feipoa wrote on 2024-01-15, 12:50:

I haven't been following this thread and didn't even know about it until now. So it sounds like mkarcher's BIOS fix would allow, for example, that w95 partition of mine to be 64 GB (in the above example), with the drawback being that the w95 read speeds would be reduced?

It would be nice if we had XT-IDE ROMs for SCSI VLB/EISA controllers.

Windows 9x has its own driver that has no problems with the 8 GB limit.
So mkarcher's BIOS patch will not influence transfer speed.

And his patch works on the EISA 2740 controller series too.

If you use Windows 95 B or C, I'd recommend to have DOS partitions within 1021 cylinders, and to have the LBA partitions to start at cylinder 1022.

DOS partition
NT partition
Extended: 2 GB FAT 16 partition
Cylinder 1022: W95 partition (60 GB?)

Disruptor wrote on 2024-01-15, 12:55:

Windows 9x has its own driver that has no problems with the 8 GB limit. So mkarcher's BIOS patch will not influence transfer spe […]
Show full quote

feipoa wrote on 2024-01-15, 12:50:

I haven't been following this thread and didn't even know about it until now. So it sounds like mkarcher's BIOS fix would allow, for example, that w95 partition of mine to be 64 GB (in the above example), with the drawback being that the w95 read speeds would be reduced?

It would be nice if we had XT-IDE ROMs for SCSI VLB/EISA controllers.

Windows 9x has its own driver that has no problems with the 8 GB limit.
So mkarcher's BIOS patch will not influence transfer speed.

And his patch works on the EISA 2740 controller series too.

If you use Windows 95 B or C, I'd recommend to have DOS partitions within 1021 cylinders, and to have the LBA partitions to start at cylinder 1022.

DOS partition
NT partition
Extended: 2 GB FAT 16 partition
Cylinder 1022: W95 partition (60 GB?)

OK, but I haven't had any problems with it the way it is. I've been running it like this for about 8 years.

feipoa wrote on 2024-01-15, 12:50:

with the drawback being that the w95 read speeds would be reduced?

I don't know why w95 is not enabling fast SCSI in my case and is in yours, but it's not the fault of the BIOS upgrade. I was stuck at 5MB/sec before I changed the ROM too

I'll have to do a binary compare on the miniport drivers included with B and C to see if something changed

As best I can tell there is a bug/drawback in the windows 95 miniport driver (ARROW.MPD) that does not enable FastSCSI on the EISA based 274x controllers. I have confirmed that the driver and associated INF information (stored in SCSI.INF) are 100% binary match between win95 B and C, and feipoa has confirmed FastSCSI works with the VLB version of the card. So the problem must be specific to the EISA adapter.

Does Win98SE exhibit the same symptoms?

feipoa wrote on 2024-01-21, 23:44:

Does Win98SE exhibit the same symptoms?

Yes