160GB and up drives are not compatible with Windows 98/Me, what about Serial drives?

[c627627]

You need a PCI raid card to use 160GB and higher IDE PATA (>>P<<ATA)
hard drives with Windows 98/Me because of the 137GB operating system
limit, right?

What about SATA (>>S<<ATA) 160 GB and up drives?


Some motherboards have an onboard RAID controller that accommodates
the standard two IDE cable connectors PLUS two SATA connectors so:

If the original problem is taken care of through PCI cards, would it
be taken care of by onboard RAID controllers?

Would they allow today's large capacity SATA drives to be connected
without risking data corruption which would result if those drives
were PATA and were accessed under Windows 98/Me.

 

[nesredep egrob]

You need a PCI raid card to use 160GB and higher IDE PATA (>>P<<ATA)
hard drives with Windows 98/Me because of the 137GB operating system
limit, right?

What about SATA (>>S<<ATA) 160 GB and up drives?


Some motherboards have an onboard RAID controller that accommodates
the standard two IDE cable connectors PLUS two SATA connectors so:

If the original problem is taken care of through PCI cards, would it
be taken care of by onboard RAID controllers?

Would they allow today's large capacity SATA drives to be connected
without risking data corruption which would result if those drives
were PATA and were accessed under Windows 98/Me.

AS you are talking 98 try this for size

Start/run/regedit
(if unsure export registry for safety)
select HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
navigate to system/services/atapi/parameters or
system/currentcontrolset/services/atapi/parameters
right click for new
Select Dword name it EnableBigLba (take note of case)
set value to 1
end regedit
reboot

Borge in sunny Perth, Australia

 

[c627627]

I have a dual boot Windows XP/Me system; as you may know, there is an
operating system limitation with Windows 98/Me. They cannot access
data beyond 137 GB and will in fact corrupt data if 160 GB or larger
hard drives are connected without a PCI raid card.

There is nothing that can be done in the registry as the only way
around this is to physically connected the large drives to a PCI card,
and then Windows 98/Me can access all the data beyond 137 GB
limitation without corrupting it.

 

[nesredep egrob]

I have a dual boot Windows XP/Me system; as you may know, there is an
operating system limitation with Windows 98/Me. They cannot access
data beyond 137 GB and will in fact corrupt data if 160 GB or larger
hard drives are connected without a PCI raid card.

There is nothing that can be done in the registry as the only way
around this is to physically connected the large drives to a PCI card,
and then Windows 98/Me can access all the data beyond 137 GB
limitation without corrupting it.

Got it - I did not realise that is was a dual boot
Borge in sunny Perth, Australia

 

[Anna]

You need a PCI raid card to use 160GB and higher IDE PATA (>>P<<ATA)
hard drives with Windows 98/Me because of the 137GB operating system
limit, right?

What about SATA (>>S<<ATA) 160 GB and up drives?

Some motherboards have an onboard RAID controller that accommodates
the standard two IDE cable connectors PLUS two SATA connectors so:

If the original problem is taken care of through PCI cards, would it
be taken care of by onboard RAID controllers?

Would they allow today's large capacity SATA drives to be connected
without risking data corruption which would result if those drives
were PATA and were accessed under Windows 98/Me.

(c627627 later adds...)

I have a dual boot Windows XP/Me system; as you may know, there is an
operating system limitation with Windows 98/Me. They cannot access
data beyond 137 GB and will in fact corrupt data if 160 GB or larger
hard drives are connected without a PCI raid card.

There is nothing that can be done in the registry as the only way
around this is to physically connected the large drives to a PCI card,
and then Windows 98/Me can access all the data beyond 137 GB
limitation without corrupting it.

c627627:
Actually there is no problem with the Win98/Me operating systems accessing
data on hard drives > 137 GB. Obviously the first requirement is that the
motherboard's BIOS supports large-capacity drives, i.e., > 137 GB.

The problem with those operating systems with respect to large-capacity
drives is that their scan disk & defrag utilities will not work effectively
in that large-disk environment and could be the cause of data corruption. So
if the user does not use those utilities there is little or no danger of
data corruption using large-capacity drives in the Win98/Me environment.

But there is a potential danger in that even if the user does not
voluntarily invoke the scan disk utility the OS will cause that utility to
automatically run after a bad shutdown (although there's a way to disable
that in msconfig).

Anyway, I have to admit that we were always uncomfortable with users
installing large hard drives in their Win98/Me systems and our general
recommendation was *not* to employ a HDD > 120 GB in that environment. While
we never directly experienced data corruption with large-capacity HDDs
(excepting the scan disk - defrag business) we did hear of reports of such
corruption with large-capacity drives so accordingly, we took what we
considered a prudent course of action in making this recommendation.
Anna

 

[c627627]

I have a dual boot Windows XP/Me and an nForce2 chipset motherboard.

I have Scandisk permanently disabled on Windows Me and can confirm
that I can and did corrupt data by simply attempting to access it from
Windows Me.


Since then I switched to an nForce2 chipset with onboard RAID but I
still use a PCI card anyway. The question is: can I connect a large
SATA to the ONBOARD SATA port and experience no corruption in Windows
ME because the motherboard itself has two PATA and two SATA connectors
on it so it is a RAID motherboard.

I guess I could find out the hard way like I did when I connected
large PATA drives to a non-RAID version of this motherboard. If I
simply try to access data beyond the 137GB limit, it will get
corrupted, therefore you may be fine if accessing the first 137GB but
as soon as you try to access the rest under 98/ME, it will corrupt it
per my personal experience.

I guess I could always fill up a test drive with over 137 GB and try
to access it under Windows 98/ME to confirm again but I already did
this and I know Scandisk was disabled permanently in msconfig.


_____________________
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ AXMH 2500 FQQ4C
IQYHA 0348 SPMW
2 x 512MB Centon PC3200 (Samsung chips) @ 9 4 4 3
[200] FSB x 12.5 = 2500 MHz @ 1.85 Vcore with memory frequency at 100%
[200 FSB] @ 2.90 Vdimm and 1.6 Vdd
Epox 8RDA3+ v2.1, BIOS 07/29/2004
Thermalright SLK-900A with 80x38mm Delta EFB0812HHE fan
AIW 9600XT 128MB; Antec SX-835II case ; 380W Antec TruePower2 TPII-380
Five 80x25mm Case Fans

 

[Anna]

(c627627 later adds...)

c627627:
Actually there is no problem with the Win98/Me operating systems accessing
the
motherboard's BIOS supports large-capacity drives, i.e., > 137 GB.

The problem with those operating systems with respect to large-capacity
drives is that their scan disk & defrag utilities will not work
effectively
in that large-disk environment and could be the cause of data corruption.
So
if the user does not use those utilities there is little or no danger of
data corruption using large-capacity drives in the Win98/Me environment.

But there is a potential danger in that even if the user does not
voluntarily invoke the scan disk utility the OS will cause that utility to
automatically run after a bad shutdown (although there's a way to disable
that in msconfig).

Anyway, I have to admit that we were always uncomfortable with users
installing large hard drives in their Win98/Me systems and our general
recommendation was *not* to employ a HDD > 120 GB in that
environment. While we never directly experienced data corruption with
large-capacity HDDs (excepting the scan disk - defrag business) we did
hear > of reports of such corruption with large-capacity drives so
accordingly, we
took what we considered a prudent course of action in making this
recommendation.
Anna

I have a dual boot Windows XP/Me and an nForce2 chipset motherboard.
I have Scandisk permanently disabled on Windows Me and can confirm
that I can and did corrupt data by simply attempting to access it from
Windows Me.
Since then I switched to an nForce2 chipset with onboard RAID but I
still use a PCI card anyway. The question is: can I connect a large
SATA to the ONBOARD SATA port and experience no corruption in Windows
ME because the motherboard itself has two PATA and two SATA connectors
on it so it is a RAID motherboard.

I guess I could find out the hard way like I did when I connected
large PATA drives to a non-RAID version of this motherboard. If I
simply try to access data beyond the 137GB limit, it will get
corrupted, therefore you may be fine if accessing the first 137GB but
as soon as you try to access the rest under 98/ME, it will corrupt it
per my personal experience.

I guess I could always fill up a test drive with over 137 GB and try
to access it under Windows 98/ME to confirm again but I already did
this and I know Scandisk was disabled permanently in msconfig.


_____________________
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ AXMH 2500 FQQ4C
IQYHA 0348 SPMW
2 x 512MB Centon PC3200 (Samsung chips) @ 9 4 4 3
[200] FSB x 12.5 = 2500 MHz @ 1.85 Vcore with memory frequency at 100%
[200 FSB] @ 2.90 Vdimm and 1.6 Vdd
Epox 8RDA3+ v2.1, BIOS 07/29/2004
Thermalright SLK-900A with 80x38mm Delta EFB0812HHE fan
AIW 9600XT 128MB; Antec SX-835II case ; 380W Antec TruePower2 TPII-380
Five 80x25mm Case Fans

"c627627":
All I can say is that except under the circumstances I indicated we never
*personally* experienced corruption of data in the WinMe OS using
large-capacity, i.e., > 137 GB, hard drives. And we worked with dozens of Me
systems that were using large-capacity HDDs.

But if you say you *have* experienced such data corruption, the scan disk &
defrag utilities notwithstanding, then you experienced data corruption. So
be it.

Since you experienced such data corruption in your Me OS, I really don't
know whether a RAID configuration using large-capacity SATA HDDs will remedy
that problem. I guess the only way you can find out is to try it and see.
Anna