Maxblast EZ-BIOS Question

[Stone]

From my reading, it sounds like we are dealing with only a couple major size barriers for machines made
in the 1990s and early 2000s. There is the 528MB limit, the 8.4GB limit, the 137GB limit and the 2TB limit.

Don't forget

The 4,096 Cylinder (1.97 GiB / 2.11 GB) Barrier,

The 6,322 Cylinder (3.04 GiB / 3.26 GB) Barrier,

The Phoenix BIOS 4.03 / 4.04 Bug (3.05 GiB / 3.28 GB) Barrier,

The 8,192 Cylinder (3.94 GiB / 4.22 GB) Barrier,

The 240 Head Int 13 Interface (7.38 GiB / 7.93 GB) Barrier,

The Windows 95 and the 29.8 GiB / 32.0 GB Barrier,

The 65,536 Cylinder (31.5 GiB / 33.8 GB) Barrier,

The Windows 98/98SE 64GB Barrier,

and

The FAT 32 Limitation (124.55 GiB / 127.53)

as they're all in this equation as well.

I tried installing the 120GB into a P90. When I tried to do an AUTO-IDE detect, the BIOS hung. I did
not try setting the parameters manually to some lower value (like using TYPE 1) so the machine could get
past the POST and I could install EZ-BIOS to see what would happen. That will be tested later. It did
AUTO-DETECT a 20GB drive.

I tried installing, one at a time, the 20GB and 120GB drives onto a P233 MMX which has LBA capability. The BIOS does AUTO-DETECT both but it does so with the same parameters as an 8.4GB drive: 16383 CYLS, 16
Heads and 63 Sectors. It shows the total capacility as 8.4GB for both drives (the same as the native
8.4GB drive which is already in the machine). The 8.4GB capacity is real as I tried to use FDISK from
Win98 to partition the drive and could only partition 8.4GB.

Interestingly, the above parameters are listed on the lable for both the 8.4GB and 20GB drive. How can
this be? There are no parameters listed on the 120GB drive label.

I ran a couple freeware utilities which show the P233 has extended 13h support. Yet it seems limited to
8.4GB.

This is related to the way a BIOS does it's geometry translation. There are *other* limitations involved here and they require higher math. It is a rather complicated issue and takes a while to digest properly, at least it does for me.

 

[njroadfan]

I tried installing, one at a time, the 20GB and 120GB drives onto a P233 MMX which has LBA capability. The BIOS does AUTO-DETECT both but it does so with the same parameters as an 8.4GB drive: 16383 CYLS, 16
Heads and 63 Sectors. It shows the total capacility as 8.4GB for both drives (the same as the native
8.4GB drive which is already in the machine). The 8.4GB capacity is real as I tried to use FDISK from
Win98 to partition the drive and could only partition 8.4GB.

Interestingly, the above parameters are listed on the lable for both the 8.4GB and 20GB drive. How can
this be? There are no parameters listed on the 120GB drive label.

I ran a couple freeware utilities which show the P233 has extended 13h support. Yet it seems limited to
8.4GB.

You need a BIOS dated 1998 or later for Extended Int 13h. The CHS tuple became irrelevant once the 8.4GB Int 13h limit was reached, so the maximum value of 16383 16 63 was placed on larger drives. Why is CHS irrelevant? Because the Int 13h Extensions solely address the drive in logical blocks. Every drive over 8.4GB only has a maximum LBA address to the ROM and operating system drivers. Of course they screwed up and limited the value to 28 bits initially.

Also FAT32 has a maximum limit of 8TB (only possible with GPT). Microsoft placed the artificial limit of 32GB in 2000/XP to basically force adoption of NTFS and later exFAT. Seems like some tools like scandisk can't handle larger drives as well (the 127GB limit), but that really shouldn't be a problem in NT based OSes.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006/EN-US

 

[Grandcheapskate]

Ok Guys, thank you for those reponses.

I just tested EZ-BIOS using the P233 and the 20GB and 120GB drives, trying to determine the upper limit for EZ-BIOS. This testing was done operating system independant as the system was booted using the EZ-BIOS diskette.

EZ-BIOS successfully identified the 20GB drive. I was able to boot (from diskette) to Win95 and use FDISK to partition the entire disk. I then removed EZ-BIOS from the drive and removed the drive from the system.

I next installed the 120GB drive. Using the EZ-BIOS diskette, I booted to the EZ-BIOS utility. It was unable to correctly identify this large a drive. I noticed the "SIZE" field appears unable to hold 6 digits (which would be greater than 99,999MB). It appears EZ-BIOS got confused and thought the drive was about 18GB. There was also at least one field with a negative value which is obviously not correct.

Conclusion? Right now I would have to say that EZ-BIOS v9.06 ( dated 1998 ) is limited to the 33GB threshold. However, without drives of 30GB and 40GB for testing, I can't know for sure. It's amazing to me I can't find this info anywhere on the web.

Joe

 

[Stone]

In general DDOs can be a real PITA! The consensus has been to avoid them except as an absolute last resort. I think you have found that to be quite accurate.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

Hey Stone...(get enough snow lately?),

The problem for me is not that EZ-BIOS is a PITA, it's the fact no documentation exists which details the limitations of the software. EZ-BIOS seems pretty simple to install and use and I have had it on a machine for years without issues. The real PITA for me is trying to figure out the limits of the BIOS in each machine.

When you have these older machines and want more disk space, these disk utilities are really your only choice.

Joe

 

[Stone]

Hey Stone...(get enough snow lately?),

How did you know???

The problem for me is not that EZ-BIOS is a PITA...

No, the problem is that it is a PITA and I'm sure you'll come to that realization before too long.

When you have these older machines and want more disk space, these disk utilities are really your only choice.

No, there are other ways. External drives, whether actual hard drives or Flash Memory Sticks and their ilk come to mind. Also, anything that doesn't have to be configured in the system's CMOS setup should work. A networked drive will work. A BIOS upgrade will usually do the trick, too.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

No, the problem is that it is a PITA and I'm sure you'll come to that realization before too long.

What is it about using something like EZ-BIOS that makes it a PITA? The only disadvantage I can see is when trying to move data from one HD to another on the same machine and you only want EZ-BIOS controlling one of the drives.

And I still have to work out the math as to why EZ-BIOS did not like the 120GB drive. A 24 bit address would limit you to 8GB while a 28 bit would limit you to 137GB. It would seem EZ-BIOS is using something in between. I need to do more testing...

Thanks...Joe

 

[Stone]

What is it about using something like EZ-BIOS that makes it a PITA? The only disadvantage I can see is when trying to move data from one HD to another on the same machine and you only want EZ-BIOS controlling one of the drives.

The main problems with DDOs are software translation can cause problems for the operating system, data restoration and/or recovery in the event of a drive crash.

While drive manufacturers often tout that using their software translation drivers is equal to updating the BIOS, simply put, it isn't! There are numerous problems associated with using software translation for large disk support. Here are just a few of the more prominent issues:

• Operating System Installation and Compatibility Issues: These drivers modify the master boot record and are installed at the very beginning of the data area on the drive, essentially setting up their own logical disk volume using a non-standard disk format. As such, your disks are not being setup in the manner intended by the system manufacturer, drive manufacturer, motherboard manufacturer or the developer of the operating system. The overlay drivers can cause problems when using alternative operating systems, or should you attempt to set up a multiple boot system. Furthermore standard disk utilities, i.e., Norton, etc, may not work as advertised or, in some cases, may even crash the drive.

• Driver Problems including Removal: The majority of these overlay drivers can be very difficult to remove from the disk, requiring you to rely upon uninstall utilities that come with the driver itself. Should you need to remove the driver as the result of an upgrade, such as a new motherboard that supports larger drives, you will need to either leave the overlay driver in place or repartition the hard disk and format it. Aside from the inherent danger to your data, just the inconvenience of having to reformat just when your operating system is running perfectly would be enough to cause second thoughts.

• Reduced Drive Interoperability: Most of the overlay drivers that come with the various manufacturers' drives are customized for the drives they manufacture and their specific technology. Hence, if you were put a Western Digital hard drive in your PC and later want to add a Maxtor drive, you may have a bit of a problem. At this point you may have to purchase an advanced version of a disk manager, and given the added cost, it may be prudent to purchase an add-in hard disk controller or replace the motherboard.

• Floppy Disk Booting Complications: As noted earlier in this discussion, since the driver is located on the hard drive, you must boot from the hard drive in order to load it. If you boot from a floppy, your hard drive may seem to "disappear" because the overlay hasn't been loaded. These overlay drivers will allow you to boot from a floppy, however you must first boot the hard drive, wait for the overlay to load and then a message to be displayed that permits you to boot from a floppy disk.

All in all, this kind or software overlay qualifies as a last resort option, viable, yes, but very full of ifs.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

Hey Stone,
Thanks for that detailed explaination. I can see why this type of software could cause you much grief.

I think some of the concerns are minimized when we talking about our vintage computers. For example, I have no intention of upgrading my older machines - either hardware or OS. Once loaded, they are what they are. The only reason I woud use something like EZ-BIOS would be to take advantage of a drive larger than the machine's BIOS or controller is able to handle.

But the concerns above are legitimate and need to be considered.

Thanks...Joe

 

[Grandcheapskate]

While this may be off-topic for this discussion, it does tie in to my testing...

As I continue to test EZ-BIOS and IDE drive compatibility with various motherboards, I came across another weird occurance. Strickly to do some testing, I set up a caseless PC with just a MB, video card and disk controller. I am using an AMD 486DX2/66 CPU on a motherboard with an Award BIOS which looks to be dated 11/15/94 and the BIOS readout is
OPTI 802G 2C4UK000-00. It appears the motherboard manufacturer is a company called Digis - not exactly a household name.

I already have notes that say this motherboard will not work with a date greater than 1999 and will not format a 3.5" diskette if it is not already formatted. But all I wanted to do with this board was test out various size hard drives and determine which could be accessed with EZ-BIOS.

What I ran into is very strange. First off, the motherboard does have AUTO IDE DETECTION and LBA capability. However, two things are happening...

1. The machine refuses to "see" most Western Digital drives - it says nothing is there. It can detect a 430MB drive, but not a 1.6GB or larger drive. Larger drives from other manufacturers such as Maxtor and Seagate do get seen, although the numbers are wrong (see #2).

2. When the BIOS does detect a larger drive from another company, the numbers are wrong.

For example, a 3.3GB Seagate drive with the following attributes: CYL= 6253, Heads=16, Sectors=63 gets see as one of the following:

LBA: CYL=781, Heads=128, Sectors=63, Size=1110MB
NORMAL: CYL=6253, Heads=16, Sectors=63, Size=1113MB
LARGE: CYL=3126, Heads=32, Sectors=63, Size=1112MB

Does anyone know of known issues with Award BIOSs from this era?

Thanks...Joe

 

[Stone]

2. When the BIOS does detect a larger drive from another company, the numbers are wrong.

For example, a 3.3GB Seagate drive with the following attributes: CYL= 6253, Heads=16, Sectors=63 gets see as one of the following:

LBA: CYL=781, Heads=128, Sectors=63, Size=1110MB
NORMAL: CYL=6253, Heads=16, Sectors=63, Size=1113MB
LARGE: CYL=3126, Heads=32, Sectors=63, Size=1112MB

There's nothing wrong with those numbers. That's just the BIOS Geometry Translation at work.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

There's nothing wrong with those numbers. That's just the BIOS Geometry Translation at work.

But look at the size the BIOS is reporting...only 1.1GB for a 3GB drive. And of course there is the issue of not seeing any WD drive.

Thanks...Joe

 

[Stone]

You're using a board with a BIOS from Nov., 1994 which is centered right at the heart of the 528 MB problem/issue. I think you'd be a lot better off using something from a little later on so that you wouldn't be facing a major dilemma every time you tried to install another drive. These BIOS shortcomings are very well documented so there's no need to reinvent the wheel on their behalf. That's why I suggested that you use a board with a BIOS that isn't known to be quite as buggy, so to speak.

 

[Chuck(G)]

Do you have PCI slots? There are some add-in cards for ATA133 drives that certainly support the big drives--and do so faster.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

You're using a board with a BIOS from Nov., 1994 which is centered right at the heart of the 528 MB problem/issue. I think you'd be a lot better off using something from a little later on so that you wouldn't be facing a major dilemma every time you tried to install another drive. These BIOS shortcomings are very well documented so there's no need to reinvent the wheel on their behalf. That's why I suggested that you use a board with a BIOS that isn't known to be quite as buggy, so to speak.

I was trying to use this board to test out EZ-BIOS because, frankly, I doubt I would use it in a real machine based on how "buggy" it is with the date and floppy drive. I figured it would at least be able to see the hard drives which would then allow me to load and test EZ-BIOS. Plus it would allow me to test test that one IDE drive which I worte about in another thread - the one which seems to "knock out" any IDE detection until the motherboard discharges. But if it can't even see the Western Digital drives, let alone see the "smaller" ones correctly, it appears to have more problems.

I am going to try using another board today - an AMD/100. We'll see how that goes.

Do you have PCI slots? There are some add-in cards for ATA133 drives that certainly support the big drives--and do so faster.

The MB only has VESA slots, but I do have a Buslogic VLB caching controller which has a built-in BIOS to handle drives up to 4GB. I can try this later to see what happens.

Thanks...Joe

 

[Stone]

I was trying to use this board to test out EZ-BIOS because, frankly, I doubt I would use it in a real machine based on how "buggy" it is with the date and floppy drive. I figured it would at least be able to see the hard drives which would then allow me to load and test EZ-BIOS. Plus it would allow me to test test that one IDE drive which I worte about in another thread - the one which seems to "knock out" any IDE detection until the motherboard discharges. But if it can't even see the Western Digital drives, let alone see the "smaller" ones correctly, it appears to have more problems.

Let's see if we are getting this right. You're using EZ-BIOS or MaxBlast from Maxtor, right? OK, which is it? That wouldn't normally work correctly with a Western Digital drive. Their version goes under the name EZ Drive and although they're both variations of Disk Manager I'm not sure they are identical and will work on each other's drives. Why don't you try EZ Drive on the Western Digital drives and see if that helps.

 

[Grandcheapskate]

Let's see if we are getting this right. You're using EZ-BIOS or MaxBlast from Maxtor, right? OK, which is it? That wouldn't normally work correctly with a Western Digital drive. Their version goes under the name EZ Drive and although they're both variations of Disk Manager I'm not sure they are identical and will work on each other's drives. Why don't you try EZ Drive on the Western Digital drives and see if that helps.

Yes, the EZ-BIOS software I have came with 8MB Maxtor drives years ago. But I am running into problems well before getting to the point of testing or loading EZ-BIOS.

I will write a more extensive post later on as I don't have the time right now. I did do more testing today using a different motherboard and the results are "interesting".

Joe

 

[Grandcheapskate]

Ok Guys...here's what happened yesterday.

I set up another motherboard, also dated 1994. This one is an IBM 486DX4/100. I only installed a VESA video card, a VESA disk controller and 4MB of memory. The MB has LBA capability and IDE AUTO DETECT. I tested using only hard drives of 8GB or less.

Once again, EVERY Western Digital hard drive had issues. Except where noted, boot-up was attempted with a floppy and not from the HD.

1. WD hard drives could be identified using IDE AUTO DETECT. However, if you left that screen and then returned, a second and subsequent attempt to identify the drive would almost always result in no drive found. Maxtor and Seagate drives did not have this problem. If identified, the parameters are correct.

2. Sometimes after a WD was not identified, it was necessary to clear the BIOS using the MB jumper before you could try again with another drive of any type (and sometimes the same drive). This almost always worked, although you would then run into issue #1 with the WD drives. This goes back to that thread I have on Bizarre IDE behaviour.

3. When you run the IDE detect, you have a choice of accepting or declining the results. If a WD drive was identified on the first attempt but the second/subsequent attempt(s) found no drive, you could decline the results and the machine would see the HD on boot-up.

4. At one point during boot-up, the BIOS attempts to display the HD characteristics. When booting with a WD drive installed, the time it takes for the BIOS to ID the drive is about 20 seconds. Using a Seagate or Maxtor, the ID occurs immediatly.

5. I also testing trying to boot off a WD drive. After a successful boot off floppy, I partitioned the HD and formatted a small C: drive. I then did a SYS C: and tried to boot off the HD. I got a 'no system disk" found. A reboot off the floppy and a DIR of the C: drive shows all the files are present.

So although my intention was to test the limits of EZ-BIOS, and whether it would work on drives other than Maxtor, it seems I am having a lot of problems with Western Digital drives. These issues are coming up before I have the opportunity to install EZ-BIOS.

I am going to continue to see what the **** is going on here, but if anyone knows of issues with WD drives, I'd like to hear them.

Thanks...Joe

 

[Stone]

The WD drives could be dead or quasi-dead. If this is the case there's not much you can do with them. And there's always the possibility that the MasterBootRecord is out of whack. To fix this, boot from a floppy and type FDISK/MBR which will create a new, viable MasterBootRecord. Then try to boot from the WD drive(s). I'm guessing that instead of a ... 'no system disk" found ... message as previously stated you more than likely got a ... non-system disk or disk error ... message. Is that correct?

 

[Grandcheapskate]

The WD drives could be dead or quasi-dead. If this is the case there's not much you can do with them. And there's always the possibility that the MasterBootRecord is out of whack. To fix this, boot from a floppy and type FDISK/MBR which will create a new, viable MasterBootRecord. Then try to boot from the WD drive(s). I'm guessing that instead of a ... 'no system disk" found ... message as previously stated you more than likely got a ... non-system disk or disk error ... message. Is that correct?

Yes, that was the text of the message.

Some testing this morning only confirmed what I have been seeing. However, I was curious because I have four 486/133 boards (like the test board) which are running fine with a Maxtor 546MB as the master and a WD 6.4GB as the slave. Those machines have no problem seeing both drives and during boot there is no delay.

So I hooked up a Maxtor 546MB as the master on my test machine and put different WD drives as the slave. And guess what? No issues seeing both drives and no delay during boot.

I also tried using a WD 1.6GB as the sole drive. I had the same issues as before although sometimes it didn't "see" the drive until I tried to detect it more than once (which is opposite to what was happening before). After I booted the machine (with the 20 second delay) I partitioned and did a SYS C: (also insuring the partition was marked as "active"). Same issue on trying to boot off this drive - "non-system disk".

I started to believe that for some reason the WD drives need more time than others to be "identified" - both in the BIOS setup and during startup - when they are the master.

I will try the FDISK /MBR as a test later today if I get the chance. I also have to check my spreadsheet to see which machines use a WD as the master and whether those machines display the same strange behaviour.

The other test I did was trying a 20GB Maxtor as the master. The BIOS could see the drive with no problem (using the expected "dummy" CHS numbers). During the boot process (off a floppy) the machine hung, although it did "see" the Maxtor drive, with the floppy light on but nothing being read. This means I had no opportunity to try loading EZ-BIOS.

Thanks...Joe