Page 2 of 2
#16 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by XPLives 07.08.2019 12:47

avatar

@rloew

Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #14
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.


They say don't feed the troll. Unfortunately you either have a comprehension skills deficiency or still didn't read fully what I initially wrote. My delay in revealing my method has more to do with preserving the method than say Intel or Windows doing something to make it incompatible. If they don't know what I did they cannot prevent it. And given each generation is typically 2 years on average and 4 years between a significant chipset jump to a more efficient CPU. There is still more enhancements that Intel/AMD has to do in a future chipset before I'm willing to lay it out there.

>>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.<<

Sapphire Rapids will be around 2023-2024 at earliest. By then hopefully memory limits will have hit 256GB-512GB or possibly 1TB with DDR5. I'm not so urgent to see USB v4.0 as when you have more cores you need more memory to go along with it.

Sandy Bridge MBs had hit 32GB with 4 memory slots. Stagnant growth since 2011 with 4 cores for the longest time until Coffee Lake thanks to AMD's ass kicking with an 8 core. Now that Coffee Lake dropped their 8 Core we are still stuck with 64GB and DDR4. Although possible to get 128GB on DDR4 now. But 256GB-512MB would be the bare minimum I'd want the consumer desktop chipset to hit before revealing my method and by then 16TB-32TB hard drives and maybe SSDs would drop down to $130 price range by then. Now imagine 32 Cores running at 65 TDP, 1TB of DDR5 memory, 32TB SSDs for $100 a piece. That's the time to reveal the method as by then Intel nor Microsoft can stop all the previous generation CPUs that already can hopefully still work with my method continue to work.

Even if MS or Intel decided to do something about adding some Windows 10 code or force BIOS manufacturers to do some disable trick to kill MBR from working on large capacity drives I would already be content with my 32 Core power efficient power house machine.

The other reason I will not disclose since your own interests are not compatible with mine so it wouldn't matter.

>>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.<<

When did you discuss buying your software? You must be making giant leaps here. I said I would contribute my time to help create a better Windows ME assuming you had the necessary skills to do it. That costs me my own time and testing it for no money. So if my time is not worth money to you then you yourself are cheap. Offering my own time freely for the betterment of the OS and for others to use is the only way an OS can have more users which you don't understand. The more users you have for a dead/dying OS the better pool of people you could potentially make money off of with other utilities.

You shouldn't make a prejudicial statement like that. Those people who spend thousands on their computer probably aren't looking to run Windows 98 on it and thus won't be your target client. And while it's true some may prefer to use a work around solution than pay for something that does the same thing that's only human nature is it not? If you had to pay to take an uber ride to the store a half mile away or not pay and simply walk 15 minutes and get some exercise while you're at it could you blame them?

Let's consider in the future after it was completed. Say I did assist in testing your modified patch that would make Windows ME run natively multicore, use over 4GB of Ram, read/write to NTFS 16TB partitions, works with Intel USB 3.0, et cetera. Then you'll have a new pool of potential customers using an old OS and they would be interested in other programs or tools possibly for it. If you knew how to create a game making engine for that OS, or make a universal graphics driver that works will all graphics cards then that would be another way to open the flood gates for new interest in Windows 98/ME usage. Since more users would be using their newer systems to run an old OS it's likely the user pool could grow being these old operating systems didn't require activation either.

Now let's say you don't do this and continue on your path of 50 years+. And let's assume your pool of old OS users is currently 1000. It will only continue to shrink over time. People wouldn't want to run an old OS stuck on a single core when they have 8 or 16 Core CPUs with 1TB of memory. So that leaves them with the choice of buying older hardware that works on such an old OS without needing your patch. So that does not in any way benefit you either. In the end you'll just keep getting bitter that no one is buying your patches and blaming it on them being cheap. Your only new source of income would be from new computer systems running an old OS and if you can't see how to bridge those two together it's game over and the limited pool of users will eventually dry up.

Meanwhile XP on the other hand still has lots of potential in comparison. Thanks to multicore support, >4GB memory usage, large capacity MBR drives, and probably the largest software library to date continues to work even on the internet today.

If I were to buy any patches from anyone or any company I would have to have a use for it in my situation. It doesn't matter if it's $20 or $1 or $100. Even if it's free it doesn't mean I'll use it if it's inferior or I got something better. If your own patches start at $20 that's your own pricing and prices should adjust to the market value of its worth. I never asked about any of your patches or whatever you're trying to offer. I have no use for any 9X related patches unless it addresses something I truly need. I have so many older systems that work fine without patching and newer ones that work as well with my own technique. Currently it's a dead OS for the time being which was why I outlined the limitations and what could be done to improve and modernize it along with even offering my own time to test. It was meant as an olive branch but I withdraw it now as I have less time now due to taking care of an ill relative.

>>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.<<

Without native NTFS read/write under Windows 98 why would 8TiB matter? At most 2TiB with FAT32 would be the most likely usage of large capacity partitions being useful in that OS if you want to maintain cross OS compatibility with Windows 98 and say 2000+.

Obviously I've written to the 16TB partition in XP or I wouldn't classify it as being successful but if it had failed then I would have reported it or wasted my time taking snapshots. I had used extremely large video files stored on it for playback. This is why simulations cannot fully foresee every problem but are a cheap way to see what could happen. The only potential bug if I were to give you a clue is breaking the 35TB barrier will be harder to do with MBR compatibility still intact with Vista and later without patching. But it would still be possible strictly sticking to Windows 2000 and possibly as far as XP 2009 to get close to 70TB using MBR without OS patching with certain caveats. But the easier solution is to use GPT for drives larger than 35TB and use XP with a GPT Loader or 2003.

>>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.<<


Your second and third sentences of your very 1st post gives the impression you are trying to sell something or market yourself. Your first sentence does not and addresses your assumption.

>>2nd - "I have been working on Hard Drive enhancements for over 20 years, mostly for DOS and Windows 9x.

3rd - My current product supports 512TiB Hard Drives with either."<<


Care to offer any other people who've successfully used 16TB MBR partitions in XP in 2017? I've already tested beyond this limit before I posted the 16TB photo but never released those photos but briefly mentioned it in a log but did plan on posting it one day but never got around to doing it. I already know where the limits are for XP without needing to patch it to death. I value compatibility. I could have posted a 70TB photo that I created then in 2017 but that would be going closer to your route of faking it but with hardware instead of software which would still be unremarkable to me since I couldn't actually write the full capacity but it looks like it might be possible soon. But my method would still be closer to how the actual drive would look for such large capacities beyond 16.0TiB/17.59TB.

But even your 20 years of HD enhancements would be unremarkable and let's say we push this number to 25 years since you said over and that would put you starting around 1995 as an overestimate. Much earlier in the 80s we were already dealing with a park disk program made to park MFM drives before they were shipped and a custom BIOS for the IBM XT clone machine done. There were already other fine expensive software tools we paid for like Spinrite at the time. What were you doing then at the time to contribute to the software market?

>>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.<<

No kidding Sir Holmes that's why I stated the 40 years since 1981 began with the IBM PC-DOS 1.0. But I started with the Apple ][ DOS which was earlier in 1978. The most relevant experience is using DOS since 1.0 for the IBM PC side as I never truly stayed with Apple when they went the Mac line. Early Windows was not particularly useful to me until Windows 3.1 with multimedia as computers then due to their clock speed and memory limits ran too sluggish compared to DOS. When CPU processing powers finally caught up and Windows 98SE came around did MS make its final useful Windows on DOS version. Being a beta tester for software companies, Windows 95 was too damn buggy constantly crashing that it wasn't until Windows 2000 did Windows truly shine as a stable enough OS.

Although I haven't looked into it yet but today Windows ME could probably work with Intel USB 3.0 ports if it can use the Intel USB 2.0 drivers from XP. It's obvious that Windows didn't exist for 40 years yet but Windows will continue to age if you've used it since Windows 1.0 till Windows 10 and beyond. I'm still using DOS since 1978 and to this day on real and virtual systems and in about 10 years from now it will be half a century. So your 50 years will be even more meaningless again when you claim 60 years. Seeing how Windows versions have generally downgraded itself since Windows 2000, Windows 10 may be the end of the road unless a Windows XP 128-Bit version with full backwards compatibility to XP->W10 is released from Bill Gates returning to Microsoft from his charity work.

Now I don't consider anything computer related prior to these years of any importance in my life. If you had said you had 60 or 100 years of computer experience it would still be as meaningless to me since anything prior to the Apple ][ would have no significance aside from the Apple 1 computer only for a trophy museum piece to play around with. Your 50 years could imply you got into computers in 1969 then maybe you had to wait a few years for Pong or Spacewar to have come around for any gaming. For you it may have a deeper meaning getting into computers that early on since you are not a gamer nor have a library of software to test as vast as mine nor the hardware. Also running a computer store longer than you've been in your business and testing hardware and software since the Apple ][ I doubt any of your own customers even have a software library comparable to mine or a hardware collection of vintage computers, hardware, and software that could only be obtained living through those years and having a massive warehouse to store them.

But I give you props for being into computers much earlier with EE experience and most likely a non-gamer focused on coding which would at least make you adept at Assembly which would be niche useful today. If you truly got into computers that early in 1969 then that would give you an uber nerd rating as I couldn't have gotten into them at that time as they were uninteresting then. Had games not played a part in computers I think it likely that I would have gotten into low-level programming or program design to create my own given I had the patience to do it. I would probably have been more fascinated by the Moon Landing seeing it live on the B/W TV and chosen a career in NASA as an astronaut than punch holes into cards just to run code on a mainframe in '69.

#17 RE: The XP Yeager Project: 16TB -- Breaking the 2.2TB Capacity Barrier by rloew 08.08.2019 06:00

Intel is already planning to break XP in 2020 so you won't have to wait until 2023. In any case, I doubt that Microsoft or Intel would even care enough about what you did to do anything about it. They never did anything about my enhancements. They will break things on their own. The intensity of your arguments for delaying any details is just making me more and more suspicious of your entire story. Even more now that you upped the ante to 70TB.

My primary business is selling Patches. Giving them away to sell Utilities is not a viable business model in the foreseeable future.
Some of my Patches are needed to make using modern hardware practical with 9x. I was the first to break the 137GB limit.
Want more than 1GB of RAM or to use a SATA Drive. Two more Patches. AHCI requires my Driver.
My main utilities are Partitioning and Formatting tools to support the enhanced storage capabilities made possible by my Patches.

I have seen various people in the MSFN forums spend days or even weeks trying to work around a problem that one of my Patches would have solved in an instant. An Uber looks a lot better in a blizzard.

FAT32 supports 16TiB Partitions in XP, 2000, and 9x (with my TBPLUS Patch) using 4K Sector mapped USB Drives with standard MBRs.
The 8TiB issue is a bug in Windows 9x that I discovered, and patched, many years ago that appears at 1TiB in standard 512 Byte Sector Drives.
DOS can support FAT32 Partitions as large as 128TiB. I have the snapshot. This allows access to 3.75PiB.

25 years ago I was selling Amiga software through a local Amiga store. I designed KickWork and a Networking Package for the Amiga. Before that, aerospace and military firmware.

I watched the Moon Landing on three TVs, one on each network, that I had found in the garbage and repaired previously.

#18 Breaking the 17.59TB Capacity Barrier... RIP by XPLives 22.09.2019 10:37

avatar

@rloew

Zitat von rloew im Beitrag #17
Intel is already planning to break XP in 2020 so you won't have to wait until 2023. In any case, I doubt that Microsoft or Intel would even care enough about what you did to do anything about it. They never did anything about my enhancements. They will break things on their own. The intensity of your arguments for delaying any details is just making me more and more suspicious of your entire story. Even more now that you upped the ante to 70TB.


My primary business is selling Patches. Giving them away to sell Utilities is not a viable business model in the foreseeable future.
Some of my Patches are needed to make using modern hardware practical with 9x. I was the first to break the 137GB limit.
Want more than 1GB of RAM or to use a SATA Drive. Two more Patches. AHCI requires my Driver.
My main utilities are Partitioning and Formatting tools to support the enhanced storage capabilities made possible by my Patches.

I have seen various people in the MSFN forums spend days or even weeks trying to work around a problem that one of my Patches would have solved in an instant. An Uber looks a lot better in a blizzard.

FAT32 supports 16TiB Partitions in XP, 2000, and 9x (with my TBPLUS Patch) using 4K Sector mapped USB Drives with standard MBRs.
The 8TiB issue is a bug in Windows 9x that I discovered, and patched, many years ago that appears at 1TiB in standard 512 Byte Sector Drives.
DOS can support FAT32 Partitions as large as 128TiB. I have the snapshot. This allows access to 3.75PiB.


25 years ago I was selling Amiga software through a local Amiga store. I designed KickWork and a Networking Package for the Amiga. Before that, aerospace and military firmware.

I watched the Moon Landing on three TVs, one on each network, that I had found in the garbage and repaired previously.




It looks like you had modified your message once and I didn't see your original response so I'm not certain what you wrote prior to the final revision.

You'll be amazed what Intel and MS have done. As for XP the easiest one is breaking off XP compatibility by stopping to create XP drivers even for their iGPU which I can't see that being a huge toll on their company to create such drivers or official Intel USB 3.0 drivers for XP/2003 or even open sourcing it. So don't doubt for a second they have an agenda and trying to off Windows 7 recently is just another indicator to push everyone to Windows 10. While in your case 98SE and DOS are too old to matter and not really optimal to run on multicore CPUs for them to need to do anything that advances in technology just make it less likely you're going to use a multicore CPU with PCIe slots with them.

But I will say Intel does not hold a monopoly on the CPU market as you know and AMD could continue with producing BIOS support on their MBs. Second Intel would probably be smarter to focus on Server MBs to force the NO BIOS MBs unless they have a deathwish. A lot of users who still use DOS through Windows 7 will want their BIOS support intact for legacy software so removing BIOS support on Intel based CPU consumer MBs would backfire. And if MB manufacturers see a loss of $$$ they will know it's due to users wanting a BIOS based MB alternative which I would pay a little more for if they created two versions. I'm really waiting for the Intel USB 4.0, PCIe 5.0, and DDR5 all to be finalized in the next chipset. With at least 256GB/512GB memory support on 4 or 8 memory slots with XP running on it would be the icing on the cake.

As for the 70TB XP limit I will share a little more now since I've heard you passed away recently and I don't wish to speak ill of the dead and I'm also grasping with my relative fighting cancer so hopefully your death resulted from natural causes from old age and went peacefully and not from some sort of suffering as your own thoughts could have led me to believe some of the anger and trolling could have stemmed from some of this.

Hopefully in some digital heaven this could be received by you from the Earth Realm to satisfy some of your curiosity. But since you did not live till 2023 the 70TB limit for XP will come from the 4 NTFS Partitions of 17.59TB that MBR can create. I documented with photos I took when I performed the test which would be getting close to 2 years ago. Times files. I might locate them at some point and upload them here for some future post. But again that would only be experimental proof of obtaining 70.36TB on XP and seeing it. But realistically only 35TB might be the true max that is usable without patching the OS which is why I would say 64TB is when I'd start using GPT for compatibility reasons with Server 2003.

I know your business is about selling software which is why I said we would be incompatible. Strangely enough if your death was approaching that you did not consider releasing whatever your research/source code/software written and contributed for the public freely upon or prior to your death. I think most would have appreciated that as a last gesture and maybe continued 9X support by the public would have continued. Perhaps one of your children or relatives you may have left a will to do this.

Sadly enough your websites are down so I have no idea whether any of your software was useful or if you had a 3rd party seller to continue releasing your software post death. I might have contributed some of my minimal funds to purchase something but alas my own loans and other financial priorities prevented it.

Amiga software I have an abundance now but time is always a factor to explore it all. I did read about your Amiga contribution but never tried any of that so who knows if somehow some of that software will find its way onto archive.org where it will be preserved and I can write a review on your work should I make use of it?

I do find it hilarious you watched the Moon Landing on three TV stations simultaneously on NBC, CBS, and ABC must have been quite the experience seeing how each TV station at the time reported it. My follow up question had you been alive would have been did you record all of it but most likely the answer you would have responded with would be no since VCR / Betamax was too new and it's doubtful you had any way to store all that video footage unless you were working at a TV station.

I'm certain a large part of your knowledge will be lost.

Godspeed... in the Binary Realm Mr. Rudolph Loew.


XPLives

Xobor Forum Software von Xobor
Datenschutz