f



Loses data when PC shuts down

I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
the new drive acting like ROM memory?

Christine

0
Christine2006
2/27/2006 5:24:02 AM
comp.periphs 394 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

74 Replies
478 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 53

"Christine2006" <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>
> Christine
>
I don`t know theKanguru drive, But.
If it a USB external drive, you have an icon in your systray which
let`s you stop the drive Before you switch off.
If you hover on it it will say `Safely Remove hardware`.
Left click on the icon, Then click in the panel that appears.

-- 
bw..OJ 


0
old
2/27/2006 2:45:45 PM
In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, 
Christine2006 says...
> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> 
Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance 
to be written to the drive.


-- 
Conor,

Same shit, different day.
0
Conor
2/27/2006 3:35:40 PM
Christine2006 wrote:
> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>
> Christine

All of the other replies to your question make good sense to me. USB
devices have to be treated with respect.

However, I have experienced data disappearing on my large internal hard
drives for no apparent reason. Some of the data remains visible while
other data looks like it is gone forever. One time every file name that
started with the letter E or higher was invisible.

I invested $50 in a downloadable data recovery program called
Restorer2000 and was able to recover almost everything that was
missing. Deleted files, ghost files, and normal (not lost files) all
appeared on the Restorer2000 scan list.

Why did my data disappear? I don't really know. Possibly the use of
very long file names, an improper closing of Windows, a power loss
during a save, etc. etc. I suspect my file allocation table on the HDD
got corrupted for some reason. Restorer2000 really works!  I think it
works as well as a professional data recovery service on drives that
are not physically damaged and unable to spin.

To use Restorer2000 you need a separate hard drive, either internal or
external, to recover the data onto -- not the original problem drive.
You install the program on the separate drive as well, not the sick
drive. (Important)

It is available at: http://www.bitmart.net/r2k.shtml

This may not help with your problem, but it may help someone else who
reads this message.

Best of Luck,

JB

0
jeff__b
2/27/2006 4:47:37 PM
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Christine2006 says...
>> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>>
> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
> to be written to the drive.
>
>
I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.

-- 
bw..OJ 


0
old
2/27/2006 6:07:47 PM
old jon wrote:
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
>> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Christine2006 says...
>>> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
>>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
>>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
>>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>>>
>> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
>> to be written to the drive.
>>
>>
> I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
> to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.
> 


You can disable the write delay feature. Well, your drive will be slower 
but at least you don't need to worry about turning off the drive too 
soon and forget to flush the data.
0
l
2/27/2006 7:34:07 PM
old jon wrote:
> "Christine2006" <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> > files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> > the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> > the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >
> > Christine
> >
> I don`t know theKanguru drive, But.
> If it a USB external drive, you have an icon in your systray which
> let`s you stop the drive Before you switch off.
> If you hover on it it will say `Safely Remove hardware`.
> Left click on the icon, Then click in the panel that appears.
>

Never thought of that OJ. The drive is a combination USB/Firewire
external drive. I have it connected firewire. Also, I have another
older firewire external drive on the same firewire card. I want to try
connecting it USB later, after I backup some stuff, then I will try
what you're suggesting.

Christine
 
> -- 
> bw..OJ

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:10:59 AM
Conor wrote:
> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Christine2006 says...
> > I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> > files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> > the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> > the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >
> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
> to be written to the drive.
>

Please tell me Conor what I'm doing wrong. There is a great deal I
don't know. I'm 18 and a senior in high school, so there is plenty I
don't know. How am I removing the drive? When I shut off the computer,
I don't remove anything. Also, I have another external drive on the
same firewire card and this has never happened to that drive. You are
assuming there is something I need to do and you're not telling me what
that is. Please tell me Conor.

Christine

> 
> -- 
> Conor,
> 
> Same shit, different day.

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:11:57 AM
old jon wrote:
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
> > In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Christine2006 says...
> >> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> >> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> >> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> >> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >>
> > Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
> > to be written to the drive.
> >
> >
> I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
> to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.
>

Ok OJ. Obviously, I did not do something I should have done. Please
tell me what it was I was supposed to do. I really don't know what you
and Conor are talking about.

Christine

> -- 
> bw..OJ

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:12:52 AM
l e o wrote:
> old jon wrote:
> > "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
> >> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Christine2006 says...
> >>> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> >>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> >>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> >>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >>>
> >> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
> >> to be written to the drive.
> >>
> >>
> > I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
> > to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.
> >
>
>
> You can disable the write delay feature. Well, your drive will be slower
> but at least you don't need to worry about turning off the drive too
> soon and forget to flush the data.

Leo, how do I disable the write delay feature? Please tell me.

Christine

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:13:54 AM
jeff__b@netzero.com wrote:
> Christine2006 wrote:
> > I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> > files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> > the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> > the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >
> > Christine
>
> All of the other replies to your question make good sense to me. USB
> devices have to be treated with respect.
>
> However, I have experienced data disappearing on my large internal hard
> drives for no apparent reason. Some of the data remains visible while
> other data looks like it is gone forever. One time every file name that
> started with the letter E or higher was invisible.
>
> I invested $50 in a downloadable data recovery program called
> Restorer2000 and was able to recover almost everything that was
> missing. Deleted files, ghost files, and normal (not lost files) all
> appeared on the Restorer2000 scan list.
>
> Why did my data disappear? I don't really know. Possibly the use of
> very long file names, an improper closing of Windows, a power loss
> during a save, etc. etc. I suspect my file allocation table on the HDD
> got corrupted for some reason. Restorer2000 really works!  I think it
> works as well as a professional data recovery service on drives that
> are not physically damaged and unable to spin.
>
> To use Restorer2000 you need a separate hard drive, either internal or
> external, to recover the data onto -- not the original problem drive.
> You install the program on the separate drive as well, not the sick
> drive. (Important)
>
> It is available at: http://www.bitmart.net/r2k.shtml
>
> This may not help with your problem, but it may help someone else who
> reads this message.
>

Thanks JB. I will look at that software. It sounds good. Can that
software restore files that were deleted that were in the recycle bin?

Why do you think your file allocation table got corrupted?

Christine

> Best of Luck,
> 
> JB

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:14:41 AM
I tried something new and something happened. This external drive came
with a CD titled "Installation CD" I never formatted the hard drive.
Apparently, it wasn't necessary. I tried the Installation CD again.
This time it asked me if I wanted to remove the USB driver. I clicked
yes. Then my desktop said my active desktop was shut off. I unclicked
the thing on that to shut it off. Then, I rebooted. Now, the data I put
on the hard drive stays there. I've tried shutting down and rebooting a
few times and the data stays there. This is puzzling. Like I said, I'm
using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.

Does anyone have an idea what happened? How confident can I be that the
data I put on this drive will stay there? Could it happen that one time
I will start the PC and all the data on this drive will be gone? Why
would the USB driver cause the data to disappear when the PC was shut
off? Why does the data stay there now that the USB driver is gone?

Christine

0
Christine2006
2/28/2006 5:18:14 AM
here is something relevant imho, but mostly windows xp specific...
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/hotadd/XPrem-devs.mspx

Kiran Ghag
http://www.kiranghag.com

0
Globe
2/28/2006 4:11:27 PM
Christine2006 wrote:
> l e o wrote:
>> old jon wrote:
>>> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
>>>> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Christine2006 says...
>>>>> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
>>>>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
>>>>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
>>>>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>>>>>
>>>> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
>>>> to be written to the drive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
>>> to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.
>>>
>>
>> You can disable the write delay feature. Well, your drive will be slower
>> but at least you don't need to worry about turning off the drive too
>> soon and forget to flush the data.
> 
> Leo, how do I disable the write delay feature? Please tell me.
> 
> Christine
> 

Right Click any drives in My Computer.
Then choose Properties : Hardware | Select your external drive & choose 
Properties : Policies : Optimize for quick removal
0
l
2/28/2006 4:32:05 PM
"old jon" <jonbrookes@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:tgEMf.52586$494.43679@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> "Christine2006" <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?

But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer > 
Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so 
omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.  If 
she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however, 
the data would be lost. 

0
Bob
2/28/2006 4:48:51 PM
Bob Davis wrote:
> "old jon" <jonbrookes@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:tgEMf.52586$494.43679@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > "Christine2006" <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> >> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> >> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> >> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
>
>
> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer >
> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so
> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.

That makes sense Bob.

> If
> she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however,
> the data would be lost.

Here, you lost me. I have another external drive. Suppose I put a file
on it. And suppose I don't have an orderly shutdown. Suppose I don't go
through the usual steps. Suppose I shut off the power or something like
 that. After I restart the computer, the file is not lost. It is right
there on the drive. The older drive does not act like ROM memory at
all. Anything I put there stays there.

Even though it seemed the problem was fixed yesterday, I saw today that
it wasn't. Again, when I started the PC, the data on the new external
drive was gone. Puzzling!!!

Should I format the new drive? Would that solve the problem? Or could
it be a bad drive?

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/1/2006 6:34:37 AM
l e o wrote:
> Christine2006 wrote:
> > l e o wrote:
> >> old jon wrote:
> >>> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:MPG.1e6d2ca6f18cb6e098c0fe@news.individual.net...
> >>>> In article <1141017842.125733.146990@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Christine2006 says...
> >>>>> I just bought a new Kanguru external hard drive. I tried puting some
> >>>>> files on it. Then, I shut the PC down and when I booted up again, all
> >>>>> the data was lost. Anyone have any idea of what I'm doing wrong? Why is
> >>>>> the new drive acting like ROM memory?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Because you are removing the drive before the cached data has a chance
> >>>> to be written to the drive.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I`m with you on that Conor. I just didn`t bother to explain that
> >>> to her. I often wonder why people can`t learn to do things properly.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You can disable the write delay feature. Well, your drive will be slower
> >> but at least you don't need to worry about turning off the drive too
> >> soon and forget to flush the data.
> >
> > Leo, how do I disable the write delay feature? Please tell me.
> >
> > Christine
> >
>
> Right Click any drives in My Computer.
> Then choose Properties : Hardware | Select your external drive & choose
> Properties : Policies : Optimize for quick removal

Thanks Leo. I'm sure that works on XP. I am using Win 98, 2nd edition.
Is there a right delay feature on Win 98-SE? I have never seen one.
That doesn't mean it isn't there though.

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/1/2006 6:35:19 AM
Globe Treader wrote:
> here is something relevant imho, but mostly windows xp specific...
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/hotadd/XPrem-devs.mspx
>

Thanks for posting that url Kiran! It reveals a lot!

Is it possible that this new drive wants the user to use XP instead of
an older OS like 2000 or 98? I'm using Win 98-SE.

Christine

> Kiran Ghag
> http://www.kiranghag.com

0
Christine2006
3/1/2006 6:36:17 AM
On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
<christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer >
>> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so
>> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.
>
>That makes sense Bob.
>


Try applying this patch,
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp


>> If
>> she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however,
>> the data would be lost.
>
>Here, you lost me. I have another external drive. Suppose I put a file
>on it. And suppose I don't have an orderly shutdown. Suppose I don't go
>through the usual steps. Suppose I shut off the power or something like
> that. After I restart the computer, the file is not lost. It is right
>there on the drive. The older drive does not act like ROM memory at
>all. Anything I put there stays there.
>
>Even though it seemed the problem was fixed yesterday, I saw today that
>it wasn't. Again, when I started the PC, the data on the new external
>drive was gone. Puzzling!!!
>
>Should I format the new drive? Would that solve the problem? Or could
>it be a bad drive?

Apparently some Win98 drivers & devices do caching a bit
differently than others.  For example, on same Win98 system
with two different USB thumbdrives, one of them shows the
copying indicator box the entire time a file is copied, and
the moment the box disappears, the LED on the thumbdrive
also stops flashing- the copy process is complete.

On same system, different USB thumbdrive, the copy indicator
box disappears some after the files are cached into memory,
but it is not done copying the file, the box disappeared far
sooner and the drive LED continues to flash for multiple
times as long as the copy box was onscreen.

You might check the |Control Panel|System Properties|
Performance|File System|Removable Disk| , setting to be sure
"Enable write-behind caching on all removable disk drives"
is disabled, unchecked.

You might also check for another driver for the USB drive
having problems.
0
kony
3/1/2006 7:05:08 AM
> using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.

Stop using Win98, it's a crappy operating system with poor history (on-the-knee
made-not-properly-designed-patch-over-the-paleolithic-MS-DOS).

Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/1/2006 8:44:59 PM
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:44:59 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:

>> using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.
>
>Stop using Win98, it's a crappy operating system with poor history (on-the-knee
>made-not-properly-designed-patch-over-the-paleolithic-MS-DOS).
>
>Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.


This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
0
kony
3/1/2006 9:24:18 PM
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:24:18 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>>Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.
>
>
>This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

Hadda laugh... 

0
Butterfield
3/2/2006 2:37:02 AM
kony writes:

> This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
is technically superior by a wide margin.

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/2/2006 3:27:36 AM
kony wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer >
> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so
> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.
> >
> >That makes sense Bob.
> >
>
>
> Try applying this patch,
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
>

Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But, the
microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe the
size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or
XP or Server 2003.

>
> >> If
> >> she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however,
> >> the data would be lost.
> >
> >Here, you lost me. I have another external drive. Suppose I put a file
> >on it. And suppose I don't have an orderly shutdown. Suppose I don't go
> >through the usual steps. Suppose I shut off the power or something like
> > that. After I restart the computer, the file is not lost. It is right
> >there on the drive. The older drive does not act like ROM memory at
> >all. Anything I put there stays there.
> >
> >Even though it seemed the problem was fixed yesterday, I saw today that
> >it wasn't. Again, when I started the PC, the data on the new external
> >drive was gone. Puzzling!!!
> >
> >Should I format the new drive? Would that solve the problem? Or could
> >it be a bad drive?
>
> Apparently some Win98 drivers & devices do caching a bit
> differently than others.  For example, on same Win98 system
> with two different USB thumbdrives, one of them shows the
> copying indicator box the entire time a file is copied, and
> the moment the box disappears, the LED on the thumbdrive
> also stops flashing- the copy process is complete.
>
> On same system, different USB thumbdrive, the copy indicator
> box disappears some after the files are cached into memory,
> but it is not done copying the file, the box disappeared far
> sooner and the drive LED continues to flash for multiple
> times as long as the copy box was onscreen.
>

I understand that. But I have an older Kanguru external drive that is
firewire that has never given me any problems at all. I'm not using USB
with this new drive. It's on firewire. It's puzzling that the older
drive works fine and the new one has these problems.

> You might check the |Control Panel|System Properties|
> Performance|File System|Removable Disk| , setting to be sure
> "Enable write-behind caching on all removable disk drives"
> is disabled, unchecked.
>

I did that. It was unchecked.

> You might also check for another driver for the USB drive
> having problems.

Would the USB driver affect things since this new drive is with
firewire?

I think you gave some insightful answers that looked like they would
work Kony. I wonder if the problems have a solution? Maybe the size of
the drive is the problem? Maybe there is no solution?

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/2/2006 5:42:57 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> > using this with firewire. I'm using Win 98, second edition.
>
> Stop using Win98, it's a crappy operating system with poor history (on-the-knee
> made-not-properly-designed-patch-over-the-paleolithic-MS-DOS).
>
> Use some of the Windows NT OSes - Win2000 or WinXP.
>


I would try that solution if I could Maxim. I am using Win 98-SE
because I need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work
with 2000 or XP or Server 2003.

Christine


> --
> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
> StorageCraft Corporation
> maxim@storagecraft.com
> http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Christine2006
3/2/2006 5:44:35 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> kony writes:
>
> > This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
>
> Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
> operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
> operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
> similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
> is technically superior by a wide margin.
>


That's irrelevant for me Mxsmanic. I am using Win 98-SE because I need
to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or XP
or Server 2003.

Christine


> -- 
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

0
Christine2006
3/2/2006 5:45:34 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:

> kony writes:
> 
> 
>>This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
> 
> 
> Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
> operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
> operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
> similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
> is technically superior by a wide margin.
> 

The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of 
Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. It's history is 
so 'poor' and 'crappy' that MS was forced to extend support for years after 
the original EOF date, which will *finally* occur on July 11, 2006

0
David
3/2/2006 7:00:00 AM
Christine2006 wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> 
>>kony writes:
>>
>>
>>>This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
>>
>>Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
>>operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
>>operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
>>similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
>>is technically superior by a wide margin.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant for me Mxsmanic. I am using Win 98-SE because I need
> to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or XP
> or Server 2003.

So do I, plus some small old machines that are perfectly fine for light 
tasks with Win98 but that would be taxed beyond practicality by Win2K or XP.

> 
> Christine
> 
> 
> 
>>-- 
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> 
> 

0
David
3/2/2006 7:02:17 AM
On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
<christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
>> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer >
>> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so
>> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.
>> >
>> >That makes sense Bob.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Try applying this patch,
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
>>
>
>Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
>put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
>disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But, the
>microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe the
>size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
>right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
>need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or
>XP or Server 2003.

Are you continually refilling the drive past the 128GB
boundary?  If so, yes that is likely the problem.  The other
USB drive, is it not larger than 128GB?

One possible workaround would be to connect the drive to a
48bit LBA capable PCI controller card instead of over USB in
the enclosure.


>
>>
>> >> If
>> >> she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however,
>> >> the data would be lost.
>> >
>> >Here, you lost me. I have another external drive. Suppose I put a file
>> >on it. And suppose I don't have an orderly shutdown. Suppose I don't go
>> >through the usual steps. Suppose I shut off the power or something like
>> > that. After I restart the computer, the file is not lost. It is right
>> >there on the drive. The older drive does not act like ROM memory at
>> >all. Anything I put there stays there.
>> >
>> >Even though it seemed the problem was fixed yesterday, I saw today that
>> >it wasn't. Again, when I started the PC, the data on the new external
>> >drive was gone. Puzzling!!!
>> >
>> >Should I format the new drive? Would that solve the problem? Or could
>> >it be a bad drive?
>>
>> Apparently some Win98 drivers & devices do caching a bit
>> differently than others.  For example, on same Win98 system
>> with two different USB thumbdrives, one of them shows the
>> copying indicator box the entire time a file is copied, and
>> the moment the box disappears, the LED on the thumbdrive
>> also stops flashing- the copy process is complete.
>>
>> On same system, different USB thumbdrive, the copy indicator
>> box disappears some after the files are cached into memory,
>> but it is not done copying the file, the box disappeared far
>> sooner and the drive LED continues to flash for multiple
>> times as long as the copy box was onscreen.
>>
>
>I understand that. But I have an older Kanguru external drive that is
>firewire that has never given me any problems at all. I'm not using USB
>with this new drive. It's on firewire. It's puzzling that the older
>drive works fine and the new one has these problems.

Ok but is it (old drive) larger than 128GB?


>
>> You might check the |Control Panel|System Properties|
>> Performance|File System|Removable Disk| , setting to be sure
>> "Enable write-behind caching on all removable disk drives"
>> is disabled, unchecked.
>>
>
>I did that. It was unchecked.
>
>> You might also check for another driver for the USB drive
>> having problems.
>
>Would the USB driver affect things since this new drive is with
>firewire?
>
>I think you gave some insightful answers that looked like they would
>work Kony. I wonder if the problems have a solution? Maybe the size of
>the drive is the problem? Maybe there is no solution?


Win98SE needs a 3rd party driver to support a drive of that
size.  Not a firewire or USB driver but a drive controller
driver.  Presuming they are parallel ATA interface (actual
drive itself inside the enclosure), something like a Promise
Ultra133 should work.

The other alternative is to not put the drive on the system
running win98se but on win2k, XP, or another OS that
supports 48bit LBA then network share it.
0
kony
3/2/2006 10:08:32 AM
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:27:36 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony writes:
>
>> This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
>
>Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
>operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
>operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
>similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
>is technically superior by a wide margin.


Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of
blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it
is addressing a specific limitation of the OS, a need of the
user.  Simply claiming to move on from 9x without specific
reason is rather silly.  Same goes for WinME (though my
least favorite Windows), 2K, or XP onto Vista.

There is no reason to believe someone using Win98
successfully without complain, has any reason to upgrade.

Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario,
in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be
gained by a latter version of windows and therefore within
this context it makes sense- but that is not what was
mentioned, just a mindless "NT better" argument which is not
really true at all.

If a person boots and uses 9x, makes no use of the
differences between the OS(s), the theoretically better OS
isn't better in any realized way.
0
kony
3/2/2006 10:13:07 AM
kony wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >kony wrote:
> >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
> >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off Computer >
> >> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to the HD, so
> >> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem, IMO.
> >> >
> >> >That makes sense Bob.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Try applying this patch,
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
> >>
> >
> >Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
> >put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
> >disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But, the
> >microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe the
> >size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
> >right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
> >need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or
> >XP or Server 2003.
>
> Are you continually refilling the drive past the 128GB
> boundary?

I don't know what you mean by 'refilling the drive.' I haven't put very
many files on the new drive, and I haven't put on more than 128GB. I've
put on about 10GB to test things. Then, it keeps disappearing.

Also, today I noticed that the drive says I have 14GB on it but none of
the data shows up. I've heard of things like these, and I'm not sure
how it works. It hasn't done this before.

> If so, yes that is likely the problem.

It might be the problem that the drive is too big.

> The other
> USB drive, is it not larger than 128GB?
>

That's right. The other drive is 120GB. It's not a USB drive. It's a
firewire drive.

I called Kanguru today about this. They think that this might be the
problem. They said that with WinXP, there would be no problems. They
said the problem could be Win98-SE. When I suggested partitioning the
new drive, he said I should try it. He said he thought it would work.
So, I'll try that first and see if it works. He suggested making the
drives something like 108, 108, 104GB - meaning all close to the same
size - and all under 128GB.

> One possible workaround would be to connect the drive to a
> 48bit LBA capable PCI controller card instead of over USB in
> the enclosure.
>

I asked about this too. He said that this might work too. More on this
below.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >> If
> >> >> she powers the system down without going through the usual steps, however,
> >> >> the data would be lost.
> >> >
> >> >Here, you lost me. I have another external drive. Suppose I put a file
> >> >on it. And suppose I don't have an orderly shutdown. Suppose I don't go
> >> >through the usual steps. Suppose I shut off the power or something like
> >> > that. After I restart the computer, the file is not lost. It is right
> >> >there on the drive. The older drive does not act like ROM memory at
> >> >all. Anything I put there stays there.
> >> >
> >> >Even though it seemed the problem was fixed yesterday, I saw today that
> >> >it wasn't. Again, when I started the PC, the data on the new external
> >> >drive was gone. Puzzling!!!
> >> >
> >> >Should I format the new drive? Would that solve the problem? Or could
> >> >it be a bad drive?
> >>
> >> Apparently some Win98 drivers & devices do caching a bit
> >> differently than others.  For example, on same Win98 system
> >> with two different USB thumbdrives, one of them shows the
> >> copying indicator box the entire time a file is copied, and
> >> the moment the box disappears, the LED on the thumbdrive
> >> also stops flashing- the copy process is complete.
> >>
> >> On same system, different USB thumbdrive, the copy indicator
> >> box disappears some after the files are cached into memory,
> >> but it is not done copying the file, the box disappeared far
> >> sooner and the drive LED continues to flash for multiple
> >> times as long as the copy box was onscreen.
> >>
> >
> >I understand that. But I have an older Kanguru external drive that is
> >firewire that has never given me any problems at all. I'm not using USB
> >with this new drive. It's on firewire. It's puzzling that the older
> >drive works fine and the new one has these problems.
>
> Ok but is it (old drive) larger than 128GB?
>

No, it's not. It's smaller than 128GB. It's 120GB.

>
> >
> >> You might check the |Control Panel|System Properties|
> >> Performance|File System|Removable Disk| , setting to be sure
> >> "Enable write-behind caching on all removable disk drives"
> >> is disabled, unchecked.
> >>
> >
> >I did that. It was unchecked.
> >
> >> You might also check for another driver for the USB drive
> >> having problems.
> >
> >Would the USB driver affect things since this new drive is with
> >firewire?
> >
> >I think you gave some insightful answers that looked like they would
> >work Kony. I wonder if the problems have a solution? Maybe the size of
> >the drive is the problem? Maybe there is no solution?
>
>
> Win98SE needs a 3rd party driver to support a drive of that
> size.  Not a firewire or USB driver but a drive controller
> driver.  Presuming they are parallel ATA interface (actual
> drive itself inside the enclosure), something like a Promise
> Ultra133 should work.
>

I want to try this. First, I'll try partitioning. Adding this new
Promise Ultra133 - I am hoping it won't cause problems? Do you know of
problems with this card? I don't want to fry something due to a
hardware problem. Also, can that card be used in my older PC? It's a
Pentium 3. Would it be compatible? What would the manufacturer say? I
read some good reviews about them.

> The other alternative is to not put the drive on the system
> running win98se but on win2k, XP, or another OS that
> supports 48bit LBA then network share it.

That's a good idea. But, I want to bring the external drive to other
places besides my house. I want to be able to put it into PCs that run
Win98. If partitioning works to solve the problem, then I'd want to
keep the partitions in place for any OS on a PC.

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/3/2006 5:35:29 AM
David Maynard wrote:
> Christine2006 wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> >>kony writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
> >>
> >>Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
> >>operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
> >>operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
> >>similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
> >>is technically superior by a wide margin.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > That's irrelevant for me Mxsmanic. I am using Win 98-SE because I need
> > to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or XP
> > or Server 2003.
>
> So do I, plus some small old machines that are perfectly fine for light
> tasks with Win98 but that would be taxed beyond practicality by Win2K or XP.
>

That's right. Also, I have some older hardware that I want to use and
for some things, there are no new drivers for them.

Christine

> >
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
> >>-- 
> >>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> > 
> >

0
Christine2006
3/3/2006 5:36:58 AM
kony wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:27:36 +0100, Mxsmanic
> <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >kony writes:
> >
> >> This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
> >
> >Whoever it comes from, it's sound advice.  The Windows 9x family of
> >operating systems is dramatically inferior to the Windows NT family of
> >operating systems.  They are completely different (despite
> >similarities in appearance), and the latter family (NT, 200x, and XP)
> >is technically superior by a wide margin.
>
>
> Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of
> blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it
> is addressing a specific limitation of the OS, a need of the
> user.  Simply claiming to move on from 9x without specific
> reason is rather silly.  Same goes for WinME (though my
> least favorite Windows), 2K, or XP onto Vista.
>
> There is no reason to believe someone using Win98
> successfully without complain, has any reason to upgrade.
>
> Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario,
> in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be
> gained by a latter version of windows and therefore within
> this context it makes sense- but that is not what was
> mentioned, just a mindless "NT better" argument which is not
> really true at all.
>
> If a person boots and uses 9x, makes no use of the
> differences between the OS(s), the theoretically better OS
> isn't better in any realized way.

That's right. Also, suppose you want to test some network things at
home. You could use all Pentium 4s with XP, or Win2003-Server OSs. But,
it is cheaper to work with some older PCs for network testing purposes.

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/3/2006 5:37:54 AM
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ilgd025rrc6u80jtnsmov463l9h4nv2non@4ax.com...
| On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
| <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >kony wrote:
| >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
| >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off
Computer >
| >> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to
the HD, so
| >> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem,
IMO.
| >> >
| >> >That makes sense Bob.
| >> >
| >>
| >>
| >> Try applying this patch,
| >>
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp

Is this also needed with that patch as it states?
Q290831 - SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN Requests Not Sent to SCSI Miniports During
Shutdown

| >Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
| >put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
| >disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But, the
| >microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe the
| >size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
| >right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
| >need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or
| >XP or Server 2003.
|
--snip--
--
mae

0
mae
3/3/2006 6:43:34 AM
Hi,


If the files are erased you can still possibly restore it using data
recovery tool. The most powerful is imho Active@ Undelete. This is a
really mighty utility that never failed me before. It's restore
algorithm is great, as it never corrupted restored files or failed.

http://www.active-undelete.com/

0
coal_brona
3/3/2006 7:06:16 AM
> This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL

What is wrong with OE? I'm satisfied with it.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/3/2006 10:10:38 PM
> That's irrelevant for me Mxsmanic. I am using Win 98-SE because I need
> to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or XP
> or Server 2003.

Use MS Virtual PC and run Win98 and this software inside it.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/3/2006 10:11:53 PM
> The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of 
> Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. 

Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes?

>It's history is 
> so 'poor' and 'crappy' that MS was forced to extend support for years after 
> the original EOF date, which will *finally* occur on July 11, 2006

Lots of stupid people around which demand this :-)

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/3/2006 10:13:20 PM
> Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of
> blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it
> is addressing a specific limitation of the OS

Lack of >128GB drives support.
Lack of security.
Lack of event log.
Lack of ability of having more then 1 IP address per adapter.
Lack of inter-process protection - a faulty app usually crashes the whole OS
due to idiotic design of 2D graphics/windowing subsystem.

Lack of... well, lack of everything.

Performance also sucks due to lack of adequate file cache manager.

> Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario,
> in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be
> gained by a latter version of windows

Correct. Adequate versions of Windows do support 48bit LBAs out-of-the-box.

>just a mindless "NT better"

If you would know the innerworkings of these OSes - you would not say this is
mindless.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/3/2006 10:17:14 PM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
>> This coming from someone using OE for a newsreader... LOL
> 
> What is wrong with OE? I'm satisfied with it.

Hold that thought - and then try to understand how some people may be 
equally happy with Win98SE.  Learning from one's own foibles is 
sometimes the fastest (though not always the most ego-gratifying) route 
to enlightenment.

- bill

0
Bill
3/3/2006 11:06:25 PM
On 2 Mar 2006 21:35:29 -0800, "Christine2006"
<christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Are you continually refilling the drive past the 128GB
>> boundary?
>
>I don't know what you mean by 'refilling the drive.' I haven't put very
>many files on the new drive, and I haven't put on more than 128GB. I've
>put on about 10GB to test things. Then, it keeps disappearing.

I meant, you loose all the files on the drive so the next
thing done is of course to put the files back on the drive,
and IF there were over 128GB worth of files, it might then
have this result.


>
>Also, today I noticed that the drive says I have 14GB on it but none of
>the data shows up. I've heard of things like these, and I'm not sure
>how it works. It hasn't done this before.
>
>> If so, yes that is likely the problem.
>
>It might be the problem that the drive is too big.
>
>> The other
>> USB drive, is it not larger than 128GB?
>>
>
>That's right. The other drive is 120GB. It's not a USB drive. It's a
>firewire drive.
>
>I called Kanguru today about this. They think that this might be the
>problem. They said that with WinXP, there would be no problems. They
>said the problem could be Win98-SE. When I suggested partitioning the
>new drive, he said I should try it. He said he thought it would work.
>So, I'll try that first and see if it works. He suggested making the
>drives something like 108, 108, 104GB - meaning all close to the same
>size - and all under 128GB.


There is something else you might try- put the new HDD in
the enclosure of the older drive (assuming the older drive
enclosure supports this drive's capacity), AND putting the
old drive in the new enclosure.  Whichever then has a
problem, would tend to isolate the culprit.


>
>> One possible workaround would be to connect the drive to a
>> 48bit LBA capable PCI controller card instead of over USB in
>> the enclosure.
>>
>
>I asked about this too. He said that this might work too. More on this
>below.

>> Win98SE needs a 3rd party driver to support a drive of that
>> size.  Not a firewire or USB driver but a drive controller
>> driver.  Presuming they are parallel ATA interface (actual
>> drive itself inside the enclosure), something like a Promise
>> Ultra133 should work.
>>
>
>I want to try this. First, I'll try partitioning. Adding this new
>Promise Ultra133 - I am hoping it won't cause problems? Do you know of
>problems with this card? I don't want to fry something due to a
>hardware problem. Also, can that card be used in my older PC? It's a
>Pentium 3. Would it be compatible? What would the manufacturer say? I
>read some good reviews about them.

It should work fine, is pretty straightforward-

Install the card, hook the drive up, boot the system and
it'll say "new hardware found" or something to that effect
so you install the driver.  If/when the system relies on the
PCI ATA card to boot (run the operating system) there is the
other issue of a properly working bios (most do but some are
buggy) to select this alternate controller in the boot
order, or use it at all.  That isn't an issue when only
using it for storage.



>
>> The other alternative is to not put the drive on the system
>> running win98se but on win2k, XP, or another OS that
>> supports 48bit LBA then network share it.
>
>That's a good idea. But, I want to bring the external drive to other
>places besides my house. I want to be able to put it into PCs that run
>Win98. If partitioning works to solve the problem, then I'd want to
>keep the partitions in place for any OS on a PC.


Well that pretty much rules out the PCI controller card
then, unless you buy a separate controller card for all the
Win98 systems and a removable caddy for each to make
transporting it easier.

0
kony
3/4/2006 1:36:17 AM
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:43:34 -0600, "mae"
<agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote:

>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:ilgd025rrc6u80jtnsmov463l9h4nv2non@4ax.com...
>| On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
>| <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>|
>| >kony wrote:
>| >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
>| >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>| >>
>| >>
>| >> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off
>Computer >
>| >> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to
>the HD, so
>| >> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem,
>IMO.
>| >> >
>| >> >That makes sense Bob.
>| >> >
>| >>
>| >>
>| >> Try applying this patch,
>| >>
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
>
>Is this also needed with that patch as it states?
>Q290831 - SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN Requests Not Sent to SCSI Miniports During
>Shutdown
>

I don't know, it might be worth trying that one too,
except it seems MS has now taken it off their 'site.  
It's here though,
http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=90
named 290831usa8.exe

It appears to only replace the scsiport.pdr file in the
iosubsys folder.

I'm suspecting this won't help though, probably the problem
is the size of the drive... but the patch might be worth
trying anyway.
0
kony
3/4/2006 1:47:42 AM
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 01:17:14 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:

>> Inferior, yes, but often this is made as some kind of
>> blanket statement which is pretty much pointless unless it
>> is addressing a specific limitation of the OS
>
>Lack of >128GB drives support.
>Lack of security.
>Lack of event log.
>Lack of ability of having more then 1 IP address per adapter.
>Lack of inter-process protection - a faulty app usually crashes the whole OS
>due to idiotic design of 2D graphics/windowing subsystem.
>


True, and "if" the particular use of the system makes these
important, 'tis reason enough to switch.


>Lack of... well, lack of everything.


Oh well, you drifted back to nonsense.

>
>Performance also sucks due to lack of adequate file cache manager.

LOL.  WinXP is  like a slug compared to 9x, you have
performance quite backwards.  Maybe caching huge files, but
seldom are such files continually cached rather than a
immediate read-need scenario where drive transfer rates
dictate performance levels.

That's not to say it's impossible to encounter situations,
but again, your nonsense is silly.  Blanket generic
statements in this case, are closer to lies than truth.


>
>> Now moving past the generic concept to a specific scenario,
>> in this particular case, supporting 48bit LBA would be
>> gained by a latter version of windows
>
>Correct. Adequate versions of Windows do support 48bit LBAs out-of-the-box.
>
>>just a mindless "NT better"
>
>If you would know the innerworkings of these OSes - you would not say this is
>mindless.


If you knew that what you "like" is only relevant as
revealed in an actual use, you would say it's mindless.

remember, you don't have to "like" what someone does with
their PC, it merely has to do that job.  For many many jobs
Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
is no reason to shun it.

0
kony
3/4/2006 1:53:57 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:

>>The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of 
>>Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. 
> 
> 
> Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes?

Yes, I do.

>>It's history is 
>>so 'poor' and 'crappy' that MS was forced to extend support for years after 
>>the original EOF date, which will *finally* occur on July 11, 2006
> 
> 
> Lots of stupid people around which demand this :-)
> 

You suffer from classic 'engineer syndrome' where, after having picked what 
you think is a 'technically superior' widget then declare all other widgets 
to be 'crap' and those using them 'stupid'.

The problem is that even 'technically superior' depends on the actual needs 
or else you end up with nonsense like choosing a fusion MRV ICBM for 'home 
defense' because techno freak feels it's the most 'technically advanced' 
weapon.

0
David
3/4/2006 5:02:43 AM
In article <duaf16$1vbp$1@gavrilo.mtu.ru>, Maxim S. Shatskih says...
> > The 'advice' to use an NT based O.S. might be reasonable but the premise of 
> > Windows98 being "crappy" with "poor history" is nonsense. 
> 
> Do you know at least anything about the innerworkings of MS's OSes?
> 
Obviously more than you do. You really should try using it again one 
day.



-- 
Conor,

Same shit, different day.
0
Conor
3/4/2006 10:12:51 AM
> You suffer from classic 'engineer syndrome' where, after having picked what 
> you think is a 'technically superior' widget then declare all other widgets 
> to be 'crap' and those using them 'stupid'.

Yes, maybe you're correct :-)

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/4/2006 7:08:03 PM
> LOL.  WinXP is  like a slug compared to 9x, you have
> performance quite backwards.

On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.

> Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
> is no reason to shun it.

I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
which runs fine on modern OSes.

In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/4/2006 7:14:25 PM
> I don't know, it might be worth trying that one too,
> except it seems MS has now taken it off their 'site.
> It's here though,
> http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=90
> named 290831usa8.exe
>
> It appears to only replace the scsiport.pdr file in the
> iosubsys folder.

Correct. This is exactly the binary where the SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN request is
formed and sent to the disk controller's driver.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/4/2006 7:15:34 PM
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:14:25 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:

>> LOL.  WinXP is  like a slug compared to 9x, you have
>> performance quite backwards.
>
>On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
>where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.

Nope.  The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
still slower on brand new systems.  You are correct that
memory is an issue, but one can in fact put 256MB on a
fairly old system (something just new enough to cache the
entire amount) and still see the problem.  Any way you look
at it, doing same task and having to juggle around 256MB of
code just takes longer on ALL systems.



>
>> Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
>> is no reason to shun it.
>
>I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
>which runs fine on modern OSes.

Perhaps.  The decision can be taken on a case by case basis.
Remeber it is not a question of "what OS to buy today",
rather one with Win98 is presumed to already have it,
probably even have it running on any given system.  The
remaining issue is only whether it suits their needs which
it may NOT do, but for some it does.


>
>In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
>legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
>easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.

Easy?

$100 minimum expense, maybe more (like upgrading hardware
not supported with XP drivers, possible memory needs).
Several hours installing OS, drivers, user preferences,
apps, transferring data, testing the legacy app, etc.

Relatively speaking, there are certainly harder things in
life but so far as PCs go, that's not the easiest way to do
anything.
0
kony
3/4/2006 10:19:45 PM
kony writes:

> Nope.  The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
> revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
> larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
> still slower on brand new systems.

Not necessarily.  Like all operating systems in the NT family, XP has
a higher minimum hardware requirement.  However, it also makes much
better use of large amounts of hardware.  So it runs more slowly than
9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems.

However, there is no reason to _upgrade_ to XP if 9x is doing the job.

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/5/2006 2:20:28 AM
kony wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2006 21:35:29 -0800, "Christine2006"
> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Are you continually refilling the drive past the 128GB
> >> boundary?
> >
> >I don't know what you mean by 'refilling the drive.' I haven't put very
> >many files on the new drive, and I haven't put on more than 128GB. I've
> >put on about 10GB to test things. Then, it keeps disappearing.
>
> I meant, you loose all the files on the drive so the next
> thing done is of course to put the files back on the drive,
> and IF there were over 128GB worth of files, it might then
> have this result.
>

Ok, I thought you might have meant that but I wasn't sure. The second
patch you and Mae talked about looks like it helped a lot. But, I'm not
confident that my problems are in the past. I want to partition the new
drive. If I didn't partition it, and I put on more than 128GB, I wonder
if I will have problems.

>
> >
> >Also, today I noticed that the drive says I have 14GB on it but none of
> >the data shows up. I've heard of things like these, and I'm not sure
> >how it works. It hasn't done this before.
> >
> >> If so, yes that is likely the problem.
> >
> >It might be the problem that the drive is too big.
> >
> >> The other
> >> USB drive, is it not larger than 128GB?
> >>
> >
> >That's right. The other drive is 120GB. It's not a USB drive. It's a
> >firewire drive.
> >
> >I called Kanguru today about this. They think that this might be the
> >problem. They said that with WinXP, there would be no problems. They
> >said the problem could be Win98-SE. When I suggested partitioning the
> >new drive, he said I should try it. He said he thought it would work.
> >So, I'll try that first and see if it works. He suggested making the
> >drives something like 108, 108, 104GB - meaning all close to the same
> >size - and all under 128GB.
>
>
> There is something else you might try- put the new HDD in
> the enclosure of the older drive (assuming the older drive
> enclosure supports this drive's capacity), AND putting the
> old drive in the new enclosure.  Whichever then has a
> problem, would tend to isolate the culprit.
>

Yes, that's a good idea Kony. But, these drives aren't like that. They
aren't in enclosures. They are stand alone external hard drives. They
are both plugged into the same firewire card.

>
> >
> >> One possible workaround would be to connect the drive to a
> >> 48bit LBA capable PCI controller card instead of over USB in
> >> the enclosure.
> >>
> >
> >I asked about this too. He said that this might work too. More on this
> >below.
>
> >> Win98SE needs a 3rd party driver to support a drive of that
> >> size.  Not a firewire or USB driver but a drive controller
> >> driver.  Presuming they are parallel ATA interface (actual
> >> drive itself inside the enclosure), something like a Promise
> >> Ultra133 should work.
> >>
> >
> >I want to try this. First, I'll try partitioning. Adding this new
> >Promise Ultra133 - I am hoping it won't cause problems? Do you know of
> >problems with this card? I don't want to fry something due to a
> >hardware problem. Also, can that card be used in my older PC? It's a
> >Pentium 3. Would it be compatible? What would the manufacturer say? I
> >read some good reviews about them.
>
> It should work fine, is pretty straightforward-
>
> Install the card, hook the drive up, boot the system and
> it'll say "new hardware found" or something to that effect
> so you install the driver.  If/when the system relies on the
> PCI ATA card to boot (run the operating system) there is the
> other issue of a properly working bios (most do but some are
> buggy) to select this alternate controller in the boot
> order, or use it at all.  That isn't an issue when only
> using it for storage.
>

Ok. If everything works smoothly, then that's good. I'm thinking about
possible problems I might have. I hope there won't be any hardware
conflicts. I don't want to fry anything.

>
>
> >
> >> The other alternative is to not put the drive on the system
> >> running win98se but on win2k, XP, or another OS that
> >> supports 48bit LBA then network share it.
> >
> >That's a good idea. But, I want to bring the external drive to other
> >places besides my house. I want to be able to put it into PCs that run
> >Win98. If partitioning works to solve the problem, then I'd want to
> >keep the partitions in place for any OS on a PC.
>
>
> Well that pretty much rules out the PCI controller card
> then, unless you buy a separate controller card for all the
> Win98 systems and a removable caddy for each to make
> transporting it easier.

I still want to use the PCI controller card. If the drive is
partitioned, it would seem that everything would be ok on a PC with
Win98 and no controller card but I want to have a controller card to be
safer. 

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:17:11 AM
mae wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:ilgd025rrc6u80jtnsmov463l9h4nv2non@4ax.com...
> | On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
> | <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> |
> | >kony wrote:
> | >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
> | >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off
> Computer >
> | >> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to
> the HD, so
> | >> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem,
> IMO.
> | >> >
> | >> >That makes sense Bob.
> | >> >
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> Try applying this patch,
> | >>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
>
> Is this also needed with that patch as it states?
> Q290831 - SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN Requests Not Sent to SCSI Miniports During
> Shutdown
>

Thanks for pointing this out Mae. I went to the site Kony gave and
downloaded that patch. I thought as Kony did. I didn't think it would
make much difference. But, it 'looks' like it solved the problem. I
tested it again by putting some data on the new drive, shut it down and
started it a few times, and the new data stays there! But, I don't know
if it will stay there in the long run. Also, I don't know if I can put
more than 128GB of data on it. I want to have more confidence with this
new drive, so I'm going to partition it and I'm going to put in a PCI
controller card. Also, I've noticed that the older data I put on the
drive, that didn't show up, well, it still doesn't show up, but it says
it is still there.

On the site Kony gave, are there other patches there that I should use
also?

Christine


> | >Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
> | >put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
> | >disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But, the
> | >microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe the
> | >size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
> | >right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
> | >need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or
> | >XP or Server 2003.
> |
> --snip--
> --
> mae

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:18:33 AM
kony wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:43:34 -0600, "mae"
> <agrannie@notemail.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:ilgd025rrc6u80jtnsmov463l9h4nv2non@4ax.com...
> >| On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
> >| <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >|
> >| >kony wrote:
> >| >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
> >| >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >| >>
> >| >>
> >| >> >> But if Christine is doing an orderly shutdown (Start > Turn Off
> >Computer >
> >| >> >> Turn Off) the OS should flush the buffer by writing everything to
> >the HD, so
> >| >> >> omitting the "Safely Remove Hardware" step shouldn't be a problem,
> >IMO.
> >| >> >
> >| >> >That makes sense Bob.
> >| >> >
> >| >>
> >| >>
> >| >> Try applying this patch,
> >| >>
> >http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
> >
> >Is this also needed with that patch as it states?
> >Q290831 - SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN Requests Not Sent to SCSI Miniports During
> >Shutdown
> >
>
> I don't know, it might be worth trying that one too,
> except it seems MS has now taken it off their 'site.

I wish they hadn't taken it off their site. It seems important.

> It's here though,
> http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?ttid=90
> named 290831usa8.exe
>

Thanks for posting this site Kony. It's good that people can get that
patch somewhere.

> It appears to only replace the scsiport.pdr file in the
> iosubsys folder.
>

It does make a difference.

> I'm suspecting this won't help though, probably the problem
> is the size of the drive... but the patch might be worth
> trying anyway.

I thought the same. But, the patch seems to do a lot. It 'looks' like
it solved the problem. I put some data on the drive, shut down,
started, a few times, and all seems ok. But, I haven't tried to put on
more than 128GB on the drive yet. I don't know if there would be
problems there. I want to partition the drive to be extra careful.
There were other patches on that site. I don't know if I should try any
of them.

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:19:40 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> > That's irrelevant for me Mxsmanic. I am using Win 98-SE because I need
> > to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000 or XP
> > or Server 2003.
>
> Use MS Virtual PC and run Win98 and this software inside it.
>

Thanks for the suggestion Maxim. That's an idea worth trying. But, why
do you suggest MS Virtual PC instead of  System Commander 8 by Vcom? Is
it better? I can't use System Commander to do it because of the special
software I have on the PC that uses Win98.

It's good that MS Virtual PC has a 45 day trial period. In the long
run, is it worth the price?

Christine

> --
> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
> StorageCraft Corporation
> maxim@storagecraft.com
> http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:21:05 AM
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
> > LOL.  WinXP is  like a slug compared to 9x, you have
> > performance quite backwards.
>
> On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
> where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.
>
> > Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
> > is no reason to shun it.
>
> I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
> which runs fine on modern OSes.
>
> In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
> legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
> easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.
>

I understand how you are looking at this Maxim. It isn't that simple
though. I've never used MS Virtual PC so I can't say anything about
that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC
because of software that will not run on NT, 2000 or XP. I have tried
putting Win98 and another OS on that PC and that causes problems. The
software I use on 98 has problems with another OS using System
Commander. I'm not an expert on the problem but I'll try to explain
what I know of it. The software has layer problems unless everything
runs a certain way. When I add another OS, many problems start. The
software really doesn't mesh well when I add another OS with System
Commander. I don't know if I'd have the same problems with MS Virtual
PC. It's worth a try though.

The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a
firewire card.

Christine

> --
> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
> StorageCraft Corporation
> maxim@storagecraft.com
> http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:22:43 AM
kony wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:14:25 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
> <maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:
>
> >> LOL.  WinXP is  like a slug compared to 9x, you have
> >> performance quite backwards.
> >
> >On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
> >where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.
>
> Nope.  The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
> revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
> larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
> still slower on brand new systems.  You are correct that
> memory is an issue, but one can in fact put 256MB on a
> fairly old system (something just new enough to cache the
> entire amount) and still see the problem.  Any way you look
> at it, doing same task and having to juggle around 256MB of
> code just takes longer on ALL systems.
>
>
>
> >
> >> Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
> >> is no reason to shun it.
> >
> >I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
> >which runs fine on modern OSes.
>
> Perhaps.  The decision can be taken on a case by case basis.
> Remeber it is not a question of "what OS to buy today",
> rather one with Win98 is presumed to already have it,
> probably even have it running on any given system.  The
> remaining issue is only whether it suits their needs which
> it may NOT do, but for some it does.
>
>
> >
> >In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
> >legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
> >easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.
>
> Easy?
>
> $100 minimum expense, maybe more (like upgrading hardware
> not supported with XP drivers, possible memory needs).
> Several hours installing OS, drivers, user preferences,
> apps, transferring data, testing the legacy app, etc.
>
> Relatively speaking, there are certainly harder things in
> life but so far as PCs go, that's not the easiest way to do
> anything.

Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software
I need to use will only work with Win98. My younger brother uses the
same software and there are other issues there too. That's a long
story. In brief, he can't go to XP for other reasons besides. I don't
get to visit him often but I know the issues he has.

Also, if the patches hold up, maybe that's all that will be needed.
But, I do want to partition and get the PCI controller card to be safe.

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:24:00 AM
coal_brona@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> If the files are erased you can still possibly restore it using data
> recovery tool. The most powerful is imho Active@ Undelete. This is a
> really mighty utility that never failed me before. It's restore
> algorithm is great, as it never corrupted restored files or failed.
>
> http://www.active-undelete.com/

It looks good. Which of the products that they list do you use?

How does it compare to Restorer2000?

Christine

0
Christine2006
3/5/2006 6:34:34 AM
> Thanks for the suggestion Maxim. That's an idea worth trying. But, why
> do you suggest MS Virtual PC instead of  System Commander 8 by Vcom?

MS Virtual PC is more comparable to VMWare (direct competitor), while System
Commander is IIRC the "boot manager", which allows you to choose among one of
the OSes to boot.

VPC and VMWare are virtual machines - they allow you to run Win98 in a window
under WinXP.

> It's good that MS Virtual PC has a 45 day trial period. In the long
> run, is it worth the price?

Good product, and improves each version. For some tasks like Windows NT
kernel-mode debugging, VMWare is better, but VPC is good and fast.

You can try it and decide whether it deserves payment.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:20:27 PM
> better use of large amounts of hardware.  So it runs more slowly than
> 9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems.

This is my experience too. On smaller RAM size, 9x is faster due to lesser
amount of always-loaded OS components. On larger RAM size, NT family is faster
due to better cache management.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:21:43 PM
> Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software
> I need to use will only work with Win98.

What is the software? Is it some old game with very "interesting" soundcard
requirements?

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:22:38 PM
On 4 Mar 2006 22:17:11 -0800, "Christine2006"
<christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:


>I still want to use the PCI controller card. If the drive is
>partitioned, it would seem that everything would be ok on a PC with
>Win98 and no controller card but I want to have a controller card to be
>safer. 


For some reason I'd assumed these drives were in an external
enclosure.  If they were you could "probably" use them
internally, connected to a PCI controller card.  Just having
the card does nothing for devices not connected to it, will
not increase support on the firewire drives, as far as I
know.  It would only help within context of putting
other/additional drives in the system.
0
kony
3/5/2006 5:22:50 PM
> that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC

No, VPC is another thing. It will allow you to run Win9x in a window under
Win2000 or WinXP.

> The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a
> firewire card.

Such devices usually have both USB and firewire connector. In my measurements,
1394 is a bit faster - 27 MB/s vs. 20.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:24:47 PM
On 4 Mar 2006 22:18:33 -0800, "Christine2006"
<christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>On the site Kony gave, are there other patches there that I should use
>also?
>


Microsoft themselves are the best source for most patches.
Some things (issues patched) may never effect you, so in
those cases there'd be no point in using the corresponding
patch.  Otherwise, if you have other relevant issues, yes
you should get those patches and archive them- since you're
already needing to find patches through 3rd parties, someday
the patches may be completely unavailable or at least hard
to find or a lengtyly process to acquire them.

There's also an unofficial Win98se service pack, might be
worth getting that as well and you can't get it from
Microsoft.

http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html
0
kony
3/5/2006 5:27:49 PM
> drive. If I didn't partition it, and I put on more than 128GB, I wonder
> if I will have problems.

Create a test of 2 partitions  - one 127GB, another 1GB. Then try to put some
files on the second 1GB partition. If this will be fine - then there are major
chances that everything will be fine.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:30:52 PM
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:20:28 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony writes:
>
>> Nope.  The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
>> revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
>> larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
>> still slower on brand new systems.
>
>Not necessarily.  Like all operating systems in the NT family, XP has
>a higher minimum hardware requirement.  

That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast
enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower.  They could have
easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1, 128MB of
memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
the purposes of speed issuse.


>However, it also makes much
>better use of large amounts of hardware.  So it runs more slowly than
>9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems.

No.  Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"?  It
runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all
the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled.


0
kony
3/5/2006 5:31:22 PM
> No.  Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"?  It
> runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even

I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy.

Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known
fact.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 5:34:33 PM
kony writes:

> That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast
> enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower.

There's no conspiracy here.  Windows NT and its successors represent a
far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the
modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x.  The architecture is
superior and the code is written better, and so the NT-based operating
systems perform better on large configurations.  However, the greater
complexity of the OS also imposes a larger minimum hardware
requirement.

This is why NT was slow to catch on initially: hardware platforms at
the time of its introduction were just barely sufficient to run it
(although today they would be considered very small).  Today's
hardware can run NT and its successors easily.

Later versions of the operating system have fallen victim to software
bloat, as all software does, but the above remains true.

> They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1,
> 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
> faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
> the purposes of speed issuse.

NT will indeed run on that configuration.  XP won't because that's not
enough disk space, as I recall.  XP should run on a first-generation
Pentium in 128 MB, though--NT sure did, and XP is just a bloated
version of NT.

> No.  Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? 

Yes, I have, and it runs faster than it runs on small systems.
Unfortunately it doesn't know what to do with all that hardware, and
it is easily crippled by heavy workloads that have no effect at all on
NT-based systems running on the same hardware.

MS-DOS runs even faster than 9x on large systems, but it's also even
more useless.  Both operating systems waste hardware on large
configurations.  If you want to make optimal use of a large
configuration, you must run something based on NT: NT, 200x, or XP.
Or you can run UNIX.

> It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all
> the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled.

Try it with 100 applications running at 50 MB each and see how well it
runs.  And watch to see how long it runs before it crashes.  You'll
find that 9x is a poor choice for large machines running under heavy
loads.

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/5/2006 6:08:44 PM
Maxim S. Shatskih writes:

> I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy.

Windows 9x doesn't support NTFS, which is vastly superior to FAT.

> Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known
> fact.

NTFS runs well on extremely large systems.  FAT runs poorly or not at
all.

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/5/2006 6:09:39 PM
Maxim S. Shatskih writes:

> No, VPC is another thing. It will allow you to run Win9x in a window under
> Win2000 or WinXP.

Some things will not run under XP or 2000, period.  The operating
system has tighter security than Windows 9x and this is an absolute
barrier to software that tries to access hardware directly (as many
older application programs do, particularly games).

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/5/2006 6:11:30 PM
> There's no conspiracy here.  Windows NT and its successors represent a
> far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the
> modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x.

Correct.

> > 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
> > faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
> > the purposes of speed issuse.
>
> NT will indeed run on that configuration.  XP won't because that's not
> enough disk space, as I recall.

No. XP SP2 wants around 2.5GB of disk space for the OS itself, but 128MB is
definitely too small for it.

-- 
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

0
Maxim
3/5/2006 6:50:17 PM
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:50:17 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<maxim@storagecraft.com> wrote:

>> There's no conspiracy here.  Windows NT and its successors represent a
>> far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the
>> modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x.
>
>Correct.
>
>> > 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
>> > faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
>> > the purposes of speed issuse.
>>
>> NT will indeed run on that configuration.  XP won't because that's not
>> enough disk space, as I recall.
>
>No. XP SP2 wants around 2.5GB of disk space for the OS itself, but 128MB is
>definitely too small for it.


XP needs nowhere near 2.5GB, unless of course you leave
system restore and other misc things turned on which slows
it down even more.  I was only comparing an optimally
configured XP, giving XP as much "help" as possible to try
to compete.

For the ideal XPSP2 config, 128MB is certainly too little.
The statment was only an example of what MS might spec,
since they did not spec 256MB for XP either.

More reasonble comparison would be old system with 512MB vs
brand new w/512MB.  It's no contest, Xp is slower.  It is
true that if you were copying massive files or some
particular task, 9x can be sluggish.  Single events do not
make for the average or typical user experience.
0
kony
3/5/2006 9:32:51 PM
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:08:44 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony writes:
>
>> That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast
>> enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower.
>
>There's no conspiracy here. 

never claimed there was

>Windows NT and its successors represent a
>far more complex

yes

> (and technically superior) 

no

It is techincally superior only in certain contexts.  You
will have to continuously make so many assumptions toward
that conclusion that by the time you're done, you may indeed
have described a lot of what the typical user does, but not
ALL systems, all configurations.  Therefore, "superior" has
everything to do with exactly what the situation is, and is
false is only mentioned as was, a generic statement.


>operating system than the
>modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. 

You are biased.  Use of MS-DOS environment shows it.
There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined
environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one.

> The architecture is
>superior 

No.  Random nonsense.  It is more applicable to some uses
and less so to others.

>and the code is written better, 

Better than what?  One would hope we could have commercial
alternatives for comparison but unfortunately not.

>and so the NT-based operating
>systems perform better on large configurations.  

not supported by any evidence


> the greater
>complexity of the OS also imposes a larger minimum hardware
>requirement.

Yes, so?  The argument was about appropriateness for any
particular use, so that use would have to be specified.
Further it was about speed, and it is not magically faster
on some particular system config.  QUITE the opposite, we
can in fact configure any system with support for an
appropriate sized HDD, memory, and see this.


>
>This is why NT was slow to catch on initially: hardware platforms at
>the time of its introduction were just barely sufficient to run it
>(although today they would be considered very small).  Today's
>hardware can run NT and its successors easily.

There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware
evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem
was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all.  NT ran
ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing
need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been
the choice up until Win2K.

>
>Later versions of the operating system have fallen victim to software
>bloat, as all software does, but the above remains true.
>
>> They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1,
>> 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
>> faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
>> the purposes of speed issuse.
>
>NT will indeed run on that configuration.  XP won't because that's not
>enough disk space, as I recall.  XP should run on a first-generation
>Pentium in 128 MB, though--NT sure did, and XP is just a bloated
>version of NT.

I was not arguing for that as an ideal minimum but in fact
XP will run on that config.  I was being conservative
towards the lower boundaries MS spec'd which were even
lower.  FWIW, though, XP will run on 128MB and 1.5GB HDD
space if it's kept under control.  I have such a system
doing video capture though it has a lot more memory and HDD
space- that's simply what it uses.


>
>> No.  Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? 
>
>Yes, I have, and it runs faster than it runs on small systems.

Yes of course, as all do.  That wasn't the issue though, it
was whether there was some performance gain on XP.  It is
obvious XP runs faster on newer systems but even so, 9x does
too.


>Unfortunately it doesn't know what to do with all that hardware, and
>it is easily crippled by heavy workloads that have no effect at all on
>NT-based systems running on the same hardware.

Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who
have 9x.   Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today
for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON
a system and being used already.  


>
>MS-DOS runs even faster than 9x on large systems, 

Actually, no.  There is a certain amount of caching and
hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and
DOS does not.  DOS "could" be faster if there had been
sufficient work towards it but everyone liked the GUI and it
went from there.

>but it's also even
>more useless.  

No.  This is a basic error in your conclusions.
Use depends entirely on the need.  If you only want to
consider a system that can do *anything possible*, XP comes
closer to that idea.  If on the other hand all we're
considering is the usual things people do, or more mission
specific systems, 9x or sometimes even DOS can work.

>Both operating systems waste hardware on large
>configurations.  If you want to make optimal use of a large
>configuration, you must run something based on NT: NT, 200x, or XP.
>Or you can run UNIX.

"Optimal" being rather arbitrary.  In the end it always has
to boil down to the actual use, and the fact is, some uses
don't require Xp and all and XP is just slowing down the
system and requiring more hardware ($) to get the same job
done.  In many cases it's not a big difference, so the world
keeps spinning, but it was never a matter of "how much"
difference, only that there was one.



>
>> It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all
>> the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled.
>
>Try it with 100 applications 

Why?
You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point. It
makes your argument invalid.  Better you should simply write
"use XP if you try to run 100 applications".

>running at 50 MB each and see how well it
>runs.  

I've never claimed 9x would be good for that, nor have I
ever claimed 9x is "better in general".

>And watch to see how long it runs before it crashes.  You'll
>find that 9x is a poor choice for large machines running under heavy
>loads.


No, I'll find that you are still making arbitrary
assumptions.  "Large machine" does not necessarily mean "is
running 100 application".  "Heavy load" is completely
irrelvant.

You've now drifted completely off on a separate subject and
even then are trying to assume a configuration to justify
XP.  XP is not inferior to 9x, I'd never suggested it was.
What I DID suggest is that XP does not have benefits in some
uses.  

0
kony
3/5/2006 9:54:20 PM
kony writes:

> It is techincally superior only in certain contexts.

It's technically superior in just about every way.

> You are biased.  Use of MS-DOS environment shows it.

I've been working with computers too long and in too many ways to be
biased.

> There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined
> environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one.

Sure, but single-tasking is rare for users today.  A few people might
want to run only one program or game, but most want to use their
computers for more than one thing.

> Better than what?

Better than Windows 9x.

> not supported by any evidence

I've seen it again and again.

> There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware
> evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem
> was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all.  NT ran
> ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing
> need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been
> the choice up until Win2K.

It _was_ the choice, for me.

> Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who
> have 9x.

Yes, but as soon as they upgrade, 9x will start to choke, because
software is continuously bloating, and many modern versions of popular
software are too bloated to run well on 9x.

I installed Acrobat 7.x a week ago.  Acrobat 4.x occupied 44 MB on
disk.  Acrobat 7.x occupies 760 MB.

> Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today
> for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON
> a system and being used already.  

Any system that is working acceptably should not be modified.

> Actually, no.  There is a certain amount of caching and
> hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and
> DOS does not. 

The same can be said of NT and its successors in comparison to 9x.

> Why?

Because then it runs a lot slower.

> You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point.

I'm not stretching things.  A lot of users have dozens of applications
open at one time.  There is a tendency to open applications and leave
them open until the computer is shut down.

-- 
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
0
Mxsmanic
3/6/2006 8:09:18 PM
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:09:18 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony writes:
>
>> It is techincally superior only in certain contexts.
>
>It's technically superior in just about every way.
>
>> You are biased.  Use of MS-DOS environment shows it.
>
>I've been working with computers too long and in too many ways to be
>biased.

Hardly.  The moment you mentioned DOS, as if that's a bad
thing, you showed it.  Keep in mind, not everyone, nor
everything requires one (and only ONE) do-everything
uber-PC.  WinXp is useful for someone to have, if they had
only one system and can use it for ALL their needs... I
never meant to imply otherwise.  On the other hand, that
does not make it of virtue for tasks that don't need the
things you feel make it superior.


>
>> There's nothing wrong with using a more streamlined
>> environment for tasks that don't require a more complex one.
>
>Sure, but single-tasking is rare for users today.  

Only in your limited context.  You are like the fellow who
wants a leatherman tool in his pocket because it does SO
much, but when it comes right down to it, almost anything
that leatherman tool does, is not as good as the one
dedicated tool would be.  

>A few people might
>want to run only one program or game, but most want to use their
>computers for more than one thing.

Maybe "computer", minus the "s".  Most people are not
multitasking on more than one system simultaneously.


>
>> Better than what?
>
>Better than Windows 9x.
>
>> not supported by any evidence
>
>I've seen it again and again.

Nope, you first take a mindset of a specific set of
functionality, so defined that the mindset itself literally
grew based upon the functionality WinXP provided, which is
not unusal since it is effectively the only widespread
modern commercial OS for a PC.  Where your argument falls
apart is when it's more carefully examined, that most people
don't actually DO all those things.

In fact, I know plenty of people with Win98 and no desire to
upgrade their system or OS.  They don't care if you think
it's better.  Wonder why?  Because they know it suits their
needs.



>
>> There were a lot of reasons including rapid hardware
>> evolution vs driver support, but in general, no the problem
>> was NOT "barely sufficient to run it", not at all.  NT ran
>> ok on 32MB memory and a pentium 1, there was no pressing
>> need for faster hardware at that time, NT could have been
>> the choice up until Win2K.
>
>It _was_ the choice, for me.

So be it.  Making an informed choice is what it's all about.
I don't urge anyone to use one, or the other, but to examine
their real  needs, not those needs projected by others.


>
>> Somewhat true but a pretty big stretch for many users who
>> have 9x.
>
>Yes, but as soon as they upgrade, 

Upgrade what?
I'm not in favor of reusing old OS on new systems.  It can
be done, but not necessarily the best choice since they must
have had some reason to upgrade, else it was just from a
hardware failure... in which case they'll  have to make the
call whether it was suitable or not.

So far as upgrading individual components, not necessarily.
Win9x can handle 1GB memory, modern video cards and (in case
of 98SE), modern sound cards with WDM drivers.  If one needs
more than 1GB memory or some crazy (for a so-called "PC")
100 applications, of course 9x is not suited for the
system... and I never claimed it was.

The bottom line is always about what is actually needed, not
theory but what the real user, really does.  

>9x will start to choke, because
>software is continuously bloating, and many modern versions of popular
>software are too bloated to run well on 9x.

Nonsense.  There is no software bloat that creates a problem
on 9x.


>
>I installed Acrobat 7.x a week ago.  Acrobat 4.x occupied 44 MB on
>disk.  Acrobat 7.x occupies 760 MB.


So?  Fire up acrobat and see how much memory it's using.
Not anywhere close to approaching any limit to what 9x can
do.  MS Office can weight over a GB too, but 9x again shows
it can run it fine, several instances of it.

I suspect you've made some quick assumptions then never
bothered to actually try them.  Besides that, you keep
trying to suggest scenarios that are not typical.  The
typical user of 9x is not one building a new system then
installing Acrobat 7 on it.  Rather, they are as the OP is,
needing to maintain compatibility, or looking only to
contiue doing the same tasks.

>
>> Remember I'm not suggesting buying 9x new today
>> for a new system, rather it is typically what is already ON
>> a system and being used already.  
>
>Any system that is working acceptably should not be modified.

Exactly
Never have I suggested that anyone buy a new system, buy
win9x for it, without need for 9x.  9x's virtue is in more
backwards compatibility and the light footprint.


>
>> Actually, no.  There is a certain amount of caching and
>> hardware driver support necessary that 9x does provide and
>> DOS does not. 
>
>The same can be said of NT and its successors in comparison to 9x.

It's all relative.  512MB of caching is more than the
typical user, makes use of.  Power users can easily need
more, so again it's all a matter of the specific needs.


>> You have to try hard to stretch things to make a point.
>
>I'm not stretching things.  A lot of users have dozens of applications
>open at one time.  There is a tendency to open applications and leave
>them open until the computer is shut down.

.... and a lot of users don't.  Nobody is trying to force 9x
on them, nor should anyone be falsely suggesting XP is a
good choice without specific reasons directly applicable to
their expressed needs.

0
kony
3/6/2006 10:44:47 PM
"Christine2006" <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141539513.616741.21960@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| mae wrote:
| > "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
| > news:ilgd025rrc6u80jtnsmov463l9h4nv2non@4ax.com...
| > | On 1 Mar 2006 21:42:57 -0800, "Christine2006"
| > | <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > |
| > | >kony wrote:
| > | >> On 28 Feb 2006 22:34:37 -0800, "Christine2006"
| > | >> <christinehwfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
|| > | >>-snip--
| >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/contents/wucritical/q273017/default.asp
| >
| > Is this also needed with that patch as it states?
| > Q290831 - SRB_FUNCTION_SHUTDOWN Requests Not Sent to SCSI Miniports
During
| > Shutdown
| >
|
| Thanks for pointing this out Mae. I went to the site Kony gave and
| downloaded that patch. I thought as Kony did. I didn't think it would
| make much difference. But, it 'looks' like it solved the problem. I
| tested it again by putting some data on the new drive, shut it down and
| started it a few times, and the new data stays there! But, I don't know
| if it will stay there in the long run. Also, I don't know if I can put
| more than 128GB of data on it. I want to have more confidence with this
| new drive, so I'm going to partition it and I'm going to put in a PCI
| controller card. Also, I've noticed that the older data I put on the
| drive, that didn't show up, well, it still doesn't show up, but it says
| it is still there.
|
| On the site Kony gave, are there other patches there that I should use
| also?
|
| Christine

Sorry, for not replying sooner- had a human bug.
I don't know about the site but had applied that for a shutdown problem.
This was in Windows Update Catalog, which you could read to see if it
applies:
(242975) W98SE 1394 Storage Supplement Update
also read Q238096 - (requires 1394bus.sys)
--
mae

| > | >Thanks Kony for finding this patch. I applied the patch. Now, when I
| > | >put data on the drive, the data stays on for about a minute and then
| > | >disappears. My problem is mystifying! I am totally bewildered! But,
the
| > | >microsoft site gave me a thought. This new drive is 320 gigs. Maybe
the
| > | >size of the drive is the problem? Maybe it will only work under the
| > | >right conditions, right CPU, right OS. I am using Win 98-SE because I
| > | >need to. I have some software I must use and it won't work with 2000
or
| > | >XP or Server 2003.
| > |
| > --snip--
| > --
| > mae
|

0
mae
3/11/2006 1:26:36 PM
Reply: