up 40GB.

I found this at Intel, IAA for Win98se, version 2.3 (11/13/2002). Is that around the date that products started supporting 48-bit LBA?

The IAA does make 48-bit support possible on 98SE. However, it doesn't appear IAA supports ICH5 or later parts, only ICH1 ~ ICH4:

http://support.intel.com/suppo...s/iaa/sb/cs-009292.htm

http://support.intel.com/suppo...s/iaa/sb/cs-009312.htm

Besides, IAA is not a particularly desirable solution. A number of people reported that IAA hosed their systems or was more glitchy than the default MS drivers.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
The IAA does make 48-bit support possible on 98SE. However, it doesn't appear IAA supports ICH5 or later parts, only ICH1 ~ ICH4:

Good catch. The IAA docs state this:

1. The system must contain the following Intel products:
* Intel(R) Pentium(R) III or Pentium(R) 4 processor
* Intel(R) 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA or 82801DB controllers

ICH5 is 82801EB.

Damn Intel, why didn't they support the ICH5.

Then again, this download does come up when searching for i865 chipsets, so perhaps they added support without noting it in the readme? It might be too risky to test, I should do a test install on another rig, one with the identical motherboard.

The programmer's manual links them all together though. link
So perhaps supporting one supports them all?

Edit: Intel are truely bastards. This is evidently the final word on the subject.

Note: The Intel Application Accelerator is not compatible with the Intel® 875P, 865G/P/PE, 852/855 GM/GME, 855MP, 848P, 815EM chipset, the Intel® 440 chipset family, or any earlier Intel chipsets. The Intel Application Accelerator is also not compatible with any Intel® 900 series Express Chipset families.

 

[Nothinman]

Damn Intel, why didn't they support the ICH5.

Because no one should be caring about Win9X anymore.