Installation questions - 500GB Hard Drive

Hello.

A question about installing and partitioning a 500 GB Western Digital
ATA/IDE Hard Drive in a basic W98se equipped system (plus some). Details
below.

I also wish to apologize in advance for the long post, the myriad
questions - most of which are probably ignorant - as well as my being so
uneducated in such matters.

Platform Configuration:
Dell Optiplex GX240
2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager - BootUS.
(My Dell Optiplex A05 BIOS - the latest and final - will only permit
booting off the Primary Drive Volume as physically cabled.)
System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
BIOS - version A05

Issue:
I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM) model
WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
operational as that primary drive. If OTOH, someone has a more practical
approach and rationale regarding this proposal, I'll consider it. But, if my
initial premise seems sound, then that's probably what I'd prefer to have.

Research: Every WD webpage. Every Intel Webpage. Multitudes of
non-manufacturer type web pages where the issue at hand is discussed. I'm
turning to the MS Newsgroups so as to help me (if possible) decipher the
confusingly round-robin instructions. To place them in terms and sequential
order which a first-time-user-doing-this-sort-of-thing can understand.

Questions:
What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?
Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said operation?
Though I'd still prefer to use W98se as my primary OS as I do now. (I have a
love hate thing with it. *ggg*)
Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as being my
current setup ) ?
Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to have two
distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?

Detailed questions:
The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that a "Overlay" type
thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues (or problems, if one elects to
move the HD-D to another System) with employing such a method to make the
large HD-D operational.

The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type tool as well ?
Same question as above, if it is.

The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed first,
prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
Is that necessary, if the Intel Chipset Identifier and a BIOS tool indicates
that my Dell A05 BIOS will apparently support 48-bitLBA as is, without the
need for a secondary IDE PCI Controller card ?

I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed workarounds) as to
the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format / Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That
in some cases an updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances. Is that true,
or am I mistaken ?

I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an autorun of
Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in this case) will likely
cause possible corruption of Data on that large HD-D. True or not ? If
true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested disabling of Scandisk
autorun in such a crash scenario ?

Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8 -12 GB, and then
several 20 GB partitions and then a few very large partitions(working type
for editing and so-forth), is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party
Partitioning application is required for what I need to do ?

When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does that mean
that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each partition is no larger
than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that the max and only visible/usable size
of a partition on such a setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,
and the remainder - however large - will be useless, inaccessible, invisible
and therefore, lost space and money?

I'm sure I've neglected to ask many important questions. Moreover, I might
be deficient by having supplied less than adequate information to aid you in
aiding me. If so, once again, I apologize for this.

I offer my sincere thanks for any *knowledgeable and experienced help* which
may come my way. I may be a bit "slow" in many technical matters and may
also be slow in replying here to any answers - as I have a lot of irons on
the fire on my homefront. But please be assured, I will respond to all who
help.

Thank you.

BeBopaLula wrote:

> Platform Configuration:
> 2 - ATA/IDE Hard Drives - each having a separate OS.
> HD-D 1 - W98se / HD-D 2 - WinXP Pro. Both FAT32.
> Boots into the respective OS using a 3rd party Boot Manager
> - BootUS.
> System Board - Intel 845 Chipset.
>
> Issue:
> I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive
> (OEM) model WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my
> 40GB HD-D withW98se OS operational as that primary drive.

Are you trying to replicate your two-drive setup, by replacing drive-2
with a 500 gb drive? And if so, you want to continue to have drive-2
formatted as FAT-32, with Win-XP on it?

> Questions:
> What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?
> Can this be done using the W98se OS ?
> Can this be done using WinXP Pro OS ?

You mention motherboard and BIOS support for 48-bit LBA below.
Assuming for the moment that your motherboard and BIOS supports 48-bit
LBA, then simply booting your system from a DOS floppy with fdisk and
format on it should allow you to setup the 500 gb drive as FAT-32,
with what-ever partition arrangement you want - even just a single
large partition (you will need to use the updated version of
fdisk.exe).

However, doing that will lead to a situation where you will have large
clusters (allocation units) that are not efficient for handling small
files. Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
more efficient) cluster size. If your goal is to have XP on that
drive, then formatting it with 4kb clusters will work fine, and in my
experience win-98 will be able to see that drive and work with it (but
now you need to consider the 137 gb boundary situation).

Have a look at this:

http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../cs-009302.htm

> Does it make a difference which OS is employed to perform said
> operation?

XP will not format / create a FAT-32 partition on a new drive larger
than 32 gb. That is an artificial limitation placed on XP by
Microsoft as a way to force you to use NTFS on large partitions.

> Can I install the OS'es on separate Drives (as I indicated as
> being my current setup ) ?

I'm not sure if you want to keep your existing drive-1 (with win-98)
and add this new 500 gb drive as drive-2, or if you want the new 500
gb drive to be drive-1 (and put win-98 on it).

> Is there an option/ability to partition this 500 GB HD-D so as to
> have two distinctly separate(d) OS'es - one as a 'back-up' ?

I don't think it's useful to divide a drive into 2 partitions with the
intent of using the second partition as a backup. A mechanical or
electrical failure within the drive is just as likely to prevent you
from accessing the second partition as it is the first one.

> Detailed questions:
> The Western Digital Lifeguard Tools (version 11.2). Is that
> a "Overlay" type thing (DDO) ? I've heard there are issues
> (or problems, if one elects to move the HD-D to another
> System) with employing such a method to make the
> large HD-D operational.

There is an overlay driver that can be used if your motherboard
doesn't support 48-bit LBA, but it won't be installed unless you
specifically want it to be (or maybe if the WD software thinks you
need it). But yes, those tools are what you need to prepare the drive
for FAT-32 use using a more rational cluster size.

> The Intel Application Accelerator. Is that an "Overlay" type
> tool as well ? Same question as above, if it is.

You are referring to this:

http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/

To be honest, I do recall that the IAA has been mentioned in
conjunction with the 137 gb issue, but they (Intel) don't seem to come
right out and say that the IAA will replace ESDI_506.PDR for win-98.

But that is the crux of the matter. If you have an IDE (Parallel-ATA)
drive larger than 137 gb, win-98 will not function properly with it
when you attempt to read or write beyond the 137 gb sector of the
drive. The root of the problem is the driver ESDI_506.PDR. Why don't
you try installing IAA on your win-98 system. If the IAA replaces
ESDI_506.PDR with something else, then I guess you're ok.

> The Intel Chipset Updater - which Intel states must be installed
> first, prior to running the Intel Application Accelerator.
> Is that necessary,

I would install the chipset updater.

> I've read that there are issues (as well as some supposed
> workarounds) as to the Native W98(se) FDisk / Format /
> Defrag / DiskMaint / and so forth. That in some cases an
> updated version of some of these (such as from WinME in
> some cases) might be useful in *some, but not all* instances.
> Is that true, or am I mistaken ?

You need to clarify if you want to create a single 500 gb partition as
FAT-32, and if you want win-98 to be able to perform maintainence on
it or if you want XP to do the maintainence.

My experience is that win-98 tools (even the ME versions of those
tools) will not work if you format the drive with too many clusters.
Again, the number of clusters is a function of volume-size and chosen
cluster-size. Which again takes me back to the first question - do
you want a single 500 gb partition, or several smaller partitions?

> I've read that if a system crashes ("IF"... hahah), that an
> autorun of Scandisk in such an instance (after a re-boot in
> this case) will likely cause possible corruption of Data on
> that large HD-D. True or not ?

First, know that there are 2 scandisk programs. One is the DOS
scandisk (scandisk.exe) and the other is windows scandisk
(scandskw.exe / diskmaint.dll).

DOS scandisk does not use esdi_506.DLL (it uses bios int-13 calls) so
if your bios is 48-bit LBA compatible then dos scandisk will not screw
up your drive (but it will take a LONG time to run).

> If true, what's a person to do, aside from suggested
> disabling of Scandisk autorun in such a crash scenario ?

You do not want to install win-98 on the 500 gb drive, or expose the
drive to win-98 until you have tackled the 137 gb problem, which means
replacing esdi_506.PDR with something else.

First, read this:

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48Bi...er_t78592.html

Then download a modified esdi_506.PDR from here:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...604/readme.txt
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4001111F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4001119F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4102001F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4102186F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4102222F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4102225F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4102226F.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...4/4903000F.ZIP

> Assuming I'd like an OS partition in the neighborhood of 8
> -12 GB, and then several 20 GB partitions and then a few
> very large partitions(working type for editing and so-forth),
> is it an absolute certainty that a 3rd-party Partitioning
> application is required for what I need to do ?

If you are going to keep your partitions to less than 32 gb, then you
don't need to use a third-party partitioning tool because the
cluster-size will not be so large to be inefficient.

You're going to end up with a whack of drive letters, but if you're OK
with that, well then to each his own. But you will still be faced
with the 137 gb problem.

> When a recommendation is to keep a partition below 137 GB, does
> that mean that I can employ the full 500 GB's as long as each
> partition is no larger than 137 GB ? Or, does that mean that
> the max and only visible/usable size of a partition on such a
> setup as stated above will be limited to 137 GB,

It means that when the drive attempts to access a sector beyond the
137 gb point on the drive, it will wrap around back to sector zero
instead, and screw up your MBR or FAT tables.

It doesn't matter that you might have a bunch of small volumes on the
drive, none of them larger than 20 or 30 gb. On a 500 gb drive, there
will be a 137 gb point on it - unless you decide to NOT use most of
the drive and only create a bunch of partitions that take you up to
the 137 gb point (but not past it).

I personally have never attached an IDE/PATA drive larger than 80 gb
to a win-98 system, so I've never seen / experienced first-hand what
actually happens at the 137 gb access point, nor have I verified that
the modified esdi_506.pdr actually works (but those on the msfn.org
forum have).

What I have done is work with 160, 250 and 500 gb SATA drives on
win-98, so I know the extent that win-98 is compatible with those,
along with varying the cluster size and hence the number of clusters
on a given volume.

First, thanks for your interest in assisting me. Will reply in-line.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B.AE3A8BEE@Guy.com...
<snip>
>
>.... Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> more efficient) cluster size.

Looked for such an iitem at WD site. Found nothing which goes under that
name. Google search offered some close calls, but nothig exact. That is,
unless you are referring to something like "OnTrack" ?
http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.com/h...skmanager.aspx
If that is not it, and the other google results generally have some
reference to Drivers included in the hit, then may I ask you to provide some
specific ink ?

Thanks.

"BeBopaLula" <skiddleybop-a-o@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
news:%235rxNNh6HHA.5136@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46D4D69B.AE3A8BEE@Guy.com...
> <snip>
> >
> >.... Instead, I advise you to download the Western Digital version
> > of Disc Manager (bootable from a pair of floppy disks). That software
> > will allow you to format the drive as a FAT-32, but with smaller (but
> > more efficient) cluster size.
>

Addenda:
Continued searching led me to this page, but I have questions as to whether
it contains the exact item you referred to.
Hard Drive Software Library
http://ftp.abacus.cz/pub/support/tes...rs/drives.html

"BeBopaLula" <skiddleybop-a-o@rockinpiano.com> wrote in message
news:eTf0oRd6HHA.1052@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> I'd like to install a Western Digital 500 GB ATA/IDE Hard Drive (OEM)
model
> WD5000AAKB as a secondary HD-D, and still keep my 40GB HD-D withW98se OS
> . . . What must I do to Install and Partition this 500 GB HD-D ?

Documented on the maker's web site at
http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc....hp?p_faqid=533
Your basic decision is whether the BIOS and/or IDE controller
card allow access to more than 137 Gb drive space. (External
drives connected via USB avoid this limitation.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Hello.

Yes, I'd prefiously read that WD link you offered, but didn't fully
comprehend what the fine points of detail were. I did say I was far less
than technically astute than most denizens of this newsgroup are. I also
asked if anyone could explain in terms a simple person could understand and
the appropriate order of appearance. The WD link offered here does show
numerous 'options', yet never makes it clear whether all the proposals are
required - and if required, what order they should be implemented.

For example:
<paste>
If you have an Intel chipset motherboard listed in Answer ID 1004, you can
install a software package from Intel called The Intel Application
Accelerator version 2.3 to give the system (motherboard) support for hard
drives over 137GB.
</paste>

Yes, I have an Intel Chipset Motherboard (Intel 845). So, does this then
preclude or overide the previously mentioned "Recommendations" of :
<paste>
The Data Lifeguard Tools version 10.0, in conjunction with the proper
drivers for the controller card, will allow Windows 98 Second Edition and
above to utilize this space properly.
</paste>

This - in part - is what I mean by these apparently critical instructions
being somewhat cloaked; arcane; for the complete Computer Geek. The items
mentioned are suddenly mentioned off the cuff (Intel Applicxation
Accelerator, for instance) without specifying the precise role they'd
perform. For example: That *if* the disk is not fully recognized (or
whatever the problematic issue might be) after running the WD Lifeguard
Tool, *then* the use of The Intel Application Accelerator *might* be able to
overcome the problem".

To recap:

I have an Intel 845 Chipset
the Intel 48bit LBA checking tool reports that my BIOS will support a large
Hard Drive.

I then *assume* that an ancillary IDE PCI Controller card is *not needed*
for my system to accept and (effectively ?) employ a large hard drive. So,
can I safely rule out that part of the equation, which comes up again and
again and again?

The onboard Controller (Intel 82801BA Ultra ATA Storage Controller - 244B)
for the Hard Drives claims to be able to support the large hard drive. I
assume that the child components; the Primary and secondary hard drive
controllers also support said large hard drive.

So, given the above reports on my system readiness, does one need to employ
both those tools - WD Data Lifeguard Tool and the Intel Application
Accelerator (and possibly more - such as Chipset Updater, which Intel states
must be installed before running the Application Accelerator Tool) to
achieve success (Though on on hand the Chipset - as is -is claimed to
support the addition of a large hard drive?

This is what I mean when I state that the entire thing is a flustercluck,
not made clear (at least not to me) as to what is and what isn't required
and in what *exact* order they may be / *are* required (or precluded as
being an unnecessary item, *if* such and such is present and is reported as
being in compliance with the basic requirement).

Just for the record, I've looked into this matter for about 1.5 years and
read all sorts of info - much of it contradictory. In the end, I had to
actually get this HD-D to begin to actually try and apply some of the info
garnered, but then hit various roadblocks. Prolly best to just chuck it and
just go for the max size HD-D that can be employed without all the if's,
and, or buts, and arcane "jump through the hoops and hogshead of real-fire".
:-(

Thanks for the detailed help.
Regards.....

Lil' Dave wrote:

> Its my opinion.

And opinions can be debated, supported, examined, and deconstructed.
Especially on usenet.

> Unlike you, I have not jumped my bandwagon about your opinions.

Not sure I understand the phrase "jumped my bandwagon" and what it
means in the current context.

> Or your 98SE works on some specific hardware flagwaving.

That you claim the use of the IAA puts someone on some thin edge of
system stability or legitamacy takes you out of the realm of opinion
and into a statement of fact, and puts the onus on you to support such
a fact, lest your opinions be taken for garbage.

> Nor will I clip and snip your posts to take easy potshots.

Naturally. You're a top-poster. Top-posters are known for poor
usenet etiquette when it comes to editing and constructing their
responses. Adding comments in-line (as I am doing) is the proper and
original method for usenet posts. Most people that use Micro$oft
software (such as OE) to experience usenet are ignorant of this.

Here's more reading for ya:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?...=486779&st=40&

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?...hreaded&start=

If there is a post somewhere on MSFN saying that IAA has been tested
with a large IDE hard drive ( > 137 gb) then I can't find it.

"Joshua" <Joshua@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:23BE4695-F1EA-4551-8C7C-32BF9694F5E1@microsoft.com...
> im just trying to get sound on my computer at work at its like i have to sell
> an arm and a leg to find out how i need to find out what sound card is in
> this Dell Dimension desktop optiplex GX240?

http://support.dell.com/support/edoc...cs.htm#1112520

Ben