int 0x13 utility

"ArarghMail803NOSPAM" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
 news:04auu3t4tqpd76bk9bh5807j1lvt4ssddj@
4ax.com...
> when I said "Correct", not about which kind of LBA support was in what
> version.  :-)
>

I didn't use Win95 much either.  I'm still having a problem determining
specifically which Win95 version added LBA for FAT32.  Most sources say
Win95b (since FDISK added support for partition type 0x0C), but some say
Win95c...  I haven't been able to find a (reputable) source with version
numbers (e.g., 4.00.1111 or 4.03.1214, etc) that indicates which was the
first with LBA support for FAT32.  Still working on tracking it down...


RP

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:

>"ArarghMail803NOSPAM" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:04auu3t4tqpd76bk9bh5807j1lvt4ssddj@
4ax.com... 
>
>I didn't use Win95 much either.  I'm still having a problem determining
>specifically which Win95 version added LBA for FAT32.  Most sources say
>Win95b (since FDISK added support for partition type 0x0C), but some say
>Win95c...  I haven't been able to find a (reputable) source with version
>numbers (e.g., 4.00.1111 or 4.03.1214, etc) that indicates which was the
>first with LBA support for FAT32.  Still working on tracking it down...
>
Well, based on this table that I found somewhere, (long line wrapping
from Agent), I would guess ---

OS RELEASE		VERSION	MS-DOS REVISION			TIME +
DATE		BUILD
Win 95 final retail	4.00.0950	7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
09:50:00	4.00.0950
Win 95 final OEM	4.00.0950	7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
09:50:00	4.00.0950
Win 95a OSR1 final Updt	4.00.0950 a	7.00 [4.00.0950] 02-02-96 +
09:51:00	4.00.0951

--- THIS one:
Win 95B OSR 2.0 fnl OEM	4.00.0950 B	7.10 [4.00.1111] 08-24-96 +
11:11:11	4.00.1111
Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnlUpdt	4.00.0950 B	7.10 [4.00.1111] 04-10-97 +
12:14:00	4.03.1212
Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnl OEM	4.01.0971 B	7.10 [4.00.1111] 06-25-97 +
09:07:10	4.01.0971
Win 95C OSR 2.5 fnl OEM	4.00.0950 C	7.10 [4.00.1111] 11-26-97 +
12:16:00	4.03.1214

but it is only a guess.  :-)

Also, if you want the full list, email me, and I will send it.  It
goes up thru ME.

--
ArarghMail803 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Rod Pemberton:

> I didn't use Win95 much either.  I'm still having a problem
> determining specifically which Win95 version added LBA for FAT32.
> Most sources say Win95b (since FDISK added support for partition type
> 0x0C), but some say Win95c...  I haven't been able to find a
> (reputable) source with version numbers (e.g., 4.00.1111 or
> 4.03.1214, etc) that indicates which was the first with LBA support
> for FAT32.  Still working on tracking it down...

I can find that out for you since I've got three different versions of
Windows 9x CDs; which I will try and install on my SATA hard disk with
that crippled BIOS. If it creates partitions bigger than 504MB, it's
got LBA built in. Watch this space!
--
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

H. Peter Anvin in discussion with JJ and Alex Buell:

...
I cannot follow all the arguments quoted in here.

LBA28 support never depend on an OS, only the BIOS know if
the HW can handle LBA28/48 or just CHS.

The BIOS itself may converted CHS to LBA (if the drive allow it).

This wierd DOS-reported disk-geometry never reflected the physical
layout of a disk, INT13 parameters must be recalculated to the actual
(even faked) geometry before loading HDC-registers.

So even a DOS5.00 were able to RD/WR the first 512 MB on every
reported partition.
Dos 6.00 can RD/WR 2GB ...
any later MS-DOS may be able to access up to 8GB
but as I said already in this thread:

If the HW is able to support, it can access up to: "CHS-limit = 127.5 GB"
not too much difference to LBA28 ...

Neither My win98se nor my WinXphome will even recognise that
some of my HDs are larger than 128 GB.
Shall I laugh or cry on this yet ?
__
wolfgang

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:53:33 +0200, "Wolfgang Kern"
<spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:

>That's what I mean. DOS-executables running in a windoze-DOS-box can
>access I/O if the Os grants permission (ie:'LOCK', Admin-rights...).
>I disassembled sblaster.com used in my DOS-box of win98se, it direct
>hooks interrupt 66/67h and rd/wr from ports e000h... without problems.

As far as I know, Win9x doesn't block I/O accesses at all, even in
normal Windows mode.  On the other hand, WinNT, XP, and later require
a special Ring0 device driver to grant access to Ring3 programs.  That
includes DOS box operation as well, I believe.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA  v3.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
magically appears in front of Rod Pemberton:

> I didn't use Win95 much either.  I'm still having a problem
> determining specifically which Win95 version added LBA for FAT32.
> Most sources say Win95b (since FDISK added support for partition type
> 0x0C), but some say Win95c...  I haven't been able to find a
> (reputable) source with version numbers (e.g., 4.00.1111 or
> 4.03.1214, etc) that indicates which was the first with LBA support
> for FAT32.  Still working on tracking it down...

Ok, I just checked this out for you.

It's actually v4.00.1111 that added support for partitions larger than
8GB - that's the Windows 95 Revision B release. Earlier versions has no
support but still can create partitions up to 2GB.
--
http://www.munted.org.uk

Fearsome grindings.

"ArarghMail803NOSPAM" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
 news:hn40v396a9ar7ds6cgr5n2d2pvspetlt0h@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
> <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:
> 
> Well, based on this table that I found somewhere, (long line wrapping
> from Agent), I would guess ---
>
> OS RELEASE VERSION MS-DOS REVISION TIME +
> DATE BUILD
> Win 95 final retail 4.00.0950 7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
> 09:50:00 4.00.0950
> Win 95 final OEM 4.00.0950 7.00 [4.00.0950] 07-11-95 +
> 09:50:00 4.00.0950
> Win 95a OSR1 final Updt 4.00.0950 a 7.00 [4.00.0950] 02-02-96 +
> 09:51:00 4.00.0951
>
>  --- THIS one:
> Win 95B OSR 2.0 fnl OEM 4.00.0950 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 08-24-96 +
> 11:11:11 4.00.1111

I give.  What made you guess (correctly, from Alex Buell's post) that one?

> Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnlUpdt 4.00.0950 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 04-10-97 +
> 12:14:00 4.03.1212
> Win 95B OSR 2.1 fnl OEM 4.01.0971 B 7.10 [4.00.1111] 06-25-97 +
> 09:07:10 4.01.0971
> Win 95C OSR 2.5 fnl OEM 4.00.0950 C 7.10 [4.00.1111] 11-26-97 +
> 12:16:00 4.03.1214
>
> but it is only a guess.  :-)
>
> Also, if you want the full list, email me, and I will send it.  It
> goes up thru ME.
>

I'm interested.  I see one number I don't recognize: 4.01.0971.

Okay, Google search for:
OEM 4.00.0950 4.00.1111 11-26-97 4.01.0971
has four links to large lists with that version and Google Groups had
another.

Thanks, I think those links will do.  Although, they don't seem list
capability info...


Rod Pemberton

"Alex Buell" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
news:20080331092244.d882241f.alex.buell@munted.org.uk...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:45:39 -0400, I waved a wand and this message
> magically appears in front of Rod Pemberton:
> 
>
> Ok, I just checked this out for you.
>
> It's actually v4.00.1111 that added support for partitions larger than
> 8GB - that's the Windows 95 Revision B release. Earlier versions has no
> support but still can create partitions up to 2GB.

Thanks.

RP

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:17:38 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote:

>
>"ArarghMail803NOSPAM" <spamtrap@crayne.org> wrote in message
> news:hn40v396a9ar7ds6cgr5n2d2pvspetlt0h@
4ax.com... 

<snip>
 
>
>I give.  What made you guess (correctly, from Alex Buell's post) that one?
OSR 2 has MSDOS 7.10, which is when FAT32 became available, AFAIK.

<snip>
>I'm interested.  I see one number I don't recognize: 4.01.0971.
>
>Okay, Google search for:
>OEM 4.00.0950 4.00.1111 11-26-97 4.01.0971
>has four links to large lists with that version and Google Groups had
>another.

My list probably came from mdgx.com.

>Thanks, I think those links will do.  Although, they don't seem list
>capability info...

Remember, most versions of fdisk have a bug that limits them to a
64gig FAT32 partition.  I think it got fixed in ME.  In any case,
there is/was an update for that problem from MS.
--
ArarghMail803 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

NoSpam@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
>
>As far as I know, Win9x doesn't block I/O accesses at all, even in
>normal Windows mode.

Correct.  In fact, it could NOT do so, in part because display drivers in
Win9X were just ordinary user-mode DLLs.  They had to be able to do port
I/O.

>On the other hand, WinNT, XP, and later require
>a special Ring0 device driver to grant access to Ring3 programs.  That
>includes DOS box operation as well, I believe.

Correct.
--
Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.