Using Kernel Ex with Windows ME?

[98 Guy]

Using Kernel Ex with Windows ME?
Is this possible? I've been having thoughts of upgrading Win98se
to WinME. Only because ME supports USB much better than 98.

With the various generic USB drivers available for win-98 (especially
for USB thumb drives) I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement (->
ME supports USB better than 98).

I've heard that ME had bugs, but yet I have never heard what
they are, and on the ME newsgroup people seem to like it....

I guess some people consider WinME to be an upgrade to Win98SE.
I sure don't - with the single exception of its better USB support.
Plus the DOS capabilities got "a bit" more restricted with WinME.

Here's a thread that was started last august at MSFN.org asking about
the pro's and con's of using win-98 vs ME:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/146044-is-it-recommended-using-winme

The way I read it, the most compelling advantage of ME over win-98 is
that 98 can use up to 1150 mb of ram (if you set certain .ini parameters
correctly) whereas the upper limit for ME is 1995 mb. Rlowe sells
various patches that he writes himself, one of which allows win-98 to
run on systems with up to 4 gb of ram - and apparently is able to use at
least (or at most) 3 gb of it, just like any NT version of Windows).

KernelEx can help with a few select apps, but is no panacea, for
so many apps, which still won't run on Win98SE.

Don't be so sure. I install a lot of sourceforge stuff that's
supposedly NT/XP only, but it runs on win-98 with KernelEx.

The very latest Java 6 JRE (update 24) and Flash 10.x, for example.

I love Win98. You could not PAY ME to use XP, Vista, or Win7.

WinXP ain't bad if you get it set up right, which, admitedly,
takes some experience.

I really wish there was a way to get a simple file-find working on XP
exactly the same as it works on win-98.

A heavily modified / customized XP can be a satisfactory alternative to
win-98 for a "power user" who wants fast and easy access to his entire
computer, with no administrative lock-outs or roadblocks put in place by
the OS. And that includes installing XP on a FAT32-formatted hard drive
(and scrapping NTFS). That's the only way I'd go if I set up an XP
system for my daily use. Nothing like having true command-line access
to your file system when you need it. Can't do that with XP installed
on NTFS drive.

I've got WinXP customized to seem almost like Win98SE now,
but, unlike Win98SE, there are NO more blue screens;

I rarely get blue screens running on win-98.

nor running out of resources; nor USB limitations;
nor being stuck with PATA drive limitations;
nor limited HD sizes.

You're spreading misinformation here.

I don't know what USB devices you have that you can't use with win-98
(Apple iCrap devices perhaps?), but when it comes to hard drives, you're
completely out of touch.

I recently connected a 1.5 TB SATA drive to my win-98 systems, formatted
as a single volume. I've installed win-98 on a SATA 500 gb drive
formatted as a single volume USING 4KB CLUSTER SIZE and it worked fine.

Win-98 doesn't really have a limitation when it comes to hard drive size
(at least when it comes to drives 2 tb or less) -> assuming we're
talking about SATA drives.

IDE drives will have problems using drives larger than 128 gb unless you
have a computer based on Intel 8xx series chipset - in which case you
can use the Intel Application Accelerator to replace ESDI_506.PDR with
an intel driver.

But the reality is that you won't be messing with IDE drives larger than
80 gb because who in their right mind would pay $80 for a 250 gb IDE
drive when you can pay $70 for a 1 TB sata drive????

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[98 Guy]

(now becoming XP vs. 98)

Only because someone else took us there.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy

WinXP ain't bad if you get it set up right, which, admitedly,
takes some experience.

I really wish there was a way to get a simple file-find working
on XP exactly the same as it works on win-98.

There are going to be things each does better, and (very arguably)
that is one of them.

There's better (at some deep, structural or foundation level) and
there's different (at a superficial level that's the result of a policy
decision and not for technical reasons).

The search interface, as implimented in XP (and further mangled in Vista
and Server 2008 and 7) is a function of a planning or policy decision by
Micro$haft, and one that I utterly have no time or patience for enduring
as a user.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You _can_ get command-line access to NTFS - just not from a
floppy boot.

You _can_ get command-line access in win-98, floppy or not (I don't
understand what your reference to a floppy was meant to indicate - you
don't need to boot from a floppy to start a win-98 system in pure DOS
mode).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
But NTFS is strongly pushed by the XP installation process.

"Strongly" is a strong word.

The XP install process, when confronted with a pre-formatted FAT32
volume as the target for the installation, asks you only once (if I
recall correctly) if you want the volume formatted as NTFS - and easily
accepts NO for an answer.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
though also a slight feeling that NTFS's claimed advantages don't
apply _for me_.

They don't apply to most people who use windoze on personal PC's or
within a SOHO environment. Only when you get to the managed
environments of the corporate, institutional or enterprise world does
the extra baggage of NTFS *really* come into play.

But when the koolaid tastes good, everyone drinks it.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy
I don't know what USB devices you have that you can't
use with win-98

Most (yes, not all) wi-fi dongles now; some wireless internet
dongles; many cameras (to use as a camera e. g. webcam, not
just as a card reader) ...

Well, I guess that's where we have to draw some lines.

In my world, Win-98 is not a portable operating system. It's a desktop
OS. In my world, desktop PC's are hard-wired to the internet, so right
off the bat stuff like wireless comm USB dongles are a non-issue.

Cameras? I find that dedicated IP cameras (with their own network
connection) are more ergonomic for remote viewing (I have several in and
outside my home, to allow for remote viewing from other locations for
example).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I suspect quite a few more esoteric devices, such as the
dreamcheeky missile launchers ... the vast majority of
TV sticks ...

I don't know what a "dreamcheeky missle launcher" is.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by 98 Guy

WinXP ain't bad if you get it set up right, which, admitedly,
takes some experience.

I really wish there was a way to get a simple file-find working on XP
exactly the same as it works on win-98.

Actually there is. You just install Agent Ransack, or better yet, its big
brother, "FileLocator Pro", and completely dispense with using windows file
search. I *never* use the built in windows file search.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There are going to be things each does better, and (very arguably) that
is one of them.

Not anymore, per above. :-)

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy
A heavily modified / customized XP can be a satisfactory alternative to
win-98 for a "power user" who wants fast and easy access to his entire
computer, with no administrative lock-outs or roadblocks put in place by
the OS. And that includes installing XP on a FAT32-formatted hard drive
(and scrapping NTFS). That's the only way I'd go if I set up an XP
system for my daily use. Nothing like having true command-line access
to your file system when you need it. Can't do that with XP installed
on NTFS drive.

You _can_ get command-line access to NTFS - just not from a floppy boot.

Actually, I don't think this is necessarily true - with the right utilities.
(or you can boot up on a flash drive instead of a floppy, and access the
system drive). I'm thinking of some utility apps such as NTFSDOS or
NTFS4DOS (there are a few out there).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
From what I've seen, it's rather tedious to get to, involving the
recovery console. (I'm sure you can get it with a Linux boot, too.) But
NTFS is strongly pushed by the XP installation process. I'd certainly
agree: if I was going to set up an XP machine from scratch, I would
indeed start from FAT32 - mainly because of the easier boot access,
though also a slight feeling that NTFS's claimed advantages don't apply
_for me_.

It's not as simple or convenient as booting up to DOS on a FAT32 formatted
volume for WinXP, but the advantages of using NTFS seem to me to outweigh
that, at least to me, as I've never had a need to do it, so it seems a
pretty moot point. (I always keep good image backups of my main drive, or
one could choose clone backups - either way you're covered).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy

I've got WinXP customized to seem almost like Win98SE now,
but, unlike Win98SE, there are NO more blue screens;

[]

Post by 98 Guy

nor running out of resources; nor USB limitations;
nor being stuck with PATA drive limitations;
nor limited HD sizes.

You're spreading misinformation here.

I don't think so.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy
I don't know what USB devices you have that you can't use with win-98

A LOT of them don't come with Win98 drivers, anymore, and the general
purpose "nusbxx" storage driver doesn't always handle everything (I'm
thinking of several flash drives, and likely USB printers, too). (do they
still make printers for parallel ports anymore? :-)

Furthermore, I can install as large a HD as I like, without worrying about
it. :-) I'm currently using two *SATA2*, 250 GB, internal drives, which
is considered somewhat small these days. PATA seems a tad obsolete. :-)

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Most (yes, not all) wi-fi dongles now; some wireless internet dongles;
many cameras (to use as a camera e. g. webcam, not just as a card
reader) ... I suspect quite a few more esoteric devices, such as the
dreamcheeky missile launchers ... the vast majority of TV sticks ...
--
Odds are, the phrase "It's none of my business" will be followed by "but".

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by 98 Guy

WinXP ain't bad if you get it set up right, which, admitedly,
takes some experience.

I really wish there was a way to get a simple file-find working on XP
exactly the same as it works on win-98.

Actually there is. You just install Agent Ransack, or better yet, its big
brother, "FileLocator Pro", and completely dispense with using windows file
search. I *never* use the built in windows file search.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There are going to be things each does better, and (very arguably) that
is one of them.

Not anymore, per above. :-)

Well, if installing third-party alternatives counts, ... (-:
[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You _can_ get command-line access to NTFS - just not from a floppy boot.

Actually, I don't think this is necessarily true - with the right utilities.
(or you can boot up on a flash drive instead of a floppy, and access the
system drive). I'm thinking of some utility apps such as NTFSDOS or
NTFS4DOS (there are a few out there).

The one or two of those I looked into gave you read-only access to the
NTFS drive from DOS/W9x.
[]

Post by Bill in Co
It's not as simple or convenient as booting up to DOS on a FAT32 formatted
volume for WinXP, but the advantages of using NTFS seem to me to outweigh
that, at least to me, as I've never had a need to do it, so it seems a

If you mean the improved reliability, are you sure that's definitely
NTFS, rather than XP itself?
[]

Post by Bill in Co
thinking of several flash drives, and likely USB printers, too). (do they
still make printers for parallel ports anymore? :-)

Well, there's an impact (what used to be called "dot matrix", though
strictly this is incorrect or at least incomplete, since _all_ printers
nowadays use a matrix of dots) printer still on sale - it's an EPSON, I
think with 300 in the model number somewhere - that is, I think, one of
the original models; as such, it probably has a parallel interface. (It
doesn't half cost a lot too! It's sold for places - like some garages -
that still use multipart [carboned] stationery.) But I suspect you're
right that there are few if any _new_ models with parallel or serial
(other than USB) interfaces any more: USB is pretty universal, with
ethernet and wireless the other options, for printers.
[]

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by 98 Guy

WinXP ain't bad if you get it set up right, which, admitedly,
takes some experience.

I really wish there was a way to get a simple file-find working on XP
exactly the same as it works on win-98.

Actually there is. You just install Agent Ransack, or better yet, its big
brother, "FileLocator Pro", and completely dispense with using windows file
search. I *never* use the built in windows file search.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There are going to be things each does better, and (very arguably) that
is one of them.

Not anymore, per above. :-)

Actually, if they were placed on floppies (or on a flash drive), they
weren't really "installed", per se. But yes they are third party, and most
aren't free (especially if you want both read AND write access).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
You _can_ get command-line access to NTFS - just not from a floppy boot.

Actually, I don't think this is necessarily true - with the right utilities.
(or you can boot up on a flash drive instead of a floppy, and access the
system drive). I'm thinking of some utility apps such as NTFSDOS or
NTFS4DOS (there are a few out there).

It may have been NTFSDOS Pro. I haven't looked at this recently, but I'm
pretty sure you can still find a handful of utilities (not free) that can
both read AND write to NTFS volumes, and use a bootable floppy or flash
drive.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The one or two of those I looked into gave you read-only access to the
NTFS drive from DOS/W9x.
[]

Post by Bill in Co
It's not as simple or convenient as booting up to DOS on a FAT32 formatted
volume for WinXP, but the advantages of using NTFS seem to me to outweigh
that, at least to me, as I've never had a need to do it, so it seems a

If you mean the improved reliability, are you sure that's definitely
NTFS, rather than XP itself?

Actually, I think it's a bit of BOTH.

And thinking of FAT volumes, just how useful is it in getting all those
*.chk files when the system crashed? (answer: it wasn't - those *.chk files
were essentially useless, in file recovery) Whereas NTFS at least has
some file journaling protection.

All that being said, I still have a couple of logical partitions left here
in FAT32 formatting as a matter of legacy (and don't feel any pressing need
to convert them). So I'm not really an "anti-FAT" crusader, lol. I just
believe that for the XP system drive, it's generally preferable.

Oh yeah, and also IF you ever have a need to handle huge files (over 2 or 4
GB in filesize) (which I don't). (But maybe the camera and video recording
buffs do :-).

And if you don't want to be stuck with 32K byte clusters, to store every
single file, on large HD volumes.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Bill in Co
thinking of several flash drives, and likely USB printers, too). (do they
still make printers for parallel ports anymore? :-)

Well, there's an impact (what used to be called "dot matrix", though
strictly this is incorrect or at least incomplete, since _all_ printers
nowadays use a matrix of dots) printer still on sale - it's an EPSON, I
think with 300 in the model number somewhere - that is, I think, one of
the original models; as such, it probably has a parallel interface. (It
doesn't half cost a lot too! It's sold for places - like some garages -
that still use multipart [carboned] stationery.) But I suspect you're
right that there are few if any _new_ models with parallel or serial

I doubt if there are any, actually. :-)
It was challenging enough finding a USB printer (a HP LaserJet) that could
also still work with my Win98 computer too, if needbe. (meaning that it had
available a Win98 compatible USB driver which would allow it to work on my
Win98 computer too, since I wanted to junk my old parallel port printer).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
USB is pretty universal, with
ethernet and wireless the other options, for printers.
[]
--
Odds are, the phrase "It's none of my business" will be followed by "but".

[G98]

Post by Bill in Co
And if you don't want to be stuck with 32K byte clusters, to store
every single file, on large HD volumes.

Just to set you straight on a few things Bill, you don't always have to
use 32k cluster size when formatting a FAT32 volume. I typically use
4kb cluster size when formatting a "small" FAT32 volume (8 to 32 gb) to
hold my Windows 98 system files (ie - my C: drive) and use 8kb to 32kb
cluster size for other large volumes that contain multimedia files (mp3,
flac, large RAR files, AVI, etc).

It's one of those myths that FAT32 is inferior to NTFS because of the
way that Microsoft programmed format.com to operate - which is that it
scales up the cluster size along with the volume size. If you use
alternate formatting tools (Western Digital DataLifeguard, for example)
you can format a volume using any cluster size you like.

Post by Bill in Co
Furthermore, I can install as large a HD as I like, without worrying
about it. :-) I'm currently using two *SATA2*, 250 GB, internal
drives, which is considered somewhat small these days.

Yes, I would say that 250 gb is small.

I have a 400 gb, 500gb , 750gb and 1.5 TB drives connected to my win-98
systems. All SATA drives.

I've formatted a 500 gb SATA drive as a single volume using 4kb cluster
size resulting in 120 million clusters and have installed and run
win-98se on such a volume. DOS scandisk works just fine on it.

If you take windows scandisk and defrag from windows ME (scandskw.exe,
diskmaint.dll, defrag.exe) and copy them over to a win-98 system, then
you'll be able to use them on up to a 1 tb volume (using 32 kb cluster
size).

The DOS fdisk.com program (May 2000 version) can create partitions on
drives as long as the drives are 500 gb in size or smaller. A free
program (Free Fdisk) can create partitions on drives at least as large
as 2 tb.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060110183341/ffdisk.webaps.de/fdisk121.zip

The DOS format.com program can correctly format volumes at least as
large as 1.5 tb.

A modified version of ESDI_506.PDR is available on MDGX.com that allows
win-98 to work with IDE drives larger than 128 gb.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=78592
http://www.mdgx.com/files/ME48BLBA.EXE

Anyone with a motherboard based on Intel 8xx chipset (from 810 up to
860) can use the Intel Application Accelerator package to replace
ESDI_506.PDR with IntelATA.mpd.

http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/eng/iaa23_enu.exe

So, just to be clear: Anyone claiming that win-98/ME is limited to a
max hard drive size (or volume size) of 128 gb (aka 137 gb) is horribly
misinformed - or is outright lying.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
If you mean the improved reliability, are you sure that's definitely
NTFS, rather than XP itself?

Actually, I think it's a bit of BOTH.
And thinking of FAT volumes, just how useful is it in getting all those
*.chk files when the system crashed? (answer: it wasn't - those *.chk files
were essentially useless, in file recovery) Whereas NTFS at least has
some file journaling protection.

[]
Actually, I have managed to identify .chk files - but I concede that it
has been very rarely. Usually by looking at them in something like
Notepad(+), or IrfanView (which is very good at figuring out what things
are, if they're images [pictures]), or by looking at the first few
(usually) bytes with a hex editor.

(Does NTFS have any equivalent, or are lost chains/clusters just lost
[at least without a sector editor]?)

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
If you mean the improved reliability, are you sure that's definitely
NTFS, rather than XP itself?

Actually, I think it's a bit of BOTH.
And thinking of FAT volumes, just how useful is it in getting all those
*.chk files when the system crashed? (answer: it wasn't - those *.chk files
were essentially useless, in file recovery) Whereas NTFS at least has
some file journaling protection.

[]
Actually, I have managed to identify .chk files - but I concede that it
has been very rarely. Usually by looking at them in something like
Notepad(+), or IrfanView (which is very good at figuring out what things
are, if they're images [pictures]), or by looking at the first few
(usually) bytes with a hex editor.

Yes, I've done that in the past too, but to be perfectly honest, haven't
found it all that useful - in practice. Sure, you can see portions of text
or images sometimes, but, big deal. :-) As far as generally useful file
recovery is concerned, it's not all that useful.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Does NTFS have any equivalent, or are lost chains/clusters just lost
[at least without a sector editor]?)

To the best of my knowledge, no and yes, respectively, although there are
some pretty good file recovery utilities available, like Easeus Data
Recovery Wizard (not free), which can recover files in many cases. (but
obviously if the clusters have been overwritten, you're gonna be a bit
hosed)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <7uadnQYgftUF5-***@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
<***@earthlink.net> writes:
[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Bill in Co
And thinking of FAT volumes, just how useful is it in getting all those
*.chk files when the system crashed? (answer: it wasn't - those *.chk files
were essentially useless, in file recovery) Whereas NTFS at least has
some file journaling protection.

[]
Actually, I have managed to identify .chk files - but I concede that it
has been very rarely. Usually by looking at them in something like
Notepad(+), or IrfanView (which is very good at figuring out what things
are, if they're images [pictures]), or by looking at the first few
(usually) bytes with a hex editor.

Yes, I've done that in the past too, but to be perfectly honest, haven't
found it all that useful - in practice. Sure, you can see portions of text
or images sometimes, but, big deal. :-) As far as generally useful file
recovery is concerned, it's not all that useful.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Does NTFS have any equivalent, or are lost chains/clusters just lost
[at least without a sector editor]?)

To the best of my knowledge, no and yes, respectively, although there are
some pretty good file recovery utilities available, like Easeus Data

(I imagine there are for FAT too.)

Post by Bill in Co
Recovery Wizard (not free), which can recover files in many cases. (but
obviously if the clusters have been overwritten, you're gonna be a bit
hosed)

So - FAT: you get .chk files, which we're agreed are rarely useful.
NTFS: - you don't get anything. Hmm. (In both cases, there are probably
third party utilities that'll get you a bit more.)

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Bill in Co
And thinking of FAT volumes, just how useful is it in getting all those
*.chk files when the system crashed? (answer: it wasn't - those *.chk files
were essentially useless, in file recovery) Whereas NTFS at least has
some file journaling protection.

[]
Actually, I have managed to identify .chk files - but I concede that it
has been very rarely. Usually by looking at them in something like
Notepad(+), or IrfanView (which is very good at figuring out what things
are, if they're images [pictures]), or by looking at the first few
(usually) bytes with a hex editor.

Yes, I've done that in the past too, but to be perfectly honest, haven't
found it all that useful - in practice. Sure, you can see portions of text
or images sometimes, but, big deal. :-) As far as generally useful file
recovery is concerned, it's not all that useful.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Does NTFS have any equivalent, or are lost chains/clusters just lost
[at least without a sector editor]?)

To the best of my knowledge, no and yes, respectively, although there are
some pretty good file recovery utilities available, like Easeus Data

(I imagine there are for FAT too.)

Easeus Data Recovery is for both file systems, as I recall. (But I haven't
looked at it for a long time now).

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Bill in Co
Recovery Wizard (not free), which can recover files in many cases. (but
obviously if the clusters have been overwritten, you're gonna be a bit
hosed)

So - FAT: you get .chk files, which we're agreed are rarely useful.
NTFS: - you don't get anything. Hmm. (In both cases, there are probably
third party utilities that'll get you a bit more.)

Indeed. I consider the loss of having .chk files available -
inconsequential. And I think the NTFS journaling more than makes up for
it.

[BGates]

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
So - FAT: you get .chk files, which we're agreed are rarely
useful. NTFS: - you don't get anything. Hmm. (In both cases,
there are probably third party utilities that'll get you a bit
more.)

Indeed. I consider the loss of having .chk files available -
inconsequential. And I think the NTFS journaling more than
makes up for it.

Then you don't really understand what journaling does.

You've been told all of the following before, Bill. Like on March 31,
2009.

Journaling doesn't preserve data, nor does it prevent an unintended
file-system event from happening. What journaling does is to make sure
the file system is "clean" after the event happens. And it also makes
sure that any partial data is completely lost after the event has
happened.

I repeat all of the following again:

Try reading the following (written by CQuirke, a current (or former?) MS
MVP) who used to post here:

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-file-system-or-incompetent-os.html

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/ntfs-vs-fatxx-data-recovery.html

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-bad-sector-often-kills-you.html

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm

Specifically, take note of the following comments:

=======================
Claim:
- "NTFS may be safer..."
- "transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations"

Fact:
Your file system is returned to the same state it had before the
interruption. New data that existed during the interruption that was
being written will be lost. NTFS sacrifices orphaned data at the
expense of maintaining a "clean" cluster allocation. FAT32 can't
roll-back incomplete transactions, so data that was being written can be
recovered, but it comes because of the unintended creation of lost
clusters or chains which can lead to a "messy" cluster allocation but
rarely (if ever) a disfunctional file system.
========================

Journalling does not result in or increase file recoverability. System
files are never journaled because they're never written or over-written
or re-written. Journalling serves only to clean up any mess that's left
behind if a file-write operation is improperly terminated. System
files, apps, DLL's and other program-code files are rarely re-written
during normal use. Only temp data files, pagefile, user data files,
internet-sourced data caching are subject to file-writing. A lot of
that is garbage and not desirable anyways when the system goes down and
needs to be restarted. That's why .chk files are largely useless, and
that's also why the file system is still perfectly usable even if those
.chk files were never created and the lost clusters remained lost.

CQuirke:
===================
Some recovery tools (including anything DOS-based, such as DiskEdit and
ReadNTFS)can't be safely used beyond the 137G line, so it is best to
keep crucial material within this limit. Because ReadNTFS is one of the
only tools that accesses NTFS files independently of the NTFS.sys
driver, it may be the only way into to NTFS volumes corrupted in ways
that crash NTFS.sys!

Given the poor results I see when recovering data from NTFS, I'd have to
recommend using FATxx rather than NTFS as a data survivability
strategy. If readers can attain better results with other recovery
tools for NTFS, then please describe your mileage with these in the
comments section!
====================

[98 Guy]

Post by Bill in Co
Furthermore, I can install as large a HD as I like, without worrying
about it. :-) I'm currently using two *SATA2*, 250 GB, internal
drives, which is considered somewhat small these days.

Yes, I would say that 250 gb is small.

I have a 400 gb, 500gb , 750gb and 1.5 TB drives connected to my win-98
systems. All SATA drives.

I've formatted a 500 gb SATA drive as a single volume using 4kb cluster
size resulting in 120 million clusters and have installed and run
win-98se on such a volume. DOS scandisk works just fine on it.

If you take windows scandisk and defrag from windows ME (scandskw.exe,
diskmaint.dll, defrag.exe) and copy them over to a win-98 system, then
you'll be able to use them on up to a 1 tb volume (using 32 kb cluster
size).

The DOS fdisk.com program (May 2000 version) can create partitions on
drives as long as the drives are 500 gb in size or smaller. A free
program (Free Fdisk) can create partitions on drives at least as large
as 2 tb.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060110183341/ffdisk.webaps.de/fdisk121.zip

The DOS format.com program can correctly format volumes at least as
large as 1.5 tb.

A modified version of ESDI_506.PDR is available on MDGX.com that allows
win-98 to work with IDE drives larger than 128 gb.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=78592
http://www.mdgx.com/files/ME48BLBA.EXE

Anyone with a motherboard based on Intel 8xx chipset (from 810 up to
860) can use the Intel Application Accelerator package to replace
ESDI_506.PDR with IntelATA.mpd.

http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4857/eng/iaa23_enu.exe

So, just to be clear: Anyone claiming that win-98/ME is limited to a
max hard drive size (or volume size) of 128 gb (aka 137 gb) is horribly
misinformed - or is outright lying.