How to free DOS memory to run 677k file?
DOS Guy
but I'm getting the error "this program too big to fit into memory".
The program comes from the Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD.
I realize the program is somewhat large by DOS standards (677,872 bytes)
and it has me scratching my head as to just how they expected anyone to
be able to run this program.
The best I've been able to do is to get 611,971 bytes as the largest
executable program I can run while booted into DOS on a system running
win-98se.
The program does actually run in a DOS window if I launch it while
running win-98, but it says that I can't make any disk edits when
running under a multi-tasking OS environment.
Any ideas how I can get this to run while booted into dos?
Sjouke Burry
a bootable floppy or cd?
That shoud solve your problem.
Ross Ridge
>I realize the program is somewhat large by DOS standards (677,872 bytes)
>and it has me scratching my head as to just how they expected anyone to
>be able to run this program.
The size of the executable doesn't necessarily indicate how much low
memory you need free to run it. I've seen MS-DOS executables that were
over a megabyte in size.
Try using a CONFIG.SYS like this:
DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
Make sure your AUTOEXEC.BAT doesn't load anything that would eat memory.
If you're booting off floppy you'll need to copy HIMEM.SYS and EMM386.EXE
to the floppy. If you're booting of a hard disk you'll need to put the
full path names to these files in CONFIG.SYS. If the program needs EMS
memory to run or works better with it, you can change the NOEMS to RAM in
the example above. You can also try the adding HIGHSCAN to the EMM386
this will cause it look harder for upper memory areas to use, although
it can cause crashes.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Steve
Hi,
_Rarely_ this message can be generated if too much
memory is available. See LOADFIX help for an
explanation. Or make sure the first 64k is used.
Regards,
Steve N.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:il4alc$p8v$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
Also, if DISKEDIT is a text-only application and you won't need any
graphic video mode functionality, consider adding I=A000-B7FF to the
DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS line. That will bump conventional memory from
640 to 736K, which is a pretty substantial increase. Again, only
helpful if you won't be running any programs that need graphics video
modes.
--
Zaphod
"The best Bang since the Big One" - Eccentrica Gallumbits
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<Zaphod.Ariszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Also, if DISKEDIT is a text-only application and you won't need any
>graphic video mode functionality, consider adding I=A000-B7FF to the
>DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS line. That will bump conventional memory from
>640 to 736K, which is a pretty substantial increase. Again, only
>helpful if you won't be running any programs that need graphics video
>modes.
That only works if the video bios is smart enough to realize that
the A000 segment of memory is not available. I have had VGA cards
where that wouldn't work. Of course, I suppose I could revert to a
CGA card if I had to. And if I could get it to work. :-)
--
ArarghMail103 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
DOS Guy
> I'm trying to run the "DOS" version of Norton's DISKEDIT.EXE
> program, but I'm getting the error "this program too big to
> fit into memory".
> The program comes from the Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD.
I haven't tried any of the suggestions yet (and I may not, since I found
a win32 GUI program that does the boot-sector editing I was looking
for), but for those that are interested, here's a link to the
diskedit.exe program in question:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/DISKEDIT.ZIP
The file is password protected. The password is "a" (no quotes). It
will unzip to diskedit.xex. Rename to diskedit.exe and you'll have it.
Rod Pemberton
It runs for me. DOS 7.1 from Win98SE. Sorry, I didn't use your "supplied"
version of DISKEDIT.EXE.
I recently upgraded to 4GB of memory. HIMEM.SYS didn't seem to work with
4GB. I had to switch XMS hosts because of the 4GB. So, I can't currently
confirm if HIMEM.SYS works with DISKEDIT.EXE. If need be, I can swap out
memory modules to find out.
I'm using Japheth's HIMEMX.EXE for 4GB support. I tried a few other XMS
hosts too. There were a other hosts I didn't try, like: Martin Stroemberg's
FDXXMS or Jack R. Ellis' XMGR.
DEVICE=HIMEMX.EXE /MAX=1048576
Japheth's HimemX
http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html
Unfortunately, Win98SE won't install with 4GB using HIMEMX.SYS.
Unfortunately, Win98SE won't install with 4GB using Japheth's HIMEMX.EXE
either. I.e., you must use HIMEM.SYS until the install fails, then switch
to HIMEMX.EXE to get it to resume. I didn't try other XMS hosts for
installing Windows. I suspect they'll fail the initial part of the install
also. I.e., possible "undocumented" MS stuff going on...
Rod Pemberton
Zaphod Beeblebrox
<ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
news:k0rdn6pgc7h6rv8vd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:31:34 -0500, "Zaphod Beeblebrox"
> <Zaphod.Ariszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>Also, if DISKEDIT is a text-only application and you won't need any
>>graphic video mode functionality, consider adding I=A000-B7FF to the
>>DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS line. That will bump conventional memory
>>from
>>640 to 736K, which is a pretty substantial increase. Again, only
>>helpful if you won't be running any programs that need graphics
>>video
>>modes.
> That only works if the video bios is smart enough to realize that
> the A000 segment of memory is not available. I have had VGA cards
> where that wouldn't work. Of course, I suppose I could revert to a
> CGA card if I had to. And if I could get it to work. :-)
>
That's interesting, I've never run into one that behaved that way. I
should consider myself lucky I suppose (or rather, you unlucky since
I've used this trick on literally dozens of different card models over
the years).
--
Zaphod
Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's
something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the
universe gets that.
Ross Ridge
>I recently upgraded to 4GB of memory. HIMEM.SYS didn't seem to work with
>4GB.
HIMEM.SYS (from Windows 98) appears works for me on my 4GB machine.
I haven't really tested it with anything, but it loads and reports about
3.5GB of extended memory which is what I'd expect.
Rod Pemberton
> Rod Pemberton <do_no...@notreplytome.cmm> wrote:
> >I recently upgraded to 4GB of memory. HIMEM.SYS didn't seem to work with
> >4GB.
>
> HIMEM.SYS (from Windows 98) appears works for me on my 4GB machine.
> I haven't really tested it with anything, but it loads and reports about
> 3.5GB of extended memory which is what I'd expect.
>
Odd... Hangs here.
What parameters?
98? or SE?
The manufacturer says the motherboard is not compatible with 98. Other than
not having drivers for the integrated audio and ethernet, I couldn't find
any problems. Maybe, that is the "incompatible" issue.
RP
Ross Ridge
> HIMEM.SYS (from Windows 98) appears works for me on my 4GB machine.
> I haven't really tested it with anything, but it loads and reports about
> 3.5GB of extended memory which is what I'd expect.
Rod Pemberton <do_no...@notreplytome.cmm> wrote:
>What parameters?
>
>98? or SE?
The original version of Windows 98. No paramaters, basically the same
CONFIG.SYS I mentioned earlier:
device=himem.sys
device=emm386.exe noems
dos=high,umb
My computer isn't supposed to be compatible with Windows 98 either,
but I haven't tested that beyond booting into plain MS-DOS. It's a P55
system I built a year ago.
Todd Vargo
> >"Ross Ridge" <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> HIMEM.SYS (from Windows 98) appears works for me on my 4GB machine.
>> I haven't really tested it with anything, but it loads and reports about
>> 3.5GB of extended memory which is what I'd expect.
>
> Rod Pemberton <do_no...@notreplytome.cmm> wrote:
>>What parameters?
>>
>>98? or SE?
>
> The original version of Windows 98. No paramaters, basically the same
> CONFIG.SYS I mentioned earlier:
>
> device=himem.sys
> device=emm386.exe noems
> dos=high,umb
>
> My computer isn't supposed to be compatible with Windows 98 either,
> but I haven't tested that beyond booting into plain MS-DOS. It's a P55
> system I built a year ago.
Here is interesting reading.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/333688.html
Ross Ridge
>Here is interesting reading.
>http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/333688.html
Yah, that's actually a different problem, Windows 98/ME's disk cache
taking up too much kernel virtual address space and not leaving room for
anything else.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<Zaphod.Ariszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
>news:k0rdn6pgc7h6rv8vd...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:31:34 -0500, "Zaphod Beeblebrox"
>> <Zaphod.Ariszt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Also, if DISKEDIT is a text-only application and you won't need any
>>>graphic video mode functionality, consider adding I=A000-B7FF to the
>>>DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS line. That will bump conventional memory
>>>from
>>>640 to 736K, which is a pretty substantial increase. Again, only
>>>helpful if you won't be running any programs that need graphics
>>>video
>>>modes.
>
>> That only works if the video bios is smart enough to realize that
>> the A000 segment of memory is not available. I have had VGA cards
>> where that wouldn't work. Of course, I suppose I could revert to a
>> CGA card if I had to. And if I could get it to work. :-)
>>
>
>That's interesting, I've never run into one that behaved that way. I
>should consider myself lucky I suppose (or rather, you unlucky since
>I've used this trick on literally dozens of different card models over
>the years).
I think it was a Video 7 Vram II, but it was so long since I sold
that card that I don't remember for sure, anymore.
I haven't tried that stunt in a LONG time as I almost never boot to
raw DOS anymore.
Rod Pemberton
news:ilel44$4cf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
FYI, I posted recent results on that issue. I had to change two values in
system.ini. The changes that worked are at bottom of this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.msdos.programmer/msg/7b33f781e268e85d
Ok, seems I did have HIMEM working with SE, maybe those changes are needed
for DOS also? Now I'm confused...
Rod Pemberton
DOS Guy
Running Windows 98/me with more that 1 gb ram:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=118097
How to install Windows 98 in modern motherboards using more than 1 GB
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=129983
Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM
(hardware and setup used by members who do it)
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118097-day-to-day-running-win-9xme-with-more-than-1-gib-ram/
Important / "Stickified" / Pinned Windows 95/98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME Topics
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/95815-important-stickified-pinned-959898-seme-topics/
Richard Bonner
> I'm trying to run the "DOS" version of Norton's DISKEDIT.EXE program,
> but I'm getting the error "this program too big to fit into memory".
> The program comes from the Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD.
> I realize the program is somewhat large by DOS standards (677,872 bytes)
> and it has me scratching my head as to just how they expected anyone to
> be able to run this program.
*** What version is it? My Norton DISKEDIT's executable is only
132kB in size and requires less than 500Kb of lower memory to start.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> Rod Pemberton <do_no...@notreplytome.cmm> wrote:
> >I recently upgraded to 4GB of memory. HIMEM.SYS didn't seem to work with
> >4GB.
> HIMEM.SYS (from Windows 98) appears works for me on my 4GB machine.
> I haven't really tested it with anything, but it loads and reports about
> 3.5GB of extended memory which is what I'd expect.
> Ross Ridge
*** I don't use GBs of memory, but have noticed that certain memory
modules give trouble on some systems under QEMM. Further, some programs
will not run properly, if at all, under certain memory modules even if I
clean boot. )-:
Richard Bonner
> >>> ...if DISKEDIT is a text-only application and you won't need any
> >>>graphic video mode functionality, consider adding I=A000-B7FF to the
> >>>DEVICE=EMM386.EXE NOEMS line.
> >
> >> That only works if the video bios is smart enough to realize that
> >> the A000 segment of memory is not available. I have had VGA cards
> >> where that wouldn't work. Of course, I suppose I could revert to a
> >> CGA card if I had to. And if I could get it to work. :-)
> >That's interesting, I've never run into one that behaved that way. I
> >should consider myself lucky I suppose (or rather, you unlucky since
> >I've used this trick on literally dozens of different card models over
> >the years).
> I think it was a Video 7 Vram II, but it was so long since I sold
> that card that I don't remember for sure, anymore.
> I haven't tried that stunt in a LONG time as I almost never boot to
> raw DOS anymore.
*** I have never tried it because I always have needed full video
capability.
Regardless, since I switched to QEMM in the early 1990s, I have never
had memory issues, exclusive of the module problems mentioned in a
previous followup. My free lower memory is 641kB + even after a large
number of things are loaded at bootup.
DOS Guy
> *** What version is it? My Norton DISKEDIT's executable is only
> 132kB in size and requires less than 500Kb of lower memory to start.
It's from the Norton System Works 2002 CD.
Here it is if you want to try it:
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
I tried QEMM and didn't really like it.
Also tried Memory Commander - didn't like it either.
I used 386Max which mostly did what I needed.
Richard Bonner
> Richard Bonner wrote:
(Re: DISKEDIT)
> > *** What version is it? My Norton DISKEDIT's executable is only
> > 132kB in size and requires less than 500Kb of lower memory to start.
> It's from the Norton System Works 2002 CD.
> Here it is if you want to try it:
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/DISKEDIT.ZIP
*** Do you have an idea of what it can do that older versions can't?
Richard Bonner
> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> > ...since I switched to QEMM in the early 1990s, I have never
> >had memory issues, exclusive of the module problems mentioned in a
> >previous followup. My free lower memory is 641kB + even after a large
> >number of things are loaded at bootup.
> I tried QEMM and didn't really like it.
*** Do you remember why?
DOS Guy
> > It's from the Norton System Works 2002 CD.
>
> > Here it is if you want to try it:
>
> > http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/DISKEDIT.ZIP
>
> *** Do you have an idea of what it can do that older versions can't?
I don't have any older version of diskedit (at least not on any hard
drives that are not in storage). I don't even know if I've ever used
diskedit before (never really had any reason).
But recently I did have a reason. For those that are aware of the
partition or volume boot records on FAT32 hard drives, the boot records
consist of 3 sectors. There is a byte (or word?) in the first sector
that's supposed to point to the address of the second sector. Normally
this should just be set to 1 (to indicate the very next sector). But
what I've found is that programs like Western Digital Data Lifeguard
that are used to prepare / format WD hard drives, that they set that
byte to 0 for some reason. The only noticable effect of doing that is
that the first command that you perform on a volume (ie - dir, chkdsk,
etc) after you boot the system is that it can take 10, 20, 30 seconds
for the command to complete and show the volume's free space. When set
to 1, there is no delay. So I wanted to use diskedit to manually set
that byte to 1. But I found another program to do that.
The second boot sector contains the number for the next available or
free cluster, as well as the total number of clusters in use. Without
having that information quickly available to it, DOS apparently must
compute the free space as part of performing the first access to the
volume, and it keeps the result in RAM (doesn't write it back to the
2'nd boot sector). All subsequent access to the volume is performed
with no delay until DOS is re-booted.
I'm using WD-DLG to format some large hard drives (400 gb to 1.5 tb)
SATA drives using FAT32 but using custom cluster size (ie - 32 gb volume
with 4kb cluster size). Microsoft crippled format.com in that it always
scales up the cluster size as the size of the volume goes up in order to
prevent the total number of clusters from exceeding 4.177 million, using
some bullshit excuse that DOS scandisk.exe can't scan a volume with more
than 4.177 million clusters. I think that's true - only if you don't
boot with himem.sys and/or have a system with less than maybe 64 mb of
ram. If you have at least 512 mb of ram, I've found that scandisk can
handle a volume with at least up to 120 million clusters (a 500 gb drive
formatted as a single volume using 4kb cluster size).
There are indications that format.com is supposed to have a /Z: command
line parameter to specify the custer size, but I've never found any
version of format.com that supports it.
Rod Pemberton
> Richard Bonner wrote:
>
> I don't have any older version of diskedit (at least not on any hard
> drives that are not in storage). I don't even know if I've ever used
> diskedit before (never really had any reason).
>
I ran across Ben Cadieux's WDe some time ago. It worked for me.
Ben Cadieux's WDe
http://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/disk/wde/wde_v30b.zip
Japheth released a modified version for Windows console/dosbox/NTVDM. I've
not used it.
http://www.japheth.de/Download/wde031.zip
> I'm using WD-DLG to format some large hard drives (400 gb to 1.5 tb)
> SATA drives using FAT32 but using custom cluster size (ie - 32 gb volume
> with 4kb cluster size).
>
Interesting...
What is the smallest cluster size you can format a 1TB+ drive with when
using WD-DLG?
I've been wanting to format very large drives with very small, e.g., 512KB
clusters. Are you able to do some experiments like that for us/me?
Ok, it seems DLG is available for free... That's good.
Is WD-DLG locked so it only works with Western Digital products, or specific
WD device? Will it work with external USB?
Rod Pemberton
Richard Bonner
(Re: DISKEDIT)
> It's from the Norton System Works 2002 CD.
> Here it is if you want to try it:
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/DISKEDIT.ZIP
*** I just did. It runs on my DR-DOS setup with no problem.
I also did not have to rename the file once it expanded. It was already
a .exe extension.
Richard Bonner
> Richard Bonner wrote:
(Re: DISKEDIT)
> > *** Do you have an idea of what it can do that older versions can't?
> I don't have any older version of diskedit (at least not on any hard
> drives that are not in storage). I don't even know if I've ever used
> diskedit before (never really had any reason).
*** I quickly checked both today. The newer one has more options in the
menus. I see it is also FAT 32 capable. I imagine it has other improved
capabilities, too.
Is the entire package available? What about just the HELP file for
DISKEDIT?
(Snip)
> I'm using WD-DLG to format some large hard drives (400 gb to 1.5 tb)
> SATA drives using FAT32 but using custom cluster size (ie - 32 gb volume
> with 4kb cluster size). Microsoft crippled format.com in that it always
> scales up the cluster size as the size of the volume goes up in order to
> prevent the total number of clusters from exceeding 4.177 million, using
> some bullshit excuse that DOS scandisk.exe can't scan a volume with more
> than 4.177 million clusters. I think that's true - only if you don't
> boot with himem.sys and/or have a system with less than maybe 64 mb of
> ram. If you have at least 512 mb of ram, I've found that scandisk can
> handle a volume with at least up to 120 million clusters (a 500 gb drive
> formatted as a single volume using 4kb cluster size).
*** What version of SCANDISK?
Might you be able to use Norton's DISK DOCTOR from that 2002 package?
I'd love to have a FAT-32 capable version that runs in DOS.
> There are indications that format.com is supposed to have a /Z: command
> line parameter to specify the custer size, but I've never found any
> version of format.com that supports it.
*** What about an after-market version? Is there one in the Norton
package?
Richard Bonner
> "DOS Guy" <D...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4D82088E...@Guy.com...
> > I'm using WD-DLG to format some large hard drives (400 gb to 1.5 tb)
(Snip)
> Is WD-DLG locked so it only works with Western Digital products, or specific
> WD device? Will it work with external USB?
>
> Rod Pemberton
*** Is it a DOS program?
DOS Guy
> > I'm using WD-DLG to format some large hard drives (400 gb to
> > 1.5 tb) SATA drives using FAT32 but using custom cluster size
> > (ie - 32 gb volume with 4kb cluster size).
>
> Interesting...
>
> What is the smallest cluster size you can format a 1TB+ drive
> with when using WD-DLG?
A FAT32 volume can have something like 268 million clusters at maximum.
That equates to a volume size of 137 billion bytes (128 gb) if the
clusters were 512 bytes. So I guess you could partition a 1tb drive
into 8 logical volumes, each 128 gb in size and having 512 byte cluster
size.
Note that it doesn't really make any sense if the number of clusters on
a volume far exceeds the maximum number of files you intend to store on
the volume. A useful figure is to probably take the max number of files
you expect to have and multiply that by 4 or 8 to arrive at a useful
cluster-count.
So let's assume 256 thousand files, multiply that by 8, giving 2,097,152
clusters.
Given a volume of 64 gb and 2m clusters (2 x 1024 x 1024), that equates
to a cluster size of 32kb. So you could store 2 million files, each
being any size you want between 1 byte and 32kb on that volume. Even if
all your files were only 16kb in size, are you really going to have more
than 2 million of them?
==============
I have 127,500 files with a collective size of 25,981,545,774 bytes, but
taking up 27,304,280,064 of drive space on a 34 gb FAT32 volume
formatted with 16 kb cluster size. This is the C: drive on the win-98
system I'm using to type this posting. The average file size based on
these numbers is about 200k, but that's probably not guassian
distributed. About 267 files are more than 10 mb, and 25 files are more
than 50 mb. But when you look at the collective size vs size-on-disk,
there's a storage efficiency here of about 95%, even though I have many
files that are 1kb or smaller.
==============
All this is a long winded way of saying that I really don't see a need
to go below 4kb cluster size, and would only use such a cluster size on
a volume where my OS and application files are stored, and would
probably limit that volume to 32 gb in size, and possibly have 2 such
volumes at most. Then I'd have other volumes (probably 256 gb in size)
formatted with 32kb cluster size to store multimedia files.
Unless you had a really special application - like working with millions
of small 1kb files as part of a database or something like that.
> I've been wanting to format very large drives with very small,
> e.g., 512KB clusters. Are you able to do some experiments like
> that for us/me?
The WD-DLG program does allow 512 byte clusters.
> Ok, it seems DLG is available for free... That's good.
Yes it is, but the old floppy-bootable version is hard to find. I
believe the newer windows-based versions to not actually perform any
drive partitioning / formatting.
> Is WD-DLG locked so it only works with Western Digital products
> or specific WD device?
I have found in the past that yes, these drive-prep tools are
manufacturer specific. But Seagate and Maxtor have their own
counterparts.
You'll probably find them on Hiren's boot CD (google for that - you'll
find it).
> Will it work with external USB?
I doubt it.
DOS Guy
> Is the entire package available? What about just the HELP file for
> DISKEDIT?
>
> *** What version of SCANDISK?
Windows 98 version.
> Might you be able to use Norton's DISK DOCTOR from that 2002
> package? I'd love to have a FAT-32 capable version that runs
> in DOS.
There are a number of DOS programs (like ndd, wdscan, backlog, diskedit,
unerase, unformat) contained as part of Norton Utilites that is part of
Norton Systemworks 2002.
The Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD can be downloaded from these links:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/NSW02-A.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/NSW02-B.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/NSW02-C.ZIP
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/19/2010382/NSW02-D.ZIP
The password to unzip each of them is "a". Each file is close to 50 mb
in size.
When unzipped, you'll get
NSW02-1.piz
NSW02-2.piz
NSW02-3.piz
NSW02-4.piz
Rename them each to .zip. They are not password protected.
Create a directory (name doesn't matter) and move files 1, 2 and 3 into
that directory and unzip them into that directory. There should be no
conflicts or warnings to over-write any existing files.
For file 4, move it to the \SUPPORT\IE5 directory and unzip it's
contents into that directory.
When you're done all that, you should have an exact copy of the
directory structure of the NSW 2002 CD. There should be 10 files and 13
folders in the root directory. 590 files, 41 folders, 207 mb.
To install NSW-2002, just run setup.exe in the root.
Notes:
1) Before installing, you should go to add/remove programs in control
panel and check to see if you have any Symantec or Norton products
already there, including LiveUpdate, LiveReg, Norton AntiVirus, Norton
Utilities, or Norton SystemWorks. You will probably have to remove some
or most of them, and then re-boot your computer, for NSW2002 to install
itself correctly. You should also make sure your PC's clock/calendar is
set to the correct date.
2) Once you complete step 1, perform a file-find on your system and look
for a file called "catalog.livesubscribe" or just "catalog.*". If you
find that file (it will be in a norton or symantec directory) then it
must be deleted before you install this software.
3) After installing NSW2002, let it restart your system. There are
several settings in NAV that I turn off - like automatically check for
updates, and warn if virus def's are old. If it gives you the option of
registering the software - don't. It's not necessary for it to
function.
4) If you click on "Check for Updates" you will probably be told that
there is an update to Symantec Redirector, which can be downloaded but
may not install. In any case, it's my experience that both auto and
manual updating (liveupdate button) doesn't work, and hasn't worked
since maybe 2007. But that's ok, because you can download all program
updates and virus definitions from here (Symantec Intelligent Updater):
That file always contains the most recent virus definition update. So
download and run it as often as you want (even once a day if you're
paranoid).
5) After installing NSW 2002, you'll see that NAV 2002 will accept new
virus definition files for the next 366 days. After that, the
Intelligent Updater will not update the product. But that's ok, because
all you need to do is un-install and re-install NSW 2002 to get another
year's worth of functionality (so don't delete these files once you
download them! Keep them on your hard drive or burn them to a CD). One
thing to remember is that after uninstalling it, you will need to delete
the file "catalog.livesubscribe" in order to re-install and re-activate
it for another year.
6) If you have a large hard drive and/or if you've got a FAT-32 volume
with more than the usual 4 million clusters (perhaps a SATA or USB
drive), Norton Disk Doctor and Norton Speed disk are compatible with
volumes with up to 6.3 million clusters, but not more without using the
command-line parameter /NOLBA. When using this parameter, the upper
limit for NDD and SD is somewhere between 7.8 and 31 million clusters.
The switch /NOLBA forces NDD and SD to skip the drive configuration
check. This can also be done with a registry entry by adding a DWORD
registry value named NOLBACHECK at this location:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Symantec\Norton Utilities
When this option is set to 1, Norton Disk Doctor and Speed Disk skip the
drive configuration check.
5) BTW, NAV 2002 runs fine on Win-2K and XP (sp1, 2 and 3).
Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD includes:
- Norton CleanSweep 2002
- Norton AntiVirus 2002
- Norton Utilities 2002
- Roxio GoBack 3.0
- FastSafe (Fast & Safe Cleanup)
- Symantec Process Viewer
- Norton Rescue Disk version 15.0
- Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.50.4134.600
Enjoy
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
(Richard Bonner) wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
>> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>> > ...since I switched to QEMM in the early 1990s, I have never
>> >had memory issues, exclusive of the module problems mentioned in a
>> >previous followup. My free lower memory is 641kB + even after a large
>> >number of things are loaded at bootup.
>
>> I tried QEMM and didn't really like it.
>*** Do you remember why?
I think mostly getting it configured and getting TSRs to load where
I wanted them.
Todd Vargo
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:21:26 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca
> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>
>>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>>
>>> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>>> > ...since I switched to QEMM in the early 1990s, I have never
>>> >had memory issues, exclusive of the module problems mentioned in a
>>> >previous followup. My free lower memory is 641kB + even after a large
>>> >number of things are loaded at bootup.
>>
>>> I tried QEMM and didn't really like it.
>>*** Do you remember why?
> I think mostly getting it configured and getting TSRs to load where
> I wanted them.
In my experience, there is no such thing as one configuration fits all. That
is why multi-config was created.
--
Todd Vargo
(Post questions to group only. Remove "z" to email personal messages)
Trumpet User
>> I'm trying to run the "DOS" version of Norton's DISKEDIT.EXE program,
>> but I'm getting the error "this program too big to fit into memory".
>> The program comes from the Norton SystemWorks 2002 CD.
>>
>> I realize the program is somewhat large by DOS standards (677,872 bytes)
>> and it has me scratching my head as to just how they expected anyone to
>> be able to run this program.
>>
>> executable program I can run while booted into DOS on a system running
>> win-98se.
>>
>> The program does actually run in a DOS window if I launch it while
>> running win-98, but it says that I can't make any disk edits when
>> running under a multi-tasking OS environment.
>>
>> Any ideas how I can get this to run while booted into dos?
>Does the windows software of Norton offer somewhere to produce
>a bootable floppy or cd?
>That shoud solve your problem.
On my DOS 5 machine I can get 618192. That's with DOSMAX, UMBPCI and fully
hand optimized efforts. I could probably stretch that way higher if I
removed all my PATH shortcuts. All the same, if you have over 600k of
conventional memory, you should be able to run everything.
Any program that requires over the nominal base of 640k is a greedy pig.
Since you say it is a Symantec Norton product, it does not surprise me that
it wants to eat all your resources.
If it needs that large of a shell to run, I would have thought it could
use protected mode memory with cwsdpmi.exe included in the folder.
Anyway,
There's a program if you try googling it called 704k.zip. I have never tried
it but apparently it can do this seemingly impossible thing by freeing
up 704k for conventional programs. I'm skeptical - but if you decide to
try it and it works I'd be interested. I'm pretty much through with
trying to get every last byte of conventional memory. The days for
bragging rights over that kind of thing are long gone...
PS - If anyone can find rmvr16.zip or rmv17516.zip post the location here...
thx
--------------------
Trumpet User in DOS --- yep it's true.
DMcCunney
> Unfortunately, Win98SE won't install with 4GB using HIMEMX.SYS.
> Unfortunately, Win98SE won't install with 4GB using Japheth's HIMEMX.EXE
> either. I.e., you must use HIMEM.SYS until the install fails, then switch
> to HIMEMX.EXE to get it to resume. I didn't try other XMS hosts for
> installing Windows. I suspect they'll fail the initial part of the install
> also. I.e., possible "undocumented" MS stuff going on...
It's actually off-topic here (and pointers to or a reply in a more
relevant group are welcome,) but I have a different Win98 install issue.
I was given an old notebook by the owner who upgraded but wanted her old
machine to go to a good home. It's a Fujitsu Lifebook p2110 from 2002.
She commented it was "slow slow slow". Well, no surprise. It has an
867mhz Transmeta CPU, a 40GB UDMA4 HD, and 256MB of RAM, of which the
Transmeta grabs 16MB off the top for code morphing. It came from
Fujitsu with WinXP Pro SP2, which wants 512MB RAM to even think about
working.
I swapped out the original 30GB HD and replaced it with a 40GB with
similar specs from the SO's dead laptop, repartitioned, and set it up to
quad boot with Win2K Pro, Ubuntu Linux, Puppy Linux, and FreeDOS.
Ubuntu and Puppy aren't speed demons, but run well enough. FreeDOS
flies. Win2K is frozen snail slow, and appears to have been broken
badly by a recent A/V update. (It was the only recent change, and I
can't see what else did it.)
I'd like to replace it with Win98SE, with the open source KernelEx
package, which looks like it will let me run enough of the 32 bit
Windows apps I use to be adequate in the cases where I need to use
Windows on the box for something. The problem is, Win98 insists on
wanting to reformat the drive, and I haven't found a way to tell it
"Install to *this* partition." It can reformat that all it wants, but
wiping and redoing the entire machine is more trouble than I feel like
taking.
One issue may be that I chose to install Win2K on an NTFS file system.
I found a utility that will convert NTFS->FAT32, and got the impression
Win98 might just see that as a usable partition and install to it if I
did so.
Suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
> Rod Pemberton
______
Dennis
98 Guy
> It's actually off-topic here (and pointers to or a reply in a more
> relevant group are welcome,) but I have a different Win98 install
> issue.
Pointers to a more relevant group?
How about:
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion or alt.windows98?
Of the 3 groups you posted this to, I'd say that comp.os.msdos.misc is
the least active, followed closely by alt.msdos.
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion is very active (or it can be from
time to time).
> I was given an old notebook by the owner who upgraded but wanted her
> old machine to go to a good home. It's a Fujitsu Lifebook p2110
> from 2002.
> She commented it was "slow slow slow". Well, no surprise. It has
> an 867mhz Transmeta CPU, a 40GB UDMA4 HD, and 256MB of RAM, of
> which the Transmeta grabs 16MB off the top for code morphing.
> It came from Fujitsu with WinXP Pro SP2,
It could not have come from Fujitsu with SP2 back in 2002. SP2 came out
in 2004.
> which wants 512MB RAM to even think about working.
XP (SP0 and SP1) will install and run on as little as 256 mb of ram -
and probably less if you can tolerate it.
> I'd like to replace it with Win98SE, with the open source KernelEx
> package, which looks like it will let me run enough of the 32 bit
> Windows apps I use to be adequate in the cases where I need to use
> Windows on the box for something. The problem is, Win98 insists on
> wanting to reformat the drive, and I haven't found a way to tell it
> "Install to *this* partition."
Win98 will NOT insist on reformatting if you have a FAT32 volume it can
detect.
> One issue may be that I chose to install Win2K on an NTFS file
> system.
You claim to have several OS's on the drive - presumably not all of them
are NTFS. Or are they?
I make it a habbit of installing XP on FAT32-formatted drives on old
systems with poor specs. FAT32 is faster and more accessible /
controllable / workable compared to NTFS. I hate NTFS. It's claimed
benefits over FAT32 are largely illusionary for home and SOHO users.
> I found a utility that will convert NTFS->FAT32, and got the
> impression Win98 might just see that as a usable partition and
> install to it if I did so.
>
> Suggestions?
Boot the machine using an MS-DOS floppy that was created from a system
that has win-98 on it (I assume you know how to open a DOS window from
Win-98 and enter the command "format a: /s" ?
Copy fdisk.exe and format.com to the floppy and then take the floppy to
your ancient laptop and boot the laptop from it. Run fdisk and see if
fdisk can identify the partition or volume that you want to re-format as
FAT32, and tell fdisk to delete the volume. Then reboot from the
floppy, run fdisk again, and tell fdisk to create a new FAT32 volume
using the space freed up by the previous delete operation. Then reboot
again, and this time format your new volume using format.com.
A faster way to do all this is to remove the drive from the laptop and
connect it as a slave to another windows system (could be a win-XP or
win-98 system) and perform these operations on the drive while it's
connected as a slave. When you have your FAT32 volume on the drive,
copy the contents of the win-98 installation CD to the drive before
re-installing the drive into the laptop. If you do that, the install of
win-98 will be much faster when you run it from the hard drive.
DMcCunney
> DMcCunney wrote:
>
>> It's actually off-topic here (and pointers to or a reply in a more
>> relevant group are welcome,) but I have a different Win98 install
>> issue.
>
> Pointers to a more relevant group?
>
> How about:
>
> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion or alt.windows98?
>
> Of the 3 groups you posted this to, I'd say that comp.os.msdos.misc is
> the least active, followed closely by alt.msdos.
>
> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion is very active (or it can be from
> time to time).
Thank you.
>> I was given an old notebook by the owner who upgraded but wanted her
>> old machine to go to a good home. It's a Fujitsu Lifebook p2110
>> from 2002.
>
>> She commented it was "slow slow slow". Well, no surprise. It has
>> an 867mhz Transmeta CPU, a 40GB UDMA4 HD, and 256MB of RAM, of
>> which the Transmeta grabs 16MB off the top for code morphing.
>
>> It came from Fujitsu with WinXP Pro SP2,
>
> It could not have come from Fujitsu with SP2 back in 2002. SP2 came out
> in 2004.
It came with XP Pro SP2. The Lifebook model dates from 2002. The
particular machine may have been made later, or the original owner might
have applied the service packs.
>> which wants 512MB RAM to even think about working.
>
> XP (SP0 and SP1) will install and run on as little as 256 mb of ram -
Unfortunately, I don't have SP0 or SP1.
> and probably less if you can tolerate it.
Gack. I couldn't tolerate it with SP2, which is why I switched.
>> I'd like to replace it with Win98SE, with the open source KernelEx
>> package, which looks like it will let me run enough of the 32 bit
>> Windows apps I use to be adequate in the cases where I need to use
>> Windows on the box for something. The problem is, Win98 insists on
>> wanting to reformat the drive, and I haven't found a way to tell it
>> "Install to *this* partition."
>
> Win98 will NOT insist on reformatting if you have a FAT32 volume it can
> detect.
That's what I suspected, and why I thought converting NTFS->FAT32 would
be a solution.
I do have a FAT32 partition on the box - there's a 2GB slice FreeDOS is
installed to, originally intended as a common partition anything could read.
>> One issue may be that I chose to install Win2K on an NTFS file
>> system.
>
> You claim to have several OS's on the drive - presumably not all of them
> are NTFS. Or are they?
I have Win2K Pro, two variants of Linux, and FreeDOS. FreeDOS won't
install on/read an NTFS file system. It's on FAT32 here. Linux will
read/write an NTFS file system but installing on it (unless you use
something like Ubuntu WUBI) is another matter. So one NTFS partition.
> I make it a habbit of installing XP on FAT32-formatted drives on old
> systems with poor specs. FAT32 is faster and more accessible /
> controllable / workable compared to NTFS. I hate NTFS. It's claimed
> benefits over FAT32 are largely illusionary for home and SOHO users.
I can't agree. NTFS is a *lot* more robust, and I haven't seen speed
issues. If I have a problem that seriously corrupts the file system on
NTFS, CHKDSK will normally find everything and put it back where it came
from under its proper name. FAT16/FAT32 is another matter, and the
"repair" might leave me worse off than the original problem. (I speak
from grim experience.)
NTFS also supports user level permissions, and NTFS5 supports Unix style
hard links (Vista/Win7 support true symbolic links as well.) I make use
of both of those abilities.
If the box is that low end, I won't install XP on it at all. I
shouldn't have chosen 2K for the old notebook.
>> I found a utility that will convert NTFS->FAT32, and got the
>> impression Win98 might just see that as a usable partition and
>> install to it if I did so.
>>
>> Suggestions?
>
> Boot the machine using an MS-DOS floppy that was created from a system
> that has win-98 on it (I assume you know how to open a DOS window from
> Win-98 and enter the command "format a: /s" ?
Assume I already have an MS-DOS boot disk. I started using DOS in the
MS-DOS 2.X days, and have maintained fluency.
> Copy fdisk.exe and format.com to the floppy and then take the floppy to
> your ancient laptop and boot the laptop from it. Run fdisk and see if
> fdisk can identify the partition or volume that you want to re-format as
> FAT32, and tell fdisk to delete the volume. Then reboot from the
> floppy, run fdisk again, and tell fdisk to create a new FAT32 volume
> using the space freed up by the previous delete operation. Then reboot
> again, and this time format your new volume using format.com.
Okay. That would also work. But I have data on the NTFS volume I'd
prefer not to lose. It's on the NTFS volume because that's the largest
slice, but accessed from Linux as well.
> A faster way to do all this is to remove the drive from the laptop and
> connect it as a slave to another windows system (could be a win-XP or
> win-98 system) and perform these operations on the drive while it's
> connected as a slave. When you have your FAT32 volume on the drive,
> copy the contents of the win-98 installation CD to the drive before
> re-installing the drive into the laptop. If you do that, the install of
> win-98 will be much faster when you run it from the hard drive.
I can do that, too. I have a laptop->IDE adapter, and can plug the
laptop drive into an IDE channel on my desktop.
You've confirmed what I suspected, and I can proceed. I just need to
make the NTFS partition FAT32, and there are several ways I could do that.
Thank you.
______
Dennis
98 Guy
> > I make it a habbit of installing XP on FAT32-formatted drives on
> > old systems with poor specs. FAT32 is faster and more accessible
> > / controllable / workable compared to NTFS. I hate NTFS. It's
> > claimed benefits over FAT32 are largely illusionary for home and
> > SOHO users.
>
> I can't agree. NTFS is a *lot* more robust, and I haven't seen
> speed issues.
You have a laptop manufactured in 2002. With some wierd-ass bastardized
i86 CPU to boot. Of course you have speed issues.
FAT32 is faster than NTFS no matter how you cut it. Journalling =
overhead.
I don't really want to to take this thread on a tangent, but I've
posted some comments (far below) about the true nature of the FAT32 vs
NTFS issue.
> If I have a problem that seriously corrupts the file system on
> NTFS, CHKDSK will normally find everything and put it back where
> it came from under its proper name. FAT16/FAT32 is another matter
You are quite misinformed about the repairability of FAT32 (I don't use
fat16, and you shouldn't confuse or equate FAT16 with FAT32 from a
feature, performance or capability point of view).
> If the box is that low end, I won't install XP on it at all.
> I shouldn't have chosen 2K for the old notebook.
The joke about 2K and XP is that unless you're behind a NAT-router, the
minute you install 2K or XP from original the original CD and go on-line
to perform a WindozeUpdate, your system will be infected by network worm
before it has a chance to fully download and install any security
updates or patches (this is known as the "Windows Survival Time" and is
well documented and graphed). Windows 98 has no such vulnerabilities
along those lines, and in general Win-98 is far more invulnerable to a
wide variety of heap-spray and buffer-overflow exploits that commonly
brought down and infected 2K and XP between the years 2003 and 2007.
> You've confirmed what I suspected, and I can proceed. I just need
> to make the NTFS partition FAT32, and there are several ways I
> could do that.
>
> Thank you.
No problem.
=======================
NTFS vs FAT32
Journaling doesn't preserve data, nor does it prevent an unintended
file-system event from happening. What journaling does is to make sure
the file system is "clean" after the event happens. And it also makes
sure that any partial data is completely lost after the event has
happened.
Try reading the following (written by CQuirke, a current (or former?) MS
MVP):
http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-file-system-or-incompetent-os.html
http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/ntfs-vs-fatxx-data-recovery.html
http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-bad-sector-often-kills-you.html
http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
Specifically, take note of the following comments:
=======================
Claim:
- "NTFS may be safer..."
- "transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations"
Fact:
Your file system is returned to the same state it had before the
interruption. New data that existed during the interruption that was
being written will be lost. NTFS sacrifices orphaned data at the
expense of maintaining a "clean" cluster allocation. FAT32 can't
roll-back incomplete transactions, so data that was being written can be
recovered, but it comes because of the unintended creation of lost
clusters or chains which can lead to a "messy" cluster allocation
--> but rarely (if ever) a disfunctional file system.<--
========================
My comment:
Journalling does not result in or increase file recoverability. System
files are never journaled because they're never written or over-written
or re-written. Journalling serves only to clean up any mess that's left
behind if a file-write operation is improperly terminated. System
files, apps, DLL's and other program-code files are rarely re-written
during normal use. Only temp data files, pagefile, user data files,
internet-sourced data caching are subject to file-writing. A lot of
that is garbage and not desirable anyways when the system goes down and
needs to be restarted. That's why .chk files are largely useless, and
that's also why the file system is still perfectly usable even if those
.chk files were never created and the lost clusters remained lost.
User data will be sacrificed for the sake of maintaining file system
integrity. That is a weakness of NTFS (that it is so easily made
vulnerable by incomplete file transactions).
On the other hand, FAT32's integrity is not comprimised by incomplete
file transactions, even if it does lead to the creation of lost
fragments.
If you read CQuirke's commentary, he makes a point of saying that there
are planned and unplanned file-system events and that NTFS is given more
credit for "saving" a file system from unplanned events than it actually
accomplishes. A system (or drive) that loses power (for what-ever
reason) is exactly the reason that you look to the design of the file
system and assess it's claims of "robustness" or recovery potential.
If an NTFS volume has to be rolled back to a journaled state (for
what-ever reason), then the odds are high that some user data will be
lost - assuming there was a user sitting at the keyboard creating data
that was being periodically saved, or perhaps it's a server that was
receiving network data or a file or an e-mail or it was writing data to
a log file.
I honestly don't see the benefit of journaling, seeing that I've never
encountered a situation on a FAT32 drive where journaling would have
made any difference or would have been desirable.
CQuirke:
===================
Some recovery tools (including anything DOS-based, such as DiskEdit and
ReadNTFS)can't be safely used beyond the 137G line, so it is best to
keep crucial material within this limit. Because ReadNTFS is one of the
only tools that accesses NTFS files independently of the NTFS.sys
driver, it may be the only way into to NTFS volumes corrupted in ways
that crash NTFS.sys!
Given the poor results I see when recovering data from NTFS, I'd have to
recommend using FAT32 rather than NTFS as a data survivability
strategy.
====================
While CQuirke quite correctly observes the XP can't format a FAT32
volume larger than 32gb, it's been my experience that when a FAT32
volume (or drive) of any size is pre-formatted and then presented to XP,
that XP has no problems mounting and using the volume / drive, and XP
can even be installed on and operate from such a volume / drive.
He also mentions the 137 gb volume size issue that is associated with
FAT32, but that association is false. It originates from the fact that
the 32-bit protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) used by win-98 has a
"flaw" that prevents it from correctly addressing sectors beyond the 137
gb point on the drive. There are several work-around for this (third
party replacement for that driver, the use of SATA raid mode, etc) but
that issue is relavent only to win-98 and how it handles large FAT32
volumes, not how XP handles large FAT32 volumes.
And note that NTFS is proprietary and un-documented at the byte level.
Not exactly something that give me a lot of confidence when it comes to
competent third-party recovery tools. In fact, because NTFS's file
system is "sprawled" out and distributed across the entire volume, it
can be more difficult to piece together when it fails.
Again, from CQuirke:
===========================
More to the point, accessibility is fragile with NTFS. Almost all OSs
depend on NTFS.SYS to access NTFS, whether these be XP (including Safe
Command Only), the bootable XP CD (including Recovery Console), Bart PE
CDR, MS WinPE, Linux that uses the "capture" approach to shelling
NTFS.SYS, or SystemInternals' "Pro" (writable) feeware NTFS drivers for
DOS mode and Win9x GUI.
FATxx concentrates all "raw" file system structure at the front of the
disk, making it possible to backup and drop in variations of this
structure while leaving file contents undisturbed. For example, if the
FATs are botched, you can drop in alternate FATs (i.e. using different
repair strategies) and copy off the data under each. It also means the
state of the file system can be snapshotted in quite a small footprint.
In contrast, NTFS sprawls its file system structure all over the place,
mixed in with the data space. This may remove the performance impact of
"back to base" head travel, but it means the whole volume has to be
raw-imaged off to preserve the file system state. This is one of several
compelling arguments in favor of small volumes, if planning for
survivability.
============================
What FAT32 can't do is provide user-level file permissions and
encryption. If you need that, then it means your drive exists in an
environment where you can't physically secure your PC from access by
others, and if you live or work in such an environment then I feel sorry
for you.
User permissions, rights, etc, have no place on a consumer desktop or
laptop PC. The concept is absurd, always has been, but Micro$haft had
no choice when they took their corporate / institutional / gov't
-certified OS (NT and it's derivatives) and shoved it down consumer's
throats. And it did consumers absolutely zero good having those
"features" when their machines got hacked and became spam zombies during
2003 - 2006.
Unlike most IT-centric people who migrated away from Win-9x the moment
that win-2k came out, I continued to run win-9x on dozens of PC's during
the past 10 years, and I've seen the huge improvements in performance
and stability that came with better hardware, more system memory, better
motherboards and video cards, and better drivers for win-9x towards the
end of it's commercial life (circa 2006).
Those that left win-98 back in 2000 or 2001 have only bad memories of an
OS trying to run on 16 or 32 mb of memory with buggy AGP video drivers
that left their system hanging and resulted in many scandisk sessions
and .chk files.
I have never lost data on a FAT-32 drive due to logical file-table
errors that could not be fixed or repaired. For the past 5 years I
really haven't had to run scandisk on any win-98 system - period.
You've got to understand the original purpose of NTFS back when it was
designed in the early 1990's.
Hard drives were less reliable than they would be by the early 2000's.
They did not have automatic bad-sector remapping, or in-drive caching.
Journaling in NTFS was designed to overcome the pathetic fault-tolerance
and failure rates of the hard drives of that age.
NTFS was initially going to find it's way onto servers, where I agree
that multi-threaded apps, multi-user file access, and general file-level
coherency was going to be important (and where files were more likely to
cross the 4gb threshold).
A lot of people have a misconception of journaling. If there is an
interruption or hardware failure that causes the system to shut down
(not just a failure that occurrs during a write operation), your file
system is returned to the same state it had before the interruption.
New data that existed during the interruption that was being written
will be lost. NTFS sacrifices orphaned data at the expense of
maintaining a "clean" cluster allocation. FAT32 can't roll-back
incomplete transactions, so data that was being written can be
recovered, but it comes because of the unintended creation of lost
clusters or chains which can lead to a "messy" cluster allocation but
rarely (if ever) a disfunctional file system.
The primary feature of NTFS is, by design, that you can't gain
file-system access without booting the GUI and logging into the system
(or at least that's how Microsoft deployed it). I don't particularly
care for that, given that I work in a home and soho environment.
FAT32 also gets a bad rap because Microsoft chose to increase cluster
size along with volume size, which is completely unnecessary.
I've formatted up to 500 gb FAT32 volumes using 4kb cluster size and
installed both Win-98 and XP on such volumes (!). Win-98 functions
pretty well given that configuration - aside from the fact that defrag
and scandskw can't deal with so many clusters (but DOS checkdsk can).
Rod Pemberton
news:iv0abq$qk4$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> I'd like to replace it with Win98SE, with the open source KernelEx
> package,
>
I've had that combination on 3 machines.
One of them died. It was an AMD cpu (500Mhz), so it was missing SSE/2
instructions which caused problems with Flash 9 series. On the MSFN forum
in Kernelex thread, they mention instruction extenders for Win98: P6CPU,
P3CPU, and FineSSE. They are downloadable from the forum, i.e., you need an
acount. They are on the attachments page on one of the threads there. I'm
not sure why they aren't on MGDX's site.
On the other older machine (Intel 450Mhz), it's just barely fast enough
anymore to handle the browsers that Kernelex allows running. It doesn't
seem to have problems with Flash 9 series. I stopped updating Flash at 10.2
since posts on the MSFN forums say Flash 10.3 needs a much more recent cpu:
Intel Pentium 4 2.33GHz, Athlon 64 2800+.
On my "modern" (it's a few years old now...) machine (2.8Ghz) running as a
single-core (due to Win98), the combination works great, very fast. But,
you may have issues getting Win98 drivers for your hardware. I had a
nightmare getting Win98 onto it. This was mostly because it was using BIOS
IDE emulation, but also needed the SATA inf files (for XP or 2K) to be
installed. I also had to get a hacked version of video drivers, and disable
on-motherboard sound and ethernet in the BIOS. Fortunately, I had cards for
both that are Win98 compatible. You will not have SATA support for
cdroms/dvdroms. On a modern motherboard, the BIOS will do SATA->IDE
translation for the boot drive only. You will not have dual-core or
multiple core. Win98 doesn't support this. So, you'll have one or more
cores going unused. I've got the following non-Win98 software running:
Java update 1.6.0 update 26 (w/FF 3.5.19 or IE6)
Mozilla Firefox 3.5.19 w/Java
Mozilla Firefox 4. (no Java)
Opera 11.50 (no Java)
(also IE6 w/Java)
Flash 10.3.181.22 (Moz FF, Opera)
Flash 10.3.181.23 (IE6)
VLC 1.1.10
It looks like I need to update Flash again, 10.3.181.34...
I would recommend the Opera 11.50 browser because it's very fast and it's
less intensive on Win98. Mozilla Firefox (FF) on the 500Mhz machine does
loads of disk throughput... However, Mozilla Firefox (FF) has fewer page
rendering errors, but I sometimes get a graphics corruption problems with it
on the modern machine. I haven't seen this issue on the old machine. With
the 3.5.x series of FF (last is 3.5.19), you can also use Java. Java will
not work with Kernelex on Opera or FF 4.0 series. This is a Kernelex
unsupported issue. You must disable a setting in the Java control panel
enabling the modern plugin as well as renaming or deleting the modern plugin
Java directory (Program Files\Java\jre6\bin\new_plugin). The Java install
will fail. You have to locate the .msi file in the windows directory after
the failure and use it to install. I haven't tried the FF 5.0 series since
a beta version really messed up my video modes. That was with 4.5 final
though.
Before installing Kernelex, I would make sure that you've done the
following:
install unicows.exe
install SEPS30B4.EXE
install NUSB33.EXE
http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php
You may want to possibly try USB20DRV.EXE too, but it downgrades one USB
file.
Before installing Opera, you may want to do the following too:
install the ethernet drivers
install InstMsiA.exe
set Kernelex's compatibility mode to Win2K instead of WinXP (known mistake)
Some links to InstMsiA in a post here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/20079-bitdefender-72-free/
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/
http://www.mdgx.com/
> The problem is, Win98 insists on
> wanting to reformat the drive, and I haven't found a way to tell it
> "Install to *this* partition." It can reformat that all it wants, but
> wiping and redoing the entire machine is more trouble than I feel like
> taking.
>
You probably need a FAT32 partition. As you stated elsewhere, you have one
for FreeDOS. Apparently, Win98 install didn't detect it. That's not good.
The issue *may* be that the FAT32 partition needs to be the first partition.
Alternately, if you had a FAT32 partition with a Windows directory, it might
be detecting the Windows directory.
> One issue may be that I chose to install Win2K on an NTFS file system.
> I found a utility that will convert NTFS->FAT32, and got the impression
> Win98 might just see that as a usable partition and install to it if I
> did so.
>
You can try that.
FYI, I once tried to install to an external USB harddrive. Win98 install
kept resetting the USB controller. So, I installed to a harddisk and then
copied to the external USB. I could never get into Windows, even safe mode.
The harddisk install had USB drivers installed correctly too.
Rod Pemberton
Jim Leonard
> Journalling does not result in or increase file recoverability.
Correct. It increases filesystem recoverability, not file
recoverability.
> User data will be sacrificed for the sake of maintaining file system
> integrity. That is a weakness of NTFS (that it is so easily made
> vulnerable by incomplete file transactions).
Wait, what? Journaling decreases vulnerability, not increases it. I
don't think you don't really understand how journaling works. Most
journaling filesystem maintain an intent log, which means they write
what they're going to do to the intent log before they actually do
it. Then they perform the intended action, and then they clear that
action from the intent log. You can interrupt this process at any
time and the filesystem has the necessary data to either complete or
roll-back incomplete transactions, ensuring a consistent filesystem.
> On the other hand, FAT32's integrity is not comprimised by incomplete
> file transactions, even if it does lead to the creation of lost
> fragments.
"lost fragments" *are* a decrease in integrity. If the filesystem
were in perfect condition, all allocated clusters would be accounted
for. This is a design flaw in FAT-based filesystems.
> If an NTFS volume has to be rolled back to a journaled state (for
> what-ever reason), then the odds are high that some user data will be
> lost - assuming there was a user sitting at the keyboard creating data
> that was being periodically saved, or perhaps it's a server that was
> receiving network data or a file or an e-mail or it was writing data to
> a log file.
If the save never completed properly, and the data is not in a usable
form, is it useful to the user?
> I honestly don't see the benefit of journaling, seeing that I've never
> encountered a situation on a FAT32 drive where journaling would have
> made any difference or would have been desirable.
You are a statistical sample of one. This is equivalent to "It has
never mattered for me, so it must not matter to anyone."
> CQuirke:
> ===================
> Given the poor results I see when recovering data from NTFS, I'd have to
> recommend using FAT32 rather than NTFS as a data survivability
> strategy.
> ====================
Well, he's wrong too. Backups, UPSes, and mirroring are much more
reliable and viable data survivability strategies than your choice of
production filesystem.
> He also mentions the 137 gb volume size issue that is associated with
> FAT32, but that association is false. It originates from the fact that
> the 32-bit protected mode driver (ESDI_506.PDR) used by win-98 has a
> "flaw" that prevents it from correctly addressing sectors beyond the 137
> gb point on the drive. There are several work-around for this (third
> party replacement for that driver, the use of SATA raid mode, etc) but
> that issue is relavent only to win-98 and how it handles large FAT32
> volumes, not how XP handles large FAT32 volumes.
The more practical problem is no files over 4gig and no drives over
2T. The 4G limit makes it unusable for most video applications
(capture/editing, DVD imaging, etc.)
> In fact, because NTFS's file
> system is "sprawled" out and distributed across the entire volume, it
> can be more difficult to piece together when it fails.
Thanks to journaling, it doesn't need to be pieced together.
> User permissions, rights, etc, have no place on a consumer desktop or
> laptop PC.
Because laptops are notoriously difficult to steal?