Chipset Support for FAT32?

[Jeff H]

Guys,

I'm attempting to update my dad's aging AST Pentium 100 system. Thus far I've replaced the 100 w/ a Pentium 166, and added FPM memory, to 96MB (all w/i the AST allowances). System runs fine w/ original HD (Samsung 850MB) and CD-ROM drive (Torisan 2x IDE), which are run off the same cable from the primary IDE controller.

What I want to do is up his HD, and my original attempt was w/ a WD 2.1G ATA33 drive, on which I set up the Win98 folder from the Windows 98 CD. The drive was fdisked, w/ large disk support (FAT32), and formatted w/ a Win98 boot disk.

Windows setup went fine, it detected the video properly (ATI Mach 64 onboard), and all seemed well, except that we had no CD-ROM drive. The BIOS sees the CD-ROM, but Windows 98 does not. Even w/ real mode drivers in config.sys, and mscdex.exe in autoexec.bat, Windows simply does not see it. I was attempting to determine why we weren't seeing the CD-ROM drive when the HD apparently crapped out on me (subsequent testing on my machine indicated that the HD did indeed die; it wouldn't spin up, and the circuit board was abnormally warm).

I've received previous suggestions re real mode drivers, cables (which I experimented with), changing out the CD-ROM drive (which I'm doing when I get acccess to the machine again).

One thing I don't know is this: is it possible that the Intel 430FX chipset which is on this board does not support FAT32?

 

[slipperyslope]

the chipset knows absolutely nothing about the logical file structure. The OS has to recognize the FAT32 for it to work so I don't think that is a problem for you.

Jim

 

[obenton]

Check drive jumpers (for master, slave, only drive). You might try cdrom on second IDE channel. In BIOS, make sure that LBA and large drive support settings are enabled, and that the HD and cdrom settings are at "auto".

 

[Jeff H]

Guys, thanks for the replies. slipperyslope, that's what I thought, but at this stage I'm delving into the potentially more obscure things, on the hope I'm missing something.

obenton, I did the whole thing w/ drive jumpers, different cables, etc. I did notice that the 40-wire IDE drive cable that both the HD and CD were originally connected to had one pin socket blocked off, and the on-board IDE connector has a pin missing. That contrasts to the IDE cable I tried that has all 40 pin sockets open. Also, the HD (Samsung 850MB) has no jumpers, and is currently connected to the intermediate connector on the IDE cable. The CD is jumpered as a slave, connected to the end connector on the same cable as the HD.

I'm going on the wag that the CD-ROM is simply so old that it doesn't want to play nice w/ Win98. I'm suspicious of the CD drive, because when I loaded the Adaptec/Roxio UDF reader software the drive really struggled reading a CD-R that reads fine on any other machine. Were it that simple<g>.

B4 the WD HD crapped out on me, I went into Device Mgr. and saw a yellow exclamation point on the secondary IDE controller. OK I thought, what would cause that? I went into the BIOS and found the secondary IDE channel disabled. I enabled that and thought we'd be go to go. However, the CD still didn't show up in Win98.

So, next time I get at this machine (it's 180 miles away) I'm going to see if the following MS KB articles get anywhere near my issue: Q189526, Q151911. Also, if the chipset is a 430FX, is it possible that there would be an additional PCI IDE controller onboard? Or is this a case of either the 430FX chipset controlling the IDE, or another chipset (such as CMD 6400) doing the controlling? I ask this because I came upon another MS KB article (Q139987) that addresses access to CD on an Acer machine.

Last thought. Should there be any difference how Win98 sees hardware, if you install directly from the CD or you install from a Win98 folder on the HD, copied from the CD (via the boot disk)? I've yet to see this be an issue, but like I said, at this point I'm willing to entertain any ideas<g>.

 

[AndyHui]

Chipset has nothing to do with filesystem.

Certain very old CDROM drives are not compliant with Window's generic CDROM drivers, and may need to be downloaded directly from the manufacturer. Very old SONY, Matsushita (Panasonic) and a couple of others needed specific drivers.

MSCDEX.EXE is NOT supposed to be loaded when you are using Windows 9x, as it interferes with Window's CDFS driver.

If this machine is an AST Bravo MS5/100, then there is no separate IDE Controller, apart from the standard ones provided with the 430FX chipset.

Positioning of drives on cable connectors is irrelevant if the drives are jumpered correctly.

It's normal for IDE pins to have the missing one in the middle, and also normal for cable to have all 40 pins open.

Are you sure that you want 96MB of RAM? The 430FX chipset cannot cache more than 64MB of RAM. Due to Window's top-down memory structure, all of the important stuff will be loaded into RAM that is outside the cacheable area, slowing performance.

 

[SpongeBob]

Can you convince your dad to spend the $30 on a new cd-rom? 2x dosen't really cut it in this day and age, you could probably even find someone in the FS/FT forum selling an old 16x or something.

 

[Jeff H]

AndyHui, I wasn't aware that the 430FX chipset suffered from the 64Mb cacheable limitation. I know the 430TX does, but the 430FX limit is news to me. The machine is an AST Advantage! 614, and AFAIK it doesn't have any other disk controller other than that provided by the 430FX chipset. But, as I said, I'm turning over every stone to flesh this out.

I tried the real mode CD driver in config.sys, and eliminating the mscdex.exe in autoexec.bat. W/ the boot disk, the system sees the CD, but when Windows boots it doesn't, so I agree w/ you that this is a Windows issue.

SpongeBob, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I picked up a Prime Peripherals 50x ATAPI CD-ROM at OfficeMax on Monday, - $45 and a $45 rebate. The drive is actually an Afreey drive.

 

[Noriaki]

Jeff H, the 430HX I believe it was is the only Intel Socket7 chipset that doesn't suffer the 64MB limitation (the 2nd newest one didn't and I believe that was HX, for some stupid reason they put it back in the newest one).