Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Problem Installing Card Reader [Solved]

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#151
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
@herbalist
Thanks very much for that feedback.
I think I've now confirmed that there is actually nothing wrong with NUSB.
It's something peculiar to my system.

@dencorso
Well, I tried installing NUSB on my "clean" Windows 98, and it worked perfectly!
I installed both my card readers, the original and the new one, and both the HP and Integral memory sticks.
All worked with no problem at all.
So, at least I now know that the problem isn't with NUSB.

I did save the USBSTOR, USB, and complete ENUM registry keys from the working system.
I'm wondering whether to try importing at least the first two into the faulty system to see what happens......
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#152
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Dave, whatever is wrong must be referenced in an .inf, AFAIK. So I think the first step must be to compare C:\WIN-98\INF in both installations, find out which .infs exist in your main installation that don't exist in the clean one, and, among these, which refer to USB devices. These latter must then be decativated by renaming, and the detection of the card reader repeated, in order for us to pinpoint the offending .inf(s).

If this procedure doesn't lead us anywhere, then I'd try importing the keys you've saved. There is something interfering with the correct detection of multi-dispositive devices in your main system that must be corrected, to avoid problems with further devices in the future.

#153
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Dave, whatever is wrong must be referenced in an .inf, AFAIK. So I think the first step must be to compare C:\WIN-98\INF in both installations, find out which .infs exist in your main installation that don't exist in the clean one, and, among these, which refer to USB devices. These latter must then be decativated by renaming, and the detection of the card reader repeated, in order for us to pinpoint the offending .inf(s).

If this procedure doesn't lead us anywhere, then I'd try importing the keys you've saved. There is something interfering with the correct detection of multi-dispositive devices in your main system that must be corrected, to avoid problems with further devices in the future.

Well I compared the INF folders from the working Win98 and the non-working Win98.
As there was over 1000 files in each, I restricted the search to *.inf files (ignoring the *.pnf files) which contained the text "storage".

I identified a few possible culprits.
There were quite a few inf files from my HP photo printer, which contains card readers.
There was jmusbsto.inf, which came from a USB-SATA interface.
There was UFD.inf, a Microsoft mass storage driver.
Also USBZIP.inf, which goes with my USB Iomega ZIP drive.

I disabled all of those by renaming them, but no difference, still a system lock-up on the installation of the second drive.

I also tried using the autoexec.bat and config.sys files from the working system in the non-working system, and that made no difference either.
:(

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#154
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I identified a few possible culprits.
There were quite a few inf files from my HP photo printer, which contains card readers.
There was jmusbsto.inf, which came from a USB-SATA interface.
There was UFD.inf, a Microsoft mass storage driver.
Also USBZIP.inf, which goes with my USB Iomega ZIP drive.

For these infs only, if there is a pnf of the same name, disable them too. Then look inside them for references to .vxds, .pdrs or .mpds, which, if found, will be located in system/iosubsys, or system and disable them too. Then return the system.ini you saved after recognizing the HP flash drive but before the first detection of the card reader. Then reboot into win98 and try once again detecting the card-reader.

Also: get the fantastic APSoft VxDView, and install it into both your main and your clean win98 installations and compare the list of vxds and pdrs that are loaded and running in each of the installations, in real time. And compare the contents of system/iosubsys in both installations, too. There *is* a difference: we must insist until we find it.

#155
herbalist

herbalist

    paranoid independent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Joined 15-December 06
  • OS:98
  • Country: Country Flag
If you still have the disk for the photo printer, there is a quick way to find out if it's the problem. Install it on your new drive (after making a backup) and see if that causes the problem. I've also had problems with HP printer software causing conflicts.

Unless you've got something installed on your old system that can't be replaced, I'd consider building the new hard drive into a finished unit, making full backups as you go. I'd start with anything that installs drivers, like the printer.

#156
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
For whatever may be of use (I think None :(), on the referenced page on bbs.mydigit.com there is only the .pdf of the schematics, which can be found here also:
http://www.go-gddq.c...00815016151.pdf

Specs here:
http://www.ite.com.t...p...=4&ID=14,52

A driver can be found:
http://www.mtwchina.com/download.asp
http://www.mtwchina....USBest_0110.rar

Here you can find:
http://www.hjreggel....peed/index.html
http://www.hjreggel....fo-readers.html
http://www.hjreggel....by-readers.html
that a card reader with:
Vid=1307
Pid=0330
is manufactured by Digisol, models 00047200 and 00047201, for which drivers are available:
http://www.digisol-o...20x/4720x_win98
dated 19/07/2009 they do seem newer than anything else, but really cannot say if it would make a difference.

..and yes, HP printer software DOES suck! :realmad:

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 21 November 2009 - 01:48 PM.


#157
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
WOO HOO!

FIXED IT!!

:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

After a lot of experimentation and process of elimination, the problem turned out to be caused by one single file.

This was lurking in the System\IOSubsys folder, and is called DMSHBA.VXD.
Disabling it by renaming it has made everything come good!
All my card readers and memory sticks are now installed and working perfectly.

Also my USB ZIP drive is working fine too.
The only major thing I now have to try plugging into the USB port is my HP photo printer, which has card readers built in. I will try that soon, but only after some major backing up of what I've got now, in case any more nasties appear!
I will report.

The DMSHBA.VXD file describes itself as "FirePort System Software", and is part of a utility from Diamond called "SCSI Diagnostics" which I've had since I used to have a Diamond SCSI card (I now use a much better Adaptec card.)
It scans the SCSI bus and shows information about the connected devices.
It still works without that VXD present, but throws up an error message when it runs saying "Unable to access the DMSHBA.Vxd. The Fireport SCSI ID Number may be incorrectly reported. This is not a critical error."
Otherwise it still seems to work fine.
There are no references to the file in the registry, however its presence was still stopping NUSB working properly.
Why NUSB should be affected by a SCSI utility I'm not sure!

Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed to this thread.
I've learned so much!
Special thanks to Multibooter, jaclaz, CharlotteTheHarlot, and dencorso.
You guys are the best!
:thumbup
Anyway, now that "little" eight forum page problem is resolved, I suppose I should give the background to all this, and why it happened in the first place, and why I'll be starting another (hopefully not as long!) thread over on the Windows 2000 forum!

I recently bought a new Nikon digital camera, a D-5000.
This replaced an older D-70 that I had.
When I came to connect the D-5000 to my computer, I was annoyed to find that, unlike the D-70, it has no mass storage USB mode, only PTP mode.
Now I wasn't really expecting it to work in Windows 98, but it turns out that it won't work with Windows 2000 either, as only XP and later OSes have PTP support.
When I rang Nikon about this, they said that Windows 2000 was not supported, and I would have to use a card reader to access my pictures. Apparently they dropped mass storage mode from their later cameras, as all current OSes support PTP (the usual story.....).

I then found my existing card reader didn't read the SDHC cards that I was using in the new camera, and that's why I had to buy a new card reader.
I then thought it would be nice to be able to use it in Windows 98 as well as 2000, and the rest is history!

So..........
Having sorted out the problem of the new card reader not having Windows 98 drivers, I will now be going over to the Windows 2000 forum to see if anyone's managed to get PTP to work in Windows 2000!

See you there guys...........
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#158
herbalist

herbalist

    paranoid independent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Joined 15-December 06
  • OS:98
  • Country: Country Flag
That's great news. Got that full system backup made yet?

#159
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

That's great news. Got that full system backup made yet?

Not quite yet, but rest assured it will be done before I try anything else!
:yes:

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#160
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

WOO HOO!

FIXED IT!!

:thumbup Congratulations, Dave! :yes:

This issue was a hard one to go down, especially so because it was threefold: the sound issue, the Integral pendrive issue (which, in fact, we caused, while troubleshooting the other two, then solved) and the main NUSB 3.3 issue... and thus it became a real brain surgery. The fact that it has been solved shows that, with persistence, careful experimentation and never-ending patience (and a clean, plain-vanilla alternate installation to experiment on, too), a full reinstall from scratch can always be avoided. But it also shows how labor-intensive it is to recover without an up-to-date library of backups. And, to create that, an imaging program is a must. Create a full system image once a month, and also always before major installs, and you can always fall back to your previous system state in 30 min or less. So your 1st priority, now, must be to set-up an imaging routine. All the rest can wait. Below are two quotes relevant to this matter. Whatever program you select to use, be sure that it's capable of creating images of individual partitions, so that you'll be able to backup individually each of your OSes, on a as-needed basis.

There are numerous free options, that IcemanND has collected in his list of Disk Imaging Software. Now, in what regards commercial software, there is Norton Ghost 2003, which may still be be found new at eBay for about $50 quite cheap. It does rock!

Yes, as dencorso says, get a copy of Norton Ghost 2003 from eBay, mine cost £3, hardly breaking the bank at that price.



#161
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

The fact that it has been solved shows that, with persistence, careful experimentation and never-ending patience (and a clean, plain-vanilla alternate installation to experiment on, too), a full reinstall from scratch can always be avoided.


JFYI ;):
http://www.boot-land...?...=6054&st=44

Happy problem is solved. :)

jaclaz

#162
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks guys!
:)
I do have a disk mirror program which I already use regularly to back up my archive drive, which contains all my documents, videos etc. to a removable IDE hard drive.
Would it be adequate to also back up my \WIN-98 and \Program Files folders with that, to the same drive?
I could even back up my \WIN-NT Windows 2000 folder too when in Windows 98, as I won't have any locked files problem if Windows 2000 isn't running.
(I love running a dual boot system!)
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#163
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I do have a disk mirror program ....


You should get off the "backup" path and start on the "image" path.

Obviously I am personally against the use of GHOST, but the world is so nice because there is (among the others) the freedom to choose non-free apps. :).

jaclaz

#164
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

You should get off the "backup" path and start on the "image" path.
Obviously I am personally against the use of GHOST, but the world is so nice because there is (among the others) the freedom to choose non-free apps. :).
jaclaz

Thanks jaclaz.
:)
I must say that I've always been a bit confused about the various backing up options.
What actually is the difference between "imaging", "mirroring", and just "backing up"?

I always assumed that once you had all the files on a drive copied to another drive, that was sufficient as a backup, especially if you run a dual boot system where hopefully at least one of the operating systems will always be working, allowing you to copy files to the other one if necessary.

Of course if I had a complete hard drive failure, both operating system would become useless, as they are both on different partitions on the same physical drive.

All I could do in that case would be to fit a new drive, boot into DOS using a Windows 98 startup disk, partition and format the new drive, and copy the files from the backup drive to the new partitions.
Doing that in DOS would destroy all the long file names though, so is hardly ideal.

I appreciate this is off the topic of the original thread, but I would value your recommendations on this.

I have now used the mirror program to back up my Windows folders and respective Program Files folders to a removable drive, and also I've added the Windows 2000 User Files (Documents and Settings) as well.

Thanks, Dave.
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#165
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
It's not that difficult. ;)

An image will make you be able to return wherever you were, whatever happens to the "original" disk drive. :thumbup
A backup does usually NOT. :(

Depending on the tools you have at hand, and your personal experience, and the way the backup was made, and what was backed up, and a number of other factors, you may be able to get back as well with a backup, but it is unlikely, no matter how good you are at it, that you will have actually exactly what you started with.

There is not only DOS, there are various PE based solutions and even DOS can be used WITHOUT losing long filenames, though.

You can even have a copy of Win2K (not "PE", the real thing ;)) on a USB device and use it as a "recovery environment", but any of these require more time and knowledge and being more complex inevitably are more likely to prove once again the universal validity of Murphy's Laws.

There are also "mixed" approaches, in which the "imaging" part is limited to vital data, like MBR, Disk signature, Partitin table, bootsectors and labels/serials and the files are "treated" as a "backup" would do.

Only you know which "risks" you want to take, which amount of time you can spend on the issue (both to choose the "right" tool for you and in restoring a dead system should havoc happen :ph34r:) and of course your personal "likes" and "likes not", it is difficult to give an advice, there are more solutions then stars in the sky, each with it's own limits or difficulties or however peculiarities.

jaclaz

#166
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

jaclaz is right, Dave, there are as many solutions for this as the proverbial stars on the night sky, so any attempt at being exhaustive is futile. So I'll tell you something about those I use (but even of those there are many variants and I'll be focusing in the ones I use, too).

An Image may be thought of as an exact, sector by sector copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, regardless of any higher-level organization, and of these we have:

  • A Forensic-quality Disk Image contains all sectors in the disk, and permits the re-creation of a truly identical image, including all the otherwise irrelevant unaccessible sectors created by partitioning (such as the last 62 sectors in the MBR track of a common HDD and all sectors in any leftover unpartitioned space at the end of the disk). Such an image requires , to be deployed on a diferent HDD than the one it was made from, that the second HDD be of the same brand, model and size, but will result in a truly exact copy, that is a true clone.
  • A Common Disk Image may be thought as similar to the Forensic-quality one, but omitting those otherwise irrelevant secftors, and, maybe the free sectors also. When deployed it'll result in something near a true clone, but not identical. Depending on what was considered irrelevant at image acquisition time, it may result in an almost perfect copy of a disk, yet be imperfect enough to render it unbootable, or even completely unusable, in the worst case.
  • An Exact Partition Image (my favorite) would be like the Forensic-quality Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.
  • A Common Partition Image would be like the Common Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.
To create such images one may use a "dumb" imaging program or an adaptive imaging program. The "dumb" one will acquire the image as-is and deploy it "as-is". The adaptive one can do much more interesting tricks, such as deploying a partition image to a bigger partitition (thus serving to grow a partition in a safe way), or even deploying a partition image to a smaller partition, provided it's big enough to contain all but the free sectors in the image (thus serving, in a limited way, to shrink a partition safely). The same kind of tricks can also be played with full disk images.
The best imaging programs, besides being adaptive, are also capable of compressing the images they create, so that one has no need of compressing them with another program for storage purposes, and also provide one with an image browser, so that one can extract individual files from the (compressed or not) image without having to deploy it somewhere just to do so.
That much having been said, the bottom-line is: in principle, imaging is based in sectors, and should be independent of the underlying OS.

A Backup may be thought of as an exact, file by file copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, so it involves interpretation of the existing structure by the OS, and of these we have:

  • A Full Backup
  • An Incremental Backup
Taking the partition backup as the example, the full backup would be a file-by-file copy of all the contents of a partition to another empty partition or a directory (a somewhat worse alternative), while the incremental backup would be to add or update just the new and/or modified files to an already existing backup. So one always starts doing a full backup, but then can switch to incremental backups, which are much faster (at least when based solely on date-stamps and file sizes). The de-facto standard program to do backups is the freeware xxcopy, IMHO, and if we're thinking Win 9x/ME, one should use XXCOPY FREEWARE v.2.96.5 - http://www.xxcopy.co...ad/xxfw2965.zip, which is the last version that works in 9x/ME.

I tend to favor using images for the system partitions (on a weekly to fortnightly basis) and incremental backing-up for data partitions, on a daily basis, because data partitions change much faster than system partitions. YMMV, though.

Edited by dencorso, 15 January 2010 - 04:24 PM.
3nd, and hopefully last, installment added.


#167
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Such an image, to be deployed in a diferent HDD than the one it was made from requires that the second HDD be of the same brand, model and size, but will result in a truly exact copy, that is a true clone.

NO. :realmad:

NO need WHATEVER of being same brand, model or size.

The only thing that may (and only for some particular needs, please read as "booting if CHS is used by the BIOS") be needed is the hard disk having the same H/S geometry and of course it MUST be same or bigger size.

Different geometry can in any case be fixed, but since 99.99% (please read all) modern hard disks have an H/S geometry of 255/63, this will be a very rare problem.

jaclaz

#168
herbalist

herbalist

    paranoid independent

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Joined 15-December 06
  • OS:98
  • Country: Country Flag
You've got a lot of options available for imaging or backing up your system. You can copy entire drives or partitions. You can also archive all of the files on a drive and handle the MBR, formatting and partitioning separately. Originally I used Acronis True Image, version 8, but didn't want the extra running processes. When I found that the bootable Acronis CD did everything I needed, I stopped installing the software. After setting up a multi-boot system, I found that the simplest way to back an OS was to boot to another OS and use it to copy or restore the first one. For the last year or so, I've been using 7zip to archive the contents of entire drives, not including the swap file. On single OS PCs, a bootable DOS CD with DPMI, LFN, and USB drivers running a command line version of 7Zip will also do the job. Each has their advantages. For my purposes, archiving the files and using separate utilities to partition and format drives is more suited to my needs. It's pretty much your choice whether you want to back up or image the entire OS as a unit or work with the file system, MBR, and partitioning/formatting separately.

#169
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Such an image, to be deployed in a diferent HDD than the one it was made from requires that the second HDD be of the same brand, model and size, but will result in a truly exact copy, that is a true clone.

NO. :realmad:

NO need WHATEVER of being same brand, model or size.

True enough. You're right, yet I'm right too.
This is just a problem of semantics... :yes:
The only way you can have a true clone is by using the same brand, model and size.
But you can, of course, do as you say and arrive at a near-enough clone, which will be indistinguishable from the true clone, for almost all (if not all) purposes, at least in real-word scenarios... and no, I just cannot come right away, from the top-of-my-head, with an example of a case in which they would not be indistinguishable, but I firmly believe there may be some such examples, if one really cares to search for them.

#170
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

But you can, of course, do as you say and arrive at a near-enough clone, which will be indistinguishable from the true clone, for almost all purposes... and no, I just cannot come right away, from the top-of-my-head, with an example of a case in which they would not be indistinguishable, but I firmly believe there may be some such examples, if one really cares to search for them.


I am not going to start a quarrel with you on this trifling point :), but rest assured that for ANY OS-level related thing such a "clone" will be indistinguishable.

Of course any strictly hardware related info, such as S.M.A.R.T. (BTW IMHO one of the smartest ;) acronym for one of the stoopidest :w00t: things ever invented by humans), HD firmware or REALLY low-level access to sectors (bypassing the internal HD re-mapping) this does NOT apply.

JFYI the above differences will exist - at least partially - ALSO if the "new" HD is EXACTLY the same brand, model and size.

jaclaz

#171
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Wow, thanks guys!
:)
A lot of differing takes here on the same things.
I do actually have a drive imaging program, which is part of Norton Utilities.
I have it run every time Windows 98 starts (it doesn't work in Windows 2000) and it writes a data file each time, with a backup of the last one, to my C:, D:, and E: drives.
I assume that with this data, and a separate backup of all the system files on the drives, I should be able to restore my drive configuration and operating systems, using Norton's DOS recovery utilities. It's not something I've ever tried, and I hope I never have to!
I've only had a hard drive fail once, and I managed to coax it into life for long enough to get all the files off it onto another drive, and I did manage to restore the system without using the drive imaging files.

Anyway, this is way off topic from the original subject of this thread, and I don't think we should keep it going on this track for too much longer, especially as the original problem has now been declared to have been solved!
:)

Edited by Dave-H, 25 November 2009 - 08:47 AM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#172
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,649 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I do actually have a drive imaging program, which is part of Norton Utilities.

NO, you don't. :realmad:
That is NOT a drive image program.

I have it run every time Windows 98 starts (it doesn't work in Windows 2000) and it writes a data file each time, with a backup of the last one, to my C:, D:, and E: drives.

...and it saves some data, very similar, essentially to what a system save does, plus, probably :unsure:, some of the info we talked about.

Let's try to speak the same language (technical jargon in this case):
  • a drive image is EXACTLY as big as the WHOLE size of the source (being it the WHOLE hard disk or a single partition/volume).
  • most programs would allow you to compress this image, with results that depend greatly on the TYPE of contents of the drive and on the AMOUNT on data on it. (an image of hard disk filled up to the brim of .rar, .zip and .7z files won't be greatly compressed ;))
  • there is ONLY one place where you CANNOT save a drive image, which is the SOURCE (i.e. NOT on the partition that the image represents or NOT on the same hard disk that the image represents as a whole)


jaclaz

#173
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Most true. Norton Image is not an imaging program (it just saves a snapshot of vital system areas).
The imaging program from Norton/Symantec is Ghost (and for most purposes the best version of it is 2003).

Another main characteristic of a true image is that it's a time-frozen bit-by-bit replica of the original, and thus it *cannot* be acquired from within a live runing OS. To examplify using your system as a reference, Dave, you might acquire and image of the 98SE partition while running 2k, or an image of the 2k partition, while running 98SE. But to acquire a full disk image, you'd have to boot from a DOS diskette, because, in this case, both installed OSes would have to be inactive for the image acquisition to succeed. Or, in other words, while an OS is running it constantly makes changes to its own partition, and these changes would result in a flawed image being created, which would not correspond to the actual partition state at any time at all, because of being acquired while changes were actually being done to it. And since a realistic image acquisition procedure might take from 10 min to 1 h or more, a lot would have changed from the start till the end of the image acquisition.

#174
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 844 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Well, I just want to report that I've now connected my other main USB devices to Windows 98, including my HP printer with its card readers, and everything seemed to work OK.
:thumbup
I think we can consider this closed now (finally!) and I'd just like to say again how great everyone has been in sorting out this problem.
See you over on the Windows 2000 forum very soon!
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#175
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

At long last, I've just finished updating post # 166.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users