![]() ![]() |
Jul 9 2008, 09:47 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Friend of MSFN ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 10-February 05 Member No.: 43624
|
Hi, denocrso!
I always thought the oposite: that Windos cared more about attributes han dos, that dos can do everything... All right: I updated the batch script. Added attrib commands and also changed some "move" into "copy" to avoid the files to disapear in case we neeed them again. The attrib command should work if you restart from the boot option menu because it uses the windows installed files. Maybe not if you reboot from a floppy. Do you think tha a wrong IO.SYS could be the cause of a failed setup launch? This post has been edited by Fredledingue: Jul 9 2008, 09:48 AM |
|
|
|
Aug 1 2008, 11:17 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Group: Supreme Sponsors Posts: 433 Joined: 7-April 07 Member No.: 134642 OS: 98SE
|
Sorry to have taken so long to reply. Got far too many chestnuts in my plate to chew...
The attrib command should work if you restart from the boot option menu because it uses the windows installed files. Maybe not if you reboot from a floppy. All you need is to make sure you have ATTRIB.EXE (14.89 KiB) present in the floppy.QUOTE Do you think tha a wrong IO.SYS could be the cause of a failed setup launch? I guess you've just shown it does I've done some tests with two different 500 MB external USB drives, a SAMSUNG HD501LJ (inside a Conceptronic Grab'n'Go CSM3PL500) and a IOMEGA HDS72505, both formatted as FAT-32, with 32 KiB clusters (15.2 million clusters). The FORMAT, FDISK, SCANDISK and SCANDSKW/DISKMAINT recomended in this thread work flawlessly. So does NDD (2002) for DOS. XXCOPY (32-bit, v. 2.96.5) also did a nice job in copying the contents of one of them (full to the brink) to the other, although it took just over 8h to finish. On the other hand ndd32.exe (v. 18.0.0.62, from NSW 2005) gives a nasty BSOD quite fast on either. It isn't able to tackle 15.2 millions of clusters. This is to add one more result to the excellent info provided by 98 Guy in the links in post #37. |
|
|
|
Aug 26 2008, 07:37 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 17-April 07 Member No.: 136025
|
Using Partition Magic 8 I have had perfect success using a WD-250 My Book essential version. There is a trick to it though. First wipe out any existing partions. Next create a fat32 primary partition with a size of 120 gig (or 50%). Next create a second fat32 primary partition for the remaining 120 gigs. You do not want any extended partitions or logical drives. Once you are done Windows will read, write, defrag(oem), and scandisk(oem) each 120 gig partition without error msgs. Even Norton Utilities sees it as a clean drive. You don't need any LBA drivers or patched files. Now you can only have 2 primary partions on a single physical drive in Win98 so this doesn't work with drives larger than 250 gig without wasting a whole bunch of drive space.
Hope this helps. Grizzly Bear |
|
|
|
Nov 26 2008, 12:11 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Group: Supreme Sponsors Posts: 433 Joined: 7-April 07 Member No.: 134642 OS: 98SE
|
Before gathering all the files from theirs Windows locations you must have applied all these patches (already mentioned above): Q311561 BHDD30 48BitLBA SCANFRAG [...] Any comment? Hi, Fredledingue! Great news! Find it standalone here: BHDD31.ZIP It contains the appropriate SCANDISK for DOS, so SCANFRAG is no longer needed. It also contains ESDI_506.PDR v. 4.10.0.2230, which IS LLXX's patched ESDI_506.PDR v. 4.10.0.2225, with the version changed to 2230 so as to avoid any doubt that it IS the patched for 48-LBA version. [BTW, this renumbering is a legacy from the time when LLXX developed the patch, as there was a group that defended renumbering and another group favoring not renumbering, and it indicates that MD sides with the former group... No consensus has been arrived at, and probably never will. But it's OK, what matters really is that the patched file works beautifully. Hence, your procedure now can be done using just two files: BHDD31e and Q311561! Would you, please, update your post #26 accordingly? This post has been edited by dencorso: Dec 1 2008, 08:13 PM |
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 12:22 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 45 Joined: 14-November 07 Member No.: 162546 OS: 98SE
|
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but does the unpatched Win98 FDISK does not only have a cosmetic defect, but that incorrect figure it displays also limits your operations? For example, I tried to FDISK a 80GB drive, but it showed my drive @ 100% to only have much less than the correct 76317MB capacity (Which is displayed in the patched FDISK), and does not allow me to partition my disk beyond that.
I DO know that the cosmetic defect in format.com does not affect it's function... |
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 12:51 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Group: Supreme Sponsors Posts: 433 Joined: 7-April 07 Member No.: 134642 OS: 98SE
|
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but does the unpatched Win98 FDISK does not only have a cosmetic defect, but that incorrect figure it displays also limits your operations? For example, I tried to FDISK a 80GB drive, but it showed my drive @ 100% to only have much less than the correct 76317MB capacity (Which is displayed in the patched FDISK), and does not allow me to partition my disk beyond that. I DO know that the cosmetic defect in format.com does not affect it's function... Short answer: Yes! Long answer: read Q263044, Petr's thread on Format and Fdisk, and Q280737, in this order. My opinion: Best to use GDISK (not for free) or the Ranish Partition Manager (wonderful, free, does not like SATA). This post has been edited by dencorso: Nov 29 2008, 12:54 AM |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th January 2009 - 08:02 PM |