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

folder and files with garbled up names. Need tool etc help

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
So today I turned on my Windows 98 PC which is running great and all. The problem I have encountered in the past was that a folder from time to time, would have a bunch of crazy Characters, inside of it. Look like a bunch of garbled up text, and symbols.

Sadly this folder was my folder where I kept my file utlities

So I am asking for a file utlity that can correct the folder and file settings, without creating forsaken CHK files, So in the future I am able to recover the folder and files.

..................................................................................

Usually I would pop my 9x drive into my XP/Vista etc computer and the file names and folder size would
be corrected. Remove the contents, of the files and then delete the original folder, and make a new folder
and move the files back. Then restart 9x. However this time, that did not happen?

Instead I used error chked and ended up with a wopper load of crappy broken CHK files. That is another problem ( insert Pee-Wees Bikes and clown scene ).

Maybe because my hard drive is over 100GIgs, ( I plan to upgrade to 2TB eventually ).

The point being, of this post is to ask, IS THEIR A UTLITy THAT WILL CORRECT THE FOLDERS
AND FILES

Edited by ROTS, 26 July 2013 - 07:37 AM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Joined 17-September 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

If the drive is larger than 128GBytes you have ran into the LBA24 limitation, anything that goes past the 128GBytes ends up in the beginning of the drive (wraparound) and that is where the file allocation table is. Recovery is typically not possible, I lost a ton of data like that before LBA48 patch existed that gives 48bit LBA support to 98 allowing up to 2TByte drives to be used.


Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#3
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
My current hard drive is an ATA 200GB So you are saying that all hard drives over 128GiB all are 48 LBA ? Or is is that once I store data past 128GB the location of the files are then lost? Where is this patch? Is thier any possiblity of getting my files back, in the current CHK state?

#4
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Joined 17-September 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

If a drive is larger than 128GBytes it is LBA48 capable, there is no other way to address data beyond 128GBytes with LBA24. Whenever data is written past the 128GBytes it'll be written in the beginning of the drive and that corrupts the file allocation table and that leads to loss of data that is very hard to recover.

 

Install the latest uSP which installs the fix. Alternatively you can also download and install stuff from Autopatcher (you can even extract just the LBA48 patch from its files).


Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#5
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,689 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

There is no such thing as 24 bit LBA :w00t:, only 22 (never or rarely implemented) and 28 bit LBA! (and later of course 48)

 

Some answers/things to read are provided on the other thread started by ROTS:

http://www.msfn.org/...-in-windows-9x/

 

jaclaz



#6
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
So all I had to install was the USP patch after I had installed WIN98. Thanks for the understanding of my fatal mistake. I also have to look at the topic of SATA to IDE. While I have a SATA ( the red guy??? ) I hook it threw IDE currently. So those drives should work right now? Right now I am trying to recover a folder, I had all my utitlites and programs installation. Now I am dealing with CHK problems. I have to recover that folder, before I install any patch.

#7
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

If a drive is larger than 128GBytes it is LBA48 capable, there is no other way to address data beyond 128GBytes with LBA24. Whenever data is written past the 128GBytes it'll be written in the beginning of the drive and that corrupts the file allocation table and that leads to loss of data that is very hard to recover.

Unlike many BIOSes and Windows XP RTM, Windows 9X does not wrap around to the beginning of the Disk.
It actually jumps around to various areas within the first 128GiB. This is why ROTS's Drive is not a total loss.
During the development of my High Capacity Disk Patch, I analyzed the code involved and verified this behavior.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#8
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

If you want to use SATA mode, then it is recommended to use rloew patch. The Service Pack only covers IDE.


Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#9
buyerninety

buyerninety

    Dude,¯\_{ö}_/¯ where's my avatar?

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Joined 18-August 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
[It may actually be a bit more complicated than that (because)...]
Elsewhere, jaclaz suggested to ROTS (but he still has not done this);
"You should post the specific make/model of the motherboard"
To which buyerninety would add;
ROTS, ALSO say what you are connecting the drive to, if any card you
are using,
[because elsewhere ROTS SAID "the VIA fasttrack that is connected to my drive"
which sounds to me as if he may be using a version of something like (e.g.)
Promise Fasttrack Controller, (PCI to SATA)?
http://www.promise.c...1&rsn1=5&rsn3=9
]
_
AND ROTS said;
"My current hard drive is an ATA 200GB So you are saying that all hard drives
over 128GiB all are 48 LBA"
so he may not understand that his (windows 98 computer) motherboard also has
to have a BIOS which is 'LBA48 capable' (cela doit également être établie)
_
However, to answer ROTS specific question,
"The point being, of this post is to ask, IS THEIR A UTLITy THAT WILL CORRECT
THE FOLDERS AND FILES",
if you have too many CHK (.chk) files, I suggest placing your drive into
your "XP/Vista etc computer", and try using a utility such as:
Chk-Back;
http://trcdatarecove...e-apps/chk-back
or
FileCHK;
http://www.softpedia...t/FileCHK.shtml
to attempt to get the CHK files back to the correct 'file type' (BUT still there
may be damage, not able to be corrected, to data INSIDE the files).
_
THEN after, still on "XP/Vista etc computer" also make a BACKUP COPY of
all your data files!

Edited by buyerninety, 26 July 2013 - 08:45 PM.


#10
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Recovery from this damage is complicated and a fair amount of data has probably been irretriveably lost.
Newer Files that are assumed to be above the 128GiB limit may be recoverable, but NOT from XP.
XP will copy them from the intended Sectors, not the ones actually used.
It will be necessary to copy them using an UNPATCHED Windows 9x System.
Previously existing files in the damaged areas are likely to have been corrupted, even if they pass SCANDISK.

I would recommend that all files be backed up using the same UNPATCHED Windows 9x System to an USB Hard Drive or multiple Hard Drives that are smaller than 128GiB or have ONE Partition of less than 128GiB on each.

If this was was the System Drive, reinstall Windows from scratch.

Then apply a Patch for the 128GiB Limit.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#11
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Joined 17-September 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Interesting to know the data gets jumbled around rather than causing a wraparound, it makes sense too or there would be complete wipeout of the FAT area.

When the BIOS supports LBA48 and you can live with some performance loss I imagine you'll be pretty safe by disabling IDE controller in device manager so all HDD access will go through BIOS int13 instead of the non LBA48 capable driver that 9x comes with. There's a patch already existing so this is not really necessary anyway.

I lost a lot of data when I got my first bigger than 128Gbyte HDD, due to file system errors and because new files overwrite data in existing ones, for example almost all video files had pieces of wrong files in them, and thus unplayable after some point.


Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#12
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,689 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Recovery from this damage is complicated and a fair amount of data has probably been irretriveably lost.

I would add that data recovery is an "art" (or at least artisan work ;)).

 

NO way *any* program will automagically recover *everything* and in any case they are ONLY tools, it's the hand that drives the tools that may make a difference between a total loss and a (almost) total success in data recovery.

 

In any case, the FIRST thing to do is to make a "dd-like" or "forensic sound" image of the disk "as is", BEFORE *any* and I really mean *any* further step/attempt/whatever, as any and all tools, particularly CHKDSK and the like,  may recover *something* but at same time prevent *forever* the recovery of *something* else, this way there is a "second chance".

 

jaclaz



#13
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

When the BIOS supports LBA48 and you can live with some performance loss I imagine you'll be pretty safe by disabling IDE controller in device manager so all HDD access will go through BIOS int13 instead of the non LBA48 capable driver that 9x comes with. There's a patch already existing so this is not really necessary anyway.

Yes, that will work. You will lose access to CD/DVD/BD Drives unless you install DOS Drivers for them.

A lot of people don't realize that Patching Windows is not enough. The BIOS must also support LBA48.
Real Mode operations done during Boot use the BIOS. This includes CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.SYS, VMM32.VXD,
the Drivers themselves and others including the very unpredicatable WININIT.EXE.

Without a DDO to correct this, a LBA28 BIOS would require that the Windows Boot Drive, Windows System Drive,
and any Partition used for Installing Software (because of WININIT) must be entirely below the 128GiB (137GB) limit.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#14
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,689 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Without a DDO to correct this, a LBA28 BIOS would require that the Windows Boot Drive, Windows System Drive,
and any Partition used for Installing Software (because of WININIT) must be entirely below the 128GiB (137GB) limit.

 

Sure :), but come-on, this is not really a "limit".

 

A "normal" Win9x System partition, even a very large one, and considering all the software you might want to install to it can be at the very most what? 10 GB? :unsure:

(at the times I had both Win95  :ph34r: and Win98 in multi-booting (with DOS 6.22 and Windows NT 4.00 and Windows 2000, JFYI) I used a 1 Gb partition for both DOS 622 and Win95 plus a 2 Gb for Win98, if I recall correctly).

 

That allows to grow it 12x   :w00t: before "hitting" the 128 Gb LBA28 barrier.

 

The LBA 48 upgrades came out for 2K with Service Pack 3 and for XP with Service Pack 1 which means August/September 2002, it's not like since 1995 users of Win9x had issues or particular problems, it's just a matter of using some common sense when creating partitions (and put not *everything* on "C:\" ;))

 

jaclaz



#15
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag


Without a DDO to correct this, a LBA28 BIOS would require that the Windows Boot Drive, Windows System Drive,
and any Partition used for Installing Software (because of WININIT) must be entirely below the 128GiB (137GB) limit.
 

Sure :), but come-on, this is not really a "limit".
There's more.
This is only the minimum to get a system to work.

The last Partition must start below 128GiB and cover all of the remaining Space. Otherwise Ghost Partitions may appear and potentially cause problems.

If the Hard Drive goes into compatability mode, for ANY reason, corruption is almost guaranteed.

The rules I listed previously also apply to Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8.

If you want to use a LBA28 BIOS without a DDO, good luck to you.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#16
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Joined 17-September 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

On my PIII I created a partition that is little less than 128GBytes and a second one that used the remaining space. The second partition I always kept alone, except when I was running Win XP, I generally held backup archives on that partition. For a while I used a DDO that Seagate provided but it caused me difficulties on my DOS stuff I was doing at that time because of the extra memory it needed.


Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#17
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I wrote a DDO called BOOTMAN that is on my website.
It takes up a lot less space than the Disk Manufacturers DDOs.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#18
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,689 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
There's more.
This is only the minimum to get a system to work.

The last Partition must start below 128GiB and cover all of the remaining Space. Otherwise Ghost Partitions may appear and potentially cause problems.

If the Hard Drive goes into compatability mode, for ANY reason, corruption is almost guaranteed.

The rules I listed previously also apply to Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8.

If you want to use a LBA28 BIOS without a DDO, good luck to you.

 

And again, no real issues if one uses some common sense and does things "properly", and is not "obsessed" with using the entire space of the hard disk.

If one has a LBA28 BIOS, that is a VERY OLD machine, manufactured around 2001 or before, most probably with a very limited amount of RAM, and most probably the ONLY OS that would run smoothly on it - apart Win9x would be NT 4.00, 2K already needs in my experience 128 Mb of Ram to "behave" (provided that one uses not a "modern" browser or a recent AV suite, otherwise the bare minimum becomes 256 Kb).

And of course anything later than 2K (possibly included 2K) will be slow as molasses.

BTW, since the "official" LBA48 is part of the ATA-6 standard ("officially" dated 2003 but adopted earlier by most manufacturers), a motherboard not supporting it would be at the most ATA-5, i.e. with UDMA/66 speed.

 

jaclaz



#19
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I have a Tyan S1590 manufactured in 1998. It supports 384MB of RAM, enough for later OSes.
I Patched the BIOS to provide LBA48 support.
I have seen Motherboards as late as 2003 with faulty LBA48 support. I'm sure they can handle XP.

And again, no real issues if one uses some common sense and does things "properly", and is not "obsessed" with using the entire space of the hard disk.

I repeat, good luck to you.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#20
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,689 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I repeat, good luck to you.

 

Thanks :), but I need it not.

 

Luck (if needed) is for the future.

 

What I was talking about was experience (past).

 

If you prefer I had in the past enough luck already to be able - with the exception of a few disk drive hardware failures (and even in those cases without actual data loss as I had valid backups) never lost (apparently) not even a single byte of data in any accident connected with LBA28, LBA48 or their good or bad/defective implementation in any BIOS of any machine I happened to own (or use or repair/set up).

 

Everything can happen (always) but after some 20 years playing with PC's, when something never happens I feel authorized to say that it is a bit unlikely (as said if some common sense is used).

 

In my simplicity I believe that anyone running today obsolete software (no offence whatever intended to the good Win9x/Me lovers) on obsolete hardware (and again no offence whatever intended for those peeps that - BTW like myself - have fun in using/re-using such things) should be aware (or made so) of the possible issues/limits and of the possible solutions/workarounds but - with all due respect - your posts about these issues sound a tidbit "catastrophical" :ph34r: to me.

 

jaclaz



#21
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag


I repeat, good luck to you.
 

Thanks :), but I need it not.
 
Luck (if needed) is for the future.
 
What I was talking about was experience (past).
 
If you prefer I had in the past enough luck already to be able - with the exception of a few disk drive hardware failures (and even in those cases without actual data loss as I had valid backups) never lost (apparently) not even a single byte of data in any accident connected with LBA28, LBA48 or their good or bad/defective implementation in any BIOS of any machine I happened to own (or use or repair/set up).
 
Everything can happen (always) but after some 20 years playing with PC's, when something never happens I feel authorized to say that it is a bit unlikely (as said if some common sense is used).
 
In my simplicity I believe that anyone running today obsolete software (no offence whatever intended to the good Win9x/Me lovers) on obsolete hardware (and again no offence whatever intended for those peeps that - BTW like myself - have fun in using/re-using such things) should be aware (or made so) of the possible issues/limits and of the possible solutions/workarounds but - with all due respect - your posts about these issues sound a tidbit "catastrophical" :ph34r: to me.
 
jaclaz
It sounds like you are fairly quick in moving to newer hardware and software for your critical systems. This would significantly reduce your window of vulnerability. By the time there were a significant number of LBA48 Hard Drives
big enough to justify using them, LBA48 BIOSes were available.

Even with the vulnerability, the risk is relatively low, but the corruption, especially when caused by the BIOS, IS
catastrophic. Backups won't work if you haven't had a chance to make them, or if you have unknowingly corrupted files and backed them up to all of your backup media.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#22
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
If this ever happens again the first thing I need to do, is run a recovery program, instead of
Error checker.
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
So here is my take, I reinstalled windows and used the USP3, and installed. I have not breached the 128Gig limit. Otherwise I do not care anymore becuause this is pure looney tunes. I will get back to this topic to see if the patch worked or not. I also see their is a patch floating
around that you have to pay for as well, which is also reasonable. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Why do i feel this is pure looney insanity? Because Microsoft on purposely limited windows 9x and Me. Even limited the usage of scandisk and fdisk. Imagine how many user tools are out their for FAT32 and is limited because nobody ever thought about usage
of 200GB or 2TB drives? .............................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
To top things off I am from the 2d, VHS generation. Thinking back to all my struggles with downloading, Windows was never meant to be used for anything of that sort. 4000MB is alot of space for a file size, and I remember back when I thought 12MB was a big file. I don't want to think about the past anymore, especially after the last ten years. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
So my final decision is just to leave it alone, for now, and get back to it at a later date. Win98 is auwsome but l have to deal with programming etc and stuff.

Edited by ROTS, 07 August 2013 - 09:38 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users