Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Assembly x86 > Re: int 0x13 ut...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 57 Topic 4584 of 4729
Post > Topic >>

Re: int 0x13 utility

by dave <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 22, 2008 at 04:27 PM

Lets start with the formula: 1024 * 256 * 63 * 512 = 8,455,716,864.
Most BIOSes do not use 1024 and 256, but subtract one from each.  That
is somewhat an artifact of the old IBM AT where the last cylinder was
never allocated to allow the IBM Advanced Diagnostics to use it for
read/write testing of the old MFM hard drive.

The extended BIOS functions INT 13h, functions 4Xh allow packets to be
used to detail larger hard drives.  I do not believe that MS-DOS 6.22
will use that access method, but I know that MS-DOS 7.x does.  It
****pped with Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and Me in various minor version
numbers.  I believe that IBM DOS was updated to handle this access.

Most SATA controller vendors probably don't even think about MS-DOS
anymore.  You could write a small device driver that would hook INT
13h and for the second drive return a CHS value that is larger.  I
would also consider disabling any ATAPI/IDE controllers on the
motherboard so the new drive is assigned 80h for the DL value.

I personally use USB drives to boot MS-DOS whenever I need it, but it
does require a later motherboard compared to the Pentium III. 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:30:31 +0000, Alex Buell  <spamtrap@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>I recently bought a SATA controller for my old Pentium III box, and
>plugged it in. Hooked up a 120GB SATA hard disk, booted up with MSDOS
>6.22. Imagine my surprise when MSDOS FDISK refused to create a
>partition larger than 503MB even though it was specifically told it
>could use the large disk feature. Upgrading the SATA controller BIOS
>made no different, it was still a maximum of 503MB. 
>
>MSDOS boots just fine, it just can't use partitions larger than 503MB
>with that SATA disk and controller. 
>
>I have MSDOS correctly installed in a 2GB partition on a PATA disk
>connected to the motherboard, so I know the problem isn't with the
>motherboard's BIOS. 
>
>So, I wrote a tiny utility program in NASM to get the disk parameters
>via the int 0x13 / AH = 8. The parameters it re****te are correct for
>the hard disks connected to my PC's motherboard, but when it queried
>the BIOS for the parameters of its SATA hard disk, it re****ted: 16
>heads, 1022 cylinders and 63 sectors. Ah! That's why MSDOS couldn't
>create partitions larger than 503MB!
>
>I've told the manufacturers of the SATA that they need to fix their
>BIOS - hopefully they might release an updated BIOS for the SIL3114
>controller - fingers crossed. If they won't... I might have to fix it
>myself, and that is NOT an easy job!
>
>This utility also checks for the extended Int 0x13 / AH = 0x48 service
>but I haven't written the code to print out the values yet - that'll
>come as soon as I can find a PC that sup****ts that. 
>
>You may find the utility along with its source code at
>http://www.munted.org.uk/programming/int0x13.zip
>
>Enjoy!
 




 57 Posts in Topic:
int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-22 15:30:31 
Re: int 0x13 utility
dave <spamtrap@[EMAIL   2008-03-22 16:27:30 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Rugxulo <spamtrap@[EM  2008-03-23 08:45:10 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-23 08:37:22 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Hendrik van der Heijden   2008-03-24 14:50:21 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-24 21:15:00 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Rugxulo <spamtrap@[EM  2008-03-25 01:11:15 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-25 13:57:36 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"H. Peter Anvin"  2008-03-28 15:59:06 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-03-28 20:07:11 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-29 23:04:27 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-03-30 00:47:36 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-30 15:45:39 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-03-30 17:31:05 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-31 15:17:38 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-03-31 19:18:36 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-29 15:13:27 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Wolfgang Kern"  2008-03-31 03:32:05 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Red Rooster <spamtrap  2008-04-01 17:03:34 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-05 08:02:22 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-05 18:52:10 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-04-05 20:13:01 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-06 10:19:57 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-25 17:11:21 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-25 17:15:08 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-26 02:38:35 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Wolfgang Kern"  2008-03-26 13:53:39 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-26 23:39:22 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Dirk Wolfgang Glomp <  2008-03-27 07:41:53 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-29 14:36:11 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Dirk Wolfgang Glomp <  2008-03-29 21:05:34 
Re: int 0x13 utility
NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-30 13:25:19 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Wolfgang Kern"  2008-03-27 09:00:59 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-29 15:07:31 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Wolfgang Kern"  2008-03-30 13:53:33 
Re: int 0x13 utility
NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-31 13:06:51 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Tim Roberts <spamtrap  2008-04-01 03:21:14 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-25 17:22:43 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-26 07:57:12 
Re: int 0x13 utility
=?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gSmVyw7N  2008-03-26 23:36:04 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-27 10:15:49 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-31 00:23:24 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-03-31 09:22:44 
Re: int 0x13 utility
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-31 15:17:48 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-01 08:31:58 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-04-01 04:00:41 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail803NOSPAM <s  2008-04-01 04:07:45 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-02 08:57:03 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-02 20:03:49 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-03 22:11:23 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-03 23:11:29 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-04 08:33:51 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-04 12:58:10 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Spiro Trikaliotis <sp  2008-04-06 11:34:12 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-06 18:02:51 
Re: int 0x13 utility
Alex Buell <spamtrap@  2008-04-04 21:04:11 
Re: int 0x13 utility
ArarghMail804NOSPAM <s  2008-04-04 21:31:33 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Thu Jul 24 14:53:12 CDT 2008.