Page 1 of 2
#1 Forward Compatibility - 16TB+ MBR GPT BIOS UEFI PCIe 5.0 DDR5 PAE 128GB Sapphire Rapids Discussions 2000 XP 2003 2009 7nm hexadecacore dotriacontacore by XPLives 17.03.2018 15:01

avatar

Forward Compatibility - 16TB+ MBR GPT BIOS UEFI PCIe 5.0 DDR5 PAE 128GB Sapphire Rapids Discussions 2000 XP 2003 2009 7nm hexadecacore dotriacontacore




Happy St. Patrick's Day!

I haven't been around much due to my hectic schedule and insufficient time and have been working on something I've code named The XP Yeager Project: 16TB. It is the culmination of my research while working on another project.

Now this experiment was successfully done a week ago but I had to compile all my research together and just show you the aftermath of how it looks in Windows XP. I don't believe anyone else has achieved this yet so it will be a first anywhere.

For awhile Microsoft had led us to believe you simply couldn't access more than 2.2TB in Windows XP and we had to switch to a newer OS that supported GPT which could alleviate it.

Being a die hard user of XP and consumer of mass storage capacities I simply said FU I'm not upgrading without a fight.

For many years I lived with 2.0 TB drives out of convenience but over the years I migrated to 4TB and 8TB on Windows XP but I found the capacities still too limiting for my taste... ;) 16TB was the next threshold and I wanted to achieve it.

After much experimenting and planning I devised a plan to get ahead of the tired waiting game from manufacturers to truly test the limits of XP before anyone else could and not wait 5 or 10 years from now to do it.

Most people have probably given up on using XP a long time ago by 2014 or earlier and one reason could have been this 2TB capacity limit. Some may find 2TB plenty of space today but I'm a power user so when there's a will there's a way.

Now there are large capacity SSDs such as the Samsung PM1633a which cost the price of a Mercedes Benz S Class when it first came out. Today it can be had for $11,000. I'm not Bill Gate's kid or this would be chump change right? :D

https://www.cdw.com/product/Samsung-PM16...-12Gb-s/4079174

But this would only get you to 15.36TB and shy of 16TB.
MZILS15THMLS-00003

Back in late 2008 the earliest inkling of the release of the very first 3.5" 2TB drive was found in this pdf file from December 2008.

http://web.archive.org/web/2009020611211...dwd6400aacs.pdf

WD20EADS was the Western Digital's breakthrough capacity smasher and by then XP had become 7 years old and on the verge of feeling its age with Vista breathing down its neck for 2 years with no luck and 6 months before Microsoft made another attempt with Windows 7 to shut down XP once and for all.

Windows XP is now 16 years old so it's fitting that I now bring you the first glimpses of what 16TB actually looks like working and remember this is highly experimental but I can confirm XP handles it.

Meanwhile I have another upcoming project breaking the 16TiB Barrier which comes to around 17.59TB and searching for ways to use larger capacity drives than this theoretical limit in XP.


[Chuck Yeager]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Yeager

Some may wonder who or what is this Yeager? Chuck Yeager is a ground breaker and an American icon who was the first man to break the speed of sound at Mach 1. I'm here to try and break the capacity barrier in XP. It's all for fun really and it just might give XP one more foot out of the grave. However this might not be so fun for Microsoft and drive manufacturers who really have made great efforts to stop it from happening and forcing people to believe 2.0 TB was all you could ever use on XP.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help...arger-than-2-tb

Some of what I've done I can't reveal at the moment as they will find a way to possibly disable it and thus wasted my time and effort and my plan would have failed. I'm hoping by the time Cannon Lake is released I can do another confirmation to test my technique hasn't been broken. Intel and Microsoft has a habit of breaking things that worked fine before when releasing a new chipset. An example is Intel killing of eHCI USB 2.0 ports making installing XP, Vista, and Windows 7 more difficult. I might wait one more generation after Cannon Lake has been released before revealing how it's done where by then it will be also much simpler and cheaper to attempt.

The longest wait will be the release of Tiger Lake or Sapphire Rapids which should be at the 7nm die shrink. By then there will be plenty of supply out in the public that they can't stop my technique from happening and people can do it affordably.

But how many people will still be using XP in 2020-2022? Currently about 7% in 2018. How common and affordable will 16TB+ capacity drives be in 2022?

Early estimates it looks like 2020 when the 12th Generation Sapphire Rapids will arrive and 7nm with possibly 8C/16T CPUs should be common place. I'm betting it may be around 4 years time in 2022 if given their past estimates are always delayed before the secrets of The XP Yeager Project is fully revealed assuming it still works. Hopefully by then it won't matter as the capacity limits have been reached for XP through my experiments and the significance of XP won't be a concern for them to waste resources on disabling or preventing my methods from working and probably either Windows 7 will have fended off Windows 10 from overtaking it. But who wouldn't like to use 16TB+ in Windows XP and using it on octacore CPUs?

Other future projects I'm working on is getting Windows XP to work on Intel Coffee Lake, Cannon Lake and beyond including AMD Bristol Ridge and Ryzen.

Now on to the DOUBLE money shot !!!


#2 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by davidm71 17.03.2018 17:42

avatar

@XPLives,

We use XP in the office and because certain hardware I own only works with XP thanks to a culture in the healthcare industry not supporting their hardware that litterally costs 1000's of dollars they would rather have you spend another five grand. In anycase to now use XP in a healthcare setting is a health privacy violation issue punishable by the state at another tens of thousands of dollars thanks to Microsoft no longer supporting it anymore and not patching security flaws. So after spending a little time I found there is a community based Win XP service pack 4. Not sure if you are familiar with it but if your using XP you should check it out.

#3 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by chinobino 19.03.2018 14:35

avatar

The bigger issue was that most motherboard BIOS at the time that XP came out had a 2.2TB limit due to 32-bit addressing.

So even if your OS allowed larger drives you were still limited by what the BIOS could "see".

#4 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by Dibya 03.04.2018 08:46

How you broke the 2.2tb limit?

#5 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by Fernando 03.04.2018 12:58

avatar

Zitat von Dibya im Beitrag #4
How you broke the 2.2tb limit?
Whom do you mean?
If you want to be sure, that the related person gets notified about your question, you should use the direct addressing way (= @nickname).

#6 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by rloew 07.04.2018 07:53

This appears to be a 16TB Hard Drive connected thru a 4K Sector translating USB Enclosure or Adapter.

I have been working on Hard Drive enhancements for over 20 years, mostly for DOS and Windows 9x.
My current product supports 512TiB Hard Drives with either.

#7 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by Fernando 07.04.2018 11:04

avatar

@rloew:
Welcome to the Win-RAID Forum and thanks for your contribution!
Regards
Dieter (alias Fernando)

#8 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by XPLives 22.07.2019 03:49

avatar

Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #6
This appears to be a 16TB Hard Drive connected thru a 4K Sector translating USB Enclosure or Adapter.



@rloew

Close but no cigar.

I did not have any 16TB hard drive. As far as I know it did not exist at the time when I conducted my experiment. But if you knew of a 16TB hard drive for sale then in March 2018 let us know the Brand and Model to make this assumption. The earliest evidence of a 16TB drive was released in June 2019 from Seagate that diderius6 mentioned which was over a year after my experiment.

#9 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by XPLives 22.07.2019 03:51

avatar

@nofearek9, @diderius6, @infuscomus

Zitat von diderius6 im Beitrag Windows XP SP3 32bit and modern PC parts
@nofearek9
You can buy the driver Paragon GPT Loader for XP, I have,
with which you can read GPT drives under XP as large as you want
Dietmar

EDIT: And even with MBR XP can work via USB with really big drives, just formatted
with NTFS and 4k sectors.
https://www.seagate.com/de/de/internal-h...s/hdd/ironwolf/
16TB 5 years garantie, 250 MByte/s, sectors 512e , means Emulation via 4k should be recogniced from XP from start.

By the way, I prefer WD, no error on HD in 10 years.

Align to 4096 sectors and all HD with 512e > 2TB can be used in XP 32 bit also as boot device with MBR,
very fast, no difference to <= 2TB.
https://geizhals.de/western-digital-wd-b...=de&hloc=de&v=k
250Mbyte/s read, write in XP, nice.


Hmm hard drive manufacturers took long enough to reach 16TB drives.

When I conducted my own test in March 2018 they had no 16TB drive available on the market and I beat them to the punch. It looks like Seagate might have released the first 16TB on June 2019. So I beat them by over a year and 3 months to see if XP could handle it in MBR. We can round down to 1 year since maybe it takes them 3 months to mass produce real stable drives and marketing it. If they can release a 17TB model, 17.5TB model, and 18TB model it would be interesting to test these. Or maybe an 18TB 2.5" SSD that you can modify firmware to only see 17.59TB capacity would be a more precise experiment.

Also I agree to avoid Seagate 3.5" drives. Choose Western Digital as they are more reliable and cheaper when you pry the drive out of external USB enclosure than buying bare drive. For 2.5" drives choose Seagate as they have bare 2.5" drives in them whereas WD does not and uses fused USB adapters so no way to hook them internally as SATA for data recovery.

So far no external 16TB enclosure available with a single hard drive. Only 10TB exist in large quantities.

12TB can be bought bare bones.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Purple-WD121P...54d70ec77d6db14

14TB here:
https://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-1...0/dp/B07KPL474H

16TB here:
Date First Available June 4, 2019
https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-IronWolf-...ctronics&sr=1-1


The exact limit should be 17.59TB for MBR but possibly 35TB is possible in XP without modding. 70TB could be done on XP with software modding the OS for 4K drives. Other OS like Vista, Windows 7+ cannot understand large capacity MBR drives without some sort of modding so will be capped at 17.59TB so will not see these 35TB MBR drives that XP can. So if they made a 17TB hard drive model I would buy that over the 16TB to maximize the capacity limit by 1 extra TB of space. Hopefully SSDs will come in 17TB capacity if HDD makers skip this nice round number to gain an extra 6.25% of capacity for legacy MBR usage.

If switching to Server 2003 32-Bit it can understand GPT which allows > 17TB drives to work while still maintaining XP compatibility and larger than 3.2->3.5GB memory access. So this is a better solution going forward as you will not have to patch each individual XP installation to access the drive data which if you have 20 XP computers this is a real headache or if you go to another location where they have XP but cannot install a GPT program onto it without permission the data is inaccessible.

Since Server 2003 have both MBR and GPT support you will not have to worry any further. 2003 will not understand 35TB MBR drives just like Vista+ OS. So it will suffer the same 17.59TB limit for 4K drives. So your 3TB drive is best used on 2003 Server unless you have only 1 copy of XP installed and only plan on using that drive then try GPT loader as an alternative.

From what I understand GPT Loader is only for internal drives > 2.2TB.

I seem to recall external USB drives of 3TB GPT are not supported? Maybe diderius6 or infuscomus has knowledge of this test?

That was the only inherent weakness I can remember about GPT Loader which is why 2003 Server is a better solution as it can access both internal and external GPT drives larger than 17.59TB or if you prefer 16.0TiB which hard drive manufacturers will never use for marketing it.


You can check my links here:
How to install Windows XP OS on AMD (AM3+ 990FX and AM4 X370 Ryzen 7)
2003 Server can see 16GB of memory no problem with a single 16GB DDR4 memory stick.
64GB will work on most motherboards if you have 4 memory sticks installed.

16TB MBR capacity will detect in XP as demonstrated by me here:
The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier

But in order to really break the 17.59TB MBR limit on 4K drives will probably require a team of people with assembly and programming windows driver skills that to make a universal driver to do large sector translation so XP can understand and boot from 4K drives (internal and external) and reverse engineering hardware for a SATA adapter that would allow any XP computer to read large drives without modifying any XP files on the target machine so it will be seamless to the user.

Unfortunately no people are willing to assist in this project and do this kind of work for free so it is unlikely to happen as with everything it requires sacrificing time & money.

#10 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by rloew 22.07.2019 04:34

Zitat von XPLives im Beitrag #8
Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #6
This appears to be a 16TB Hard Drive connected thru a 4K Sector translating USB Enclosure or Adapter.



@rloew

Close but no cigar.

I did not have any 16TB hard drive. As far as I know it did not exist at the time when I conducted my experiment. But if you knew of a 16TB hard drive for sale then in March 2018 let us know the Brand and Model to make this assumption. The earliest evidence of a 16TB drive was released in June 2019 from Seagate that diderius6 mentioned which was over a year after my experiment.



You mentioned SSD Drives larger than 16TB in your original post. You did not specify how you did the experiment.
You could have either obtained such a Drive or faked it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I have plenty of experience faking larger Drives to test code. I created a 128TiB Dos Partition almost 10 years ago.

#11 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by XPLives 22.07.2019 09:15

avatar

@rloew

Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #10


You mentioned SSD Drives larger than 16TB in your original post. You did not specify how you did the experiment.
You could have either obtained such a Drive or faked it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I have plenty of experience faking larger Drives to test code. I created a 128TiB Dos Partition almost 10 years ago.



Don't mean to correct you here but where exactly did I mention SSD drives larger than 16TB in my original post? I only mentioned a 15.36TB SSD - Samsung PM1633a which is way too expensive and not quite the 16TB which I shown in the picture. This was obvious this was not the SSD shown as it would have said 13.92TB in Disk Management not 14.5TB as you see it. Aside from that I mentioned only Bill Gate's son could afford something like this and not someone like I or the average consumer. As it turns out the specs say it's a SAS SSD drive which would have been incompatible with my experiment.

Obtaining such a 16TB 3.5" SATA hard drive that did not exist when I posted it would have required either access to such a prototype drive if it existed then which I do not know of or work in the hard drive manufacturing industry to get access to one. But the faking would be your software method of doing it which I don't participate in. I used real hardware to achieve the results and I mentioned if you read the entire original posting from beginning to end that the reveal of how it was done may come when Sapphire Rapids is released or I'll wait till when 5nm is first released. That would ensure the longest longevity of using my method with XP when storage capacity prices have dropped tremendously by then including 16TB drives for $130 or less. It's also possible SSDs prices will drop dramatically by 2023-2024 that getting a true 16TB SSD would cost significantly less unlike the 15.36TB SSD from Samsung which costs a fortune.

Revealing my techniques sooner would be unlikely to prevent Intel and Microsoft from jeopardizing my method to work even on a later OS should they choose to employ their compatibility breaking methods. They have a habit of killing legacy OS advancements. I plan on having at least 5nm CPUs with 512GB of RAM using high capacity storage drives under XP or 2003. By then I'm sure Windows 10 will be solidly stable that they will not care to add in some OS patch to destroy backward compatibility for a twenty some year old OS.

Since I've been using DOS for nearly 40 years at the moment a 128TiB DOS partition would be kind of pointless even today or even a decade ago. Since NTFS read/write access in DOS would be its biggest hindrance. If you've come up with your own NTFS DOS and 9X Windows version capable of reading and writing to up to 256TiB NTFS DOS partitions that I would find uniquely useful for cross retro OS platform usage.

But at the moment also needing to patch every system would be a nightmare in disguise or if the partition got corrupted data recovery would be another obstacle when dealing with proprietary partitioning schemes. Since it appears you are in the business of making money via selling software solutions it would be unlikely I would choose this method to increase capacity with the risk of incompatibility or data loss. Due to the way legacy OS versions of DOS would be unable to access these larger partitions it would again be incompatible with my needs as well if I chose this path. You can't force very old DOS programs to see these partitions you've created which I believe you will find out sooner or later why most people stick to much smaller DOS partition sizes for compatibility reasons.

However if ever consider offering to release something like this to the public freely I would support it and help assist in testing it. It's possible had the Millennium Edition been successful, one more follow up Windows on DOS version may have included true NTFS read/write like Windows 2000, USB 3.0 drivers, 4GB+ memory support, multicore CPU support, and more modern graphics cards drivers support. But for the moment Windows Server 2003 32-Bit is the best substitute OS for XP.

#12 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by rloew 22.07.2019 12:05

There are two other possibilities.
A sparsely configured drive, which is another form of faking.
Or a JBOD Array which looks like a 16TB Hard Drive.
Since you refuse to explain your method, I can't make any useful comments about it.

Incidentally, "faking it" is a perfectly acceptable method to test code. I debugged my MBR Extensions years before I was able to get a hard drive larger than 2TiB. I only got a 4Kn Drive a couple of years ago. It worked perfectly in DOS and 9x, having "faked it" several years earlier.

Selling software does not make it incompatible or less reliable. Remember Microsoft is in the business of selling software too. You are just cheap.
I'm not sure what legacy OS versions of DOS you are referring to. I modified Dos 7.10. Older versions have severe size limits.

#13 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by XPLives 23.07.2019 04:38

avatar

@rloew

Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #12
There are two other possibilities.
Since you refuse to explain your method, I can't make any useful comments about it.

Selling software does not make it incompatible or less reliable. Remember Microsoft is in the business of selling software too. You are just cheap.
I'm not sure what legacy OS versions of DOS you are referring to. I modified Dos 7.10. Older versions have severe size limits.


Respectfully, your individual speculations / insights are interesting and I wouldn't say aren't useful because it got you thinking of other possibilities than your first assumption and I'm certain you have others lingering in your consciousness. Since the original goal was to test 16TB in MBR in XP and no hard drive manufacturer had released a 16TB drive yet as far as I knew to confirm it would work and it was also intended to goad them into getting their act together as they had been promising these would have come out as early as 2016. Now in 2019 16TB drives are out and in the coming years we will see much larger capacities even 32TB could be on the horizon if doubling capacities can continue in years rather than decades.

As I already specified in the original post when I would possibly reveal the method used assuming it still works in the future. Just because you're impatient to wait till Sapphire Rapids doesn't mean I'm going to to reveal it sooner to fulfill your selfish curiosity. Now if you had your own 16TB storage device to test and prove go right ahead. Try writing/storing 16TB of data onto it and see if you can still access every single file on it. Or are you just using a small capacity drive and constantly overwriting the data?

Simulations are one thing but actually doing it is another. Imagine if all you did was simulations of going to the Moon thousands of times but never actually physically going there vs landing on the Moon itself. Which offers more proof and deserves more respect? I'm pretty sure simulations will not be 100% and when actually doing it you will find you missed or didn't anticipate something.

I only politely corrected you and you go off on a tangent without admitting your error as I never said anything about larger than 16TB SSDs in the original post.

As for Microsoft I have every Windows OS running on my setup including DOS all the way to Windows 10. So you're definition of "cheap" doesn't apply when it comes to purchasing software and I have several dozen sealed copies of DOS and other rare items that you probably don't have. I also have a huge collection of old MFM drives that cost a fortune when they first released. I'm currently using an i9-9900K octacore and what CPU are you using now that's not "cheap" in comparison?

But if you think it's wise to spend tens of thousands on a SSD drive is being not "cheap" then you're probably loaded like Scrooge McDuck and this isn't the forum for you to load your piggy bank. You have to be practical as well. Most people here don't have an abundance of wealth to continually upgrade their systems or their OS. I just happen to prefer XP above all other OS but doesn't mean I don't use all other operating systems on the same computer. I would probably say XP and Windows 7 are the top two OS I prefer today if I had to choose but 2000 and Vista are probably the best favorites had all dependencies of XP and Windows 7 been patched in for compatibility.

We are just spending our own money and time to pursue a goal and trying to offer what information they can freely to continue using the same OS as long as possible on more modern systems. I've spent thousands on hardware and countless hours to the pursuit of XP working on modern systems even at the cost of a relative getting an illness because I was too focused on it. So I've had to divide my time recently this year to take care of them. What have you sacrificed and what makes you not "cheap"? If you could afford to spending tens of thousands on such a SSD drive then you certainly have a lot of expendable cash to call others cheap because they're not interested in your software.

I never said anyone selling software makes it incompatible and I'm not sure where you logically concluded this. I buy software often and I said certain DOS software will not work with your proposed partitioning method. Even some software I tested corrupted a Windows 98SE partition when it was installing the program. Going to a much older DOS version didn't have this problem. That's 6.22 and earlier at least down to 5.0 and in some rare cases 2.1 and when the DOS partition is too large the installation program may not even proceed because it misidentifies the storage capacity. There are countless other reasons I won't get into as this has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Do you have thousands of DOS software games and applications that you've gone through and checked for compatibility from installation to running it to make that assessment?

Maybe you are here to just troll or trying to take advantage of people trying to sell something to someone they don't want because you don't agree with their opinion based on their own user experience of 40 years with DOS and Windows? If that's the case then you deserve a troll award.

#14 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by rloew 23.07.2019 06:49

There is nothing selfish about curiosity with regards to your statement that cannot be verified because you refuse to explain how it was done.
I see no connection between 16TB Drives in XP and "Sapphire Rapids" CPUs.

I said you were cheap because you wouldn't even consider buying my software. Yet you would be happy to use them if they were free.
I see people all the time who will spend plenty on their computers but won't spend $20 for one of my Patches, preferring to do without, or spending a lot of time trying to find a workaround.

Obviously a simulation isn't going to let me write 16TB of files. It would be intended to verify that the OS can handle the size.
I know it is not perfect. It would not have found the bug at 8TiB that would have occurred with Windows 98.
You never mentioned if you had ever written 16TB of files to that Partition. The screenshot shows it to be essentially empty.

What do you know about my partitioning scheme?

I may not have thousands of games to test, but my customers probably do.

I'm not trying to sell you anything you don't want. I do mostly 9x not XP. I only joined this thread to provide a possible explanation for what you did.
I already dropped the subject of the 16TB SSD despite there being an announcement of a 30TB SSD Drive before your post.
I initially assumed that an affordable 16TB Drive had become available.
Despite what Microsoft says, what you did is not remarkable. You just tested closer to the ultimate limit.

Only 40 years?
I have 50 years of Computer experience.
Incidentally, DOS and Windows haven't been around that long, so you don't have that much experience in them.

#15 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by infuscomus 24.07.2019 19:15

@XPLives

I've heard CSM support is being dropped by intel next year, so if Sapphire Rapids is UEFI only it might become impossible to boot XP

Xobor Forum Software von Xobor
Datenschutz