New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Ok, As most of you know, I had a partition go bad on one of my drives
and I lost much of the data on it, because I did not have a current backup. I got rid of that hard drive, even after a re-format showed it to be usable and not have bad sectors. This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001. which originally came with Windows 2000. I've upgraded this machine many times and have used it for years. I do have Win2000 dual bootable on it, but 95% of the time I boot and use Win98se. (I have this crossposted to the XP group because of the lack of activity on the Win98 group). Anyhow, after that partition got damaged, I unplugged that second hard drive (Slave drive) and just used the first drive (bootable one). The first drive is a 120gb with four partitions. The second drive was also a 120gb with three partitions. The partition that went bad, was the G: partition (first partition on second HDD). I have not had any problems with the first HDD at all. After removing that defective second HDD, I put it aside hoping to recover data from it, and I plugged a 160gb HDD into the second IDE connector and partitioned it. It did not take long for that second drive to give me error messsages showing data corruption. I did not have much on that drive, so I just copied it to space on the first HDD. I did however, suspect that was because I know that Win98 does not allow drives larger than 120gb (actually 132gb). I bought another 120gb drive, and just recently installed it. I had not yet put my original data back on it, nor my rebuilt data from G: (which I all have on en external USB drive). This new drive was partitioned into three partitions again. (G: H: I:). The G: pattition was still empty. The H: partition I was using for downloading, and contained about 25 downloads, mostly just small .JPG files and a few .PDF files. The I: partition contained a copy of my Agent newsreader which I copied there, as a backup, while I was changing some of Agent's settings. Yesterday I was defragging the first drive's partitions, when I decided to defrag the H: partition, since I had moved around some of the downloaded files. DEFRAG told me this partition had errors and I needed to run Scandisk. Scandisk reported crosslinked files between the DOWNLOAD folder and the RECYCLED folder. (Note, I DO NOT use the Recycled folder, I have it set to immediately delete files. I ran NORTON DISK DOCTOR (rather than Scandisk) to fix this, and it did fix it, but then said that the RECYCLED folder existed but had no space on the HDD. I could not delete the Recycled folder. Since I had already copied all my downloads to another place (as a backup), I just reformatted that H: partition. For the heck of it, I ran DEFRAG on the I: partition (which only contained a backup of my AGENT folder. -Once again, I got a notice to run Scandisk, which showed duplicates of ALL these files in the RECYCLED folder. And said it contained crosslinked files. Since I did not need that backup of Agent anymore, I just reformatted that partition too. Why is this second HDD getting all corrupted? This is a new drive, and I also replaced the IDE cable with a new one (with 80 wires, rather than the old one that had 40 wires). I'm starting to wonder if the motherboard itself is failing (or at least the built in IDE board portion of it). I do have the drive jumpers set properly, to MASTER on the first HDD and to SLAVE on the second drive. I have run two HDDs on this computer for years with no problems. Now it seems I can not run a second SLAVE drive. Any ideas what might be causing this? |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Flaky cable ? Replace.
Flaky connector on the controller ? Switch to a different port. Noisy power supply ? Replace. Have another drive port ? Then switch. Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ? Bad Karma ? |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:50:51 -0800, FreeMan wrote:
Flaky cable ? Replace. I just did... Flaky connector on the controller ? Switch to a different port. If this was the case, I dont think the first drive would work either. Noisy power supply ? Replace. ????? Have another drive port ? Then switch. That is where the CD drive is plugged in. Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ? Drive is not even in the case, it's outside of it Bad Karma ? I dont believe in this sort of thing. One thing I did notice. The jumper on the First drive is set to CS (cable select), not to Master (Master uses NO jumper). I'm wondering if the second drive should also be set to CS, instead of SLAVE. Or maybe I should use the actual Master and Slave jumpers??? I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older drives never had that setting. Maybe it's just anoither way to **** things up... It kind of seems senseless anyhow. I know the second drive comes first on the cable, but the plug itself is the same wiring. How the hell can the computer KNOW which drive is which. The only difference is about 5" more length to the wires. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 12:26:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Ok, As most of you know, I had a partition go bad on one of my drives and I lost much of the data on it, because I did not have a current backup. I got rid of that hard drive, even after a re-format showed it to be usable and not have bad sectors. This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001. which originally came with Windows 2000. I've upgraded this machine many times and have used it for years. I do have Win2000 dual bootable on it, but 95% of the time I boot and use Win98se. (I have this crossposted to the XP group because of the lack of activity on the Win98 group). Anyhow, after that partition got damaged, I unplugged that second hard drive (Slave drive) and just used the first drive (bootable one). The first drive is a 120gb with four partitions. The second drive was also a 120gb with three partitions. The partition that went bad, was the G: partition (first partition on second HDD). I have not had any problems with the first HDD at all. After removing that defective second HDD, I put it aside hoping to recover data from it, and I plugged a 160gb HDD into the second IDE connector and partitioned it. It did not take long for that second drive to give me error messsages showing data corruption. I did not have much on that drive, so I just copied it to space on the first HDD. I did however, suspect that was because I know that Win98 does not allow drives larger than 120gb (actually 132gb). I bought another 120gb drive, and just recently installed it. I had not yet put my original data back on it, nor my rebuilt data from G: (which I all have on en external USB drive). This new drive was partitioned into three partitions again. (G: H: I:). The G: pattition was still empty. The H: partition I was using for downloading, and contained about 25 downloads, mostly just small .JPG files and a few .PDF files. The I: partition contained a copy of my Agent newsreader which I copied there, as a backup, while I was changing some of Agent's settings. Yesterday I was defragging the first drive's partitions, when I decided to defrag the H: partition, since I had moved around some of the downloaded files. DEFRAG told me this partition had errors and I needed to run Scandisk. Scandisk reported crosslinked files between the DOWNLOAD folder and the RECYCLED folder. (Note, I DO NOT use the Recycled folder, I have it set to immediately delete files. I ran NORTON DISK DOCTOR (rather than Scandisk) to fix this, and it did fix it, but then said that the RECYCLED folder existed but had no space on the HDD. I could not delete the Recycled folder. Since I had already copied all my downloads to another place (as a backup), I just reformatted that H: partition. For the heck of it, I ran DEFRAG on the I: partition (which only contained a backup of my AGENT folder. -Once again, I got a notice to run Scandisk, which showed duplicates of ALL these files in the RECYCLED folder. And said it contained crosslinked files. Since I did not need that backup of Agent anymore, I just reformatted that partition too. Why is this second HDD getting all corrupted? This is a new drive, and I also replaced the IDE cable with a new one (with 80 wires, rather than the old one that had 40 wires). I'm starting to wonder if the motherboard itself is failing (or at least the built in IDE board portion of it). I do have the drive jumpers set properly, to MASTER on the first HDD and to SLAVE on the second drive. I have run two HDDs on this computer for years with no problems. Now it seems I can not run a second SLAVE drive. Any ideas what might be causing this? What is the date on your C:/IO.SYS file? There was an update released to fix bad error message transfer from hard drives into DOS and it fixes some 48 bit LBA issues too. 2001 is patched date.. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...ardware-errors R. Loew also has more patches, pay for, demo and free concerning the 48bit LBA issue, up to 145 GB is free in one demo offering. http://rloew.x10host.com/ PATCHPAR is free and concerns partition corruption particularly. I use several here ((2)500Gb hard drives), dual boot XP - 98se, 2GB ram, they all work, he is a genius. 3.09 Ghz Pentium 4 Hyper threading 98se installation time is 15 minutes flat to a working desktop. Boot up time is a hoot, but unfortunately I've forgotten the exact seconds needed to get to a working desktop there. Cable Select jumper does work but only with 80 pin cables and a controller designed for that system. Both drives are set to CS and master is the end drive while slave is the one in the middle. Mix and match jumper method you are using may give the results you are complaining about. Just my guess there, mine here would not play right until I set both drives for CS and let the controller figure it out all by it's lonesome. I certainly would look into and catalog links for up to 2TB storage use with win98 despite what any outdated MS page says about FAT32 - they don't support it and won't be going back to correct a single word archived. Cable Select secret is that one of the extra 40 'guard' ground wires is actually a drive select signal. Long gone are the days where this would be the first sentence in 'welcome to Cable Select' intro. WE are not qualified you see. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
wrote:
Ok, As most of you know, I had a partition go bad on one of my drives and I lost much of the data on it, because I did not have a current backup. I got rid of that hard drive, even after a re-format showed it to be usable and not have bad sectors. This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001. which originally came with Windows 2000. I've upgraded this machine many times and have used it for years. I do have Win2000 dual bootable on it, but 95% of the time I boot and use Win98se. (I have this crossposted to the XP group because of the lack of activity on the Win98 group). Anyhow, after that partition got damaged, I unplugged that second hard drive (Slave drive) and just used the first drive (bootable one). The first drive is a 120gb with four partitions. The second drive was also a 120gb with three partitions. The partition that went bad, was the G: partition (first partition on second HDD). I have not had any problems with the first HDD at all. After removing that defective second HDD, I put it aside hoping to recover data from it, and I plugged a 160gb HDD into the second IDE connector and partitioned it. It did not take long for that second drive to give me error messsages showing data corruption. I did not have much on that drive, so I just copied it to space on the first HDD. I did however, suspect that was because I know that Win98 does not allow drives larger than 120gb (actually 132gb). I bought another 120gb drive, and just recently installed it. I had not yet put my original data back on it, nor my rebuilt data from G: (which I all have on en external USB drive). This new drive was partitioned into three partitions again. (G: H: I:). The G: pattition was still empty. The H: partition I was using for downloading, and contained about 25 downloads, mostly just small .JPG files and a few .PDF files. The I: partition contained a copy of my Agent newsreader which I copied there, as a backup, while I was changing some of Agent's settings. Yesterday I was defragging the first drive's partitions, when I decided to defrag the H: partition, since I had moved around some of the downloaded files. DEFRAG told me this partition had errors and I needed to run Scandisk. Scandisk reported crosslinked files between the DOWNLOAD folder and the RECYCLED folder. (Note, I DO NOT use the Recycled folder, I have it set to immediately delete files. I ran NORTON DISK DOCTOR (rather than Scandisk) to fix this, and it did fix it, but then said that the RECYCLED folder existed but had no space on the HDD. I could not delete the Recycled folder. Since I had already copied all my downloads to another place (as a backup), I just reformatted that H: partition. For the heck of it, I ran DEFRAG on the I: partition (which only contained a backup of my AGENT folder. -Once again, I got a notice to run Scandisk, which showed duplicates of ALL these files in the RECYCLED folder. And said it contained crosslinked files. Since I did not need that backup of Agent anymore, I just reformatted that partition too. Why is this second HDD getting all corrupted? This is a new drive, and I also replaced the IDE cable with a new one (with 80 wires, rather than the old one that had 40 wires). I'm starting to wonder if the motherboard itself is failing (or at least the built in IDE board portion of it). I do have the drive jumpers set properly, to MASTER on the first HDD and to SLAVE on the second drive. I have run two HDDs on this computer for years with no problems. Now it seems I can not run a second SLAVE drive. Any ideas what might be causing this? When you got the new 120GB drive (the one with G,H,I on it), did you clean if off after connecting it ? At least on WinXP, you have "diskpart" command. Which runs from an Administrator group account. You can select a disk, then issue a command of "clean all", which overwrites every sector. A second way to clean a new disk, is to use "dd". http://www.chrysocome.net/dd dd --list # Gives details about your disks, and # hints at the labels to use dd --list 2 list_of_disks.txt # Record in a text file, the details # of your disks. The program writes to # STDERR, which is FID number 2 of a # command line program. (200KB or so) http://www.chrysocome.net/downloads/dd-0.6beta3.zip Once you have the size information for the device, you craft a command for it. Let's take my smallest drive as sample material for this. In Disk Management, my disks go 0,1,2. The third disk is 2, and the identifier here is also "2". I confirm, by comparing the sizes of disks I see in disk management, with the disk numbers and sizes here, that I'm absolutely sure about what identifier to use for the command. If you make a mistake, you can do a lot of damage with "dd.exe". It doesn't ask you to confirm anything, it doesn't warn you in any way about what you're going to be doing. \\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 --- Partition 0 is the pointer to link to \\?\Device\Harddisk2\DR2 the entire disk. Fixed hard disk media. Block size = 512 size is 500107862016 bytes --- The size of the entire disk \\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition1 link to \\?\Device\HarddiskVolume1 Fixed hard disk media. Block size = 512 size is 20974431744 bytes 19.53GB partition \\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition2 link to \\?\Device\HarddiskVolume2 Fixed hard disk media. Block size = 512 size is 14435366400 bytes 13.44GB partition \\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition3 link to \\?\Device\HarddiskVolume3 Fixed hard disk media. Block size = 512 size is 44794874880 bytes 41.72GB partition \\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition4 link to \\?\Device\HarddiskVolume4 Fixed hard disk media. Block size = 512 size is 419900544000 bytes 391.06GB partition The size of the disk, can be factored by small integers. From memory, I happen to remember a "convenient" size for this disk is 221184 byte commands. 221184 / 512 = 432 sectors (an evenly divisible sector-related size) (256KB is a ballpark target for a size, on an older HDD) (Setting the size to 512 bytes only, makes it slooow.) 500107862016 / 221184 = 2261049 chunks So the number does divide evenly into the size of the disk as well. (I use the Linux program factor.exe to factor the number and figure out what a reasonable size might be.) OK, so now comes the fun part. I want to do two things: 1) Remove any existing data. 2) "Probe" the disk, doing realistic write operations. If there is something wrong with the geometry of the disk, there is an HPA or DCO, there is a disturbance in the force, I want the command to detect something is wrong. In an Administrator command prompt, I can try dd if=/dev/zero of=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 bs=221184 Now, normally the command would have "count=2261049" to make the command do a fixed amount of writing. However, we want the command to keep writing, until it runs out of disk drive. If we do it this way dd if=/dev/zero of=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 bs=221184 then after a couple hours, the command stops and spits out a couple lines. We hope the two lines are exactly 2261049, and the command has figured this out the hard way, by writing each sector. If the command reports some other number of completed chunks, that means there is an "issue" with the setup. The value of the numbers printed out, will hint at what the issue is. Is it the 137GB disk limit ? Is it a 64GB disk limit ? What limit did we hit ? Or, did the disk pass, and we wrote exactly 2261049 chunks of 221184 bytes each ? Your drive is smaller than mine, and you will have a different set of numbers. You'll have to work out a value for the blocksize. If you need help, just paste the same sort of section that I did, into a post, and I can cook up a command for you. The dd.exe program only has one bug. If you erase USB sticks with the program, the program does not successfully detect the end of a USB key. Thus, you cannot use this sort of "probing" command with a USB stick... dd if=/dev/zero of=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 bs=221184 Instead, with a USB stick, you have to write a precise quantity of bytes, using the count field too. dd if=/dev/zero of=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 bs=221184 count=2261049 That way, it doesn't do anything disconcerting, like "write past the end" of the USB stick. That kinda scared me, the first time it happened. Anyway, that's a little test case I use occasionally, when surpassing canonical capacity limits on computers. I used to test disk capacity by copying files over and over again, but that gets really old fast. Having a command to use up all the bytes, is a lot simpler. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:57:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , writes: On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:50:51 -0800, FreeMan wrote: [] Noisy power supply ? Replace. ????? I think he meant electrically noisy. Some power supplies don't provide as smooth a 5V and 12V as you might hope - spikes or dips. Can in theory make drives (and anything else) malfunction. _Probably_ not your cause; difficult to confirm without an oscilloscope. (If you have a known good power supply of sufficient capacity, you can always try it.) Have another drive port ? Then switch. That is where the CD drive is plugged in. Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ? Drive is not even in the case, it's outside of it Does it run warm at all? Both drives get slightly warm. That's just normal. I have not mounted a hard drive inside the case for at least 15 years.I put a large very oversized power supply in this case, so the cover wont fit anyhow. I like having the drives where I can easily swap them. The only drives that are mounted in the case are the floppy and CD drives. Bad Karma ? I dont believe in this sort of thing. One thing I did notice. The jumper on the First drive is set to CS (cable select), not to Master (Master uses NO jumper). I'm wondering if the second drive should also be set to CS, instead of SLAVE. Or maybe I should use the actual Master and Slave jumpers??? Have you still got what used to be the other drive (IIRR it was a CD drive that failed) to see how that is jumpered? Anyway, if your first drive is set to CS, and you have a CS cable, then it sounds like the second one should be too. Can you see any setting in the BIOS that indicates which selection method it is using? I've personally never had a machine that used other than master and slave jumpers. Yep, it looks like the old drive was set to SLAVE. However, I just changed the new one to CS and copied a bunch of stuff to it from my first drive. Then I deleted some stuff and copied a whole bunch of small clipart pics to it, and then deleted some of them, and after that I copied a huge ISO file to it, which is almost 1gb in size. After all of that, I defragged that drive with no problem. It appears that it needs to be set to CS. Maybe that was the whole problem. I'll copy more stuff to it and delete other stuff and see if it keeps working properly now. So far, so good! I ma tempted to try the actual Master and Slave settings with the jumpers and see if that works. I dont know if one way is better than the other, or not? Does anyone know which jumper setting is the best? I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older drives never had that setting. Maybe it's just anoither way to **** things up... It kind of seems senseless anyhow. I know the second drive comes first on the cable, but the plug itself is the same wiring. How the hell can the computer KNOW which drive is which. The only difference is about 5" more length to the wires. If the cable truly has the same connections on all three connectors, then I can't see how it's selecting either. I know floppy drive cables had a twist in the cable. Yep, floppy cables do have a twist, but not these IDE Hard drive cables. So how that CS works is beyond my comprehension. I do know that for awhile I had the Master drive on the first connector and Slave on the last connector. THAT IS WRONG, but it was that way for a year or more and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first drive (which seems backwards). |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:38:48 -0500, Paul wrote:
When you got the new 120GB drive (the one with G,H,I on it), did you clean if off after connecting it ? No, I just plugged it in, used Partition Magic to partition it, and formatted them (P.M. does the formatting too). At least on WinXP, you have "diskpart" command. Which runs from an Administrator group account. You can select a disk, then issue a command of "clean all", which overwrites every sector. Since this drive is running Win98, I dont think I have any of that stuff. What is the point of cleaning it? It should be blank, and if not, this is not a secret government operation containing all the codes to launch the nukes worldwide.... About the only controversial or secret stuff might be a few pics of cows with their tits showing, and a pic of God smoking some whacky weed.... Besides that, I've probably re-formatted every partition at least 4 times now, because of these problems. If that didn't clean the drives, what will.... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle connector). I like to draw pictures for people. For a single IDE drive, it *always* goes on the end, like this. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Master Cable_Select (if 80 wire, CS is allowed) When you add a second drive, it can be like this. Or, you can run CS on both drives, if you are using an 80 wire cable (with that twist in it). I didn't want to junk up the diagram, by adding CS to the table for both drives. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Slave Master Master with Slave (some brands have a distinction on the jumpers) Do *not* do this, as the end of the cable constitutes a stub and causes excess reflections and corrupted data. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Oopsy ULooz Even in the best of circumstances, the signals on that cable look horrible. The signals look more horrible in that last case. One of the things that SATA does, is banish those bad design ideas... to the pit. With point to point SATA, there are no more simulation nightmares for engineers to look at. Someone (of course) can still make a SATA cable out-of-spec, but the field reports seem to be pretty good. Almost as if most of the rolls of raw cables come from one cable plant, and that helps keep the process "honest". You should not bend a SATA cable until it kinks, as that causes unpredictable results to your data. You could get away with it, or not. Don't crush the excess SATA cable and tightly wrap duct tape around it. Bad. If you have too much SATA cable, buy a shorter one from the store and try again. HTH, Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:01:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , writes: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:57:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Yep, it looks like the old drive was set to SLAVE. However, I just changed the new one to CS and copied a bunch of stuff to it from my first drive. Then I deleted some stuff and copied a whole bunch of small clipart pics to it, and then deleted some of them, and after that I copied a huge ISO file to it, which is almost 1gb in size. After all of that, I defragged that drive with no problem. It appears that it needs to be set to CS. Maybe that was the whole problem. I'll copy more stuff to it and delete other stuff and see if it keeps working properly now. So far, so good! I hesitate to ask, but when you say "the old drive" above, do you mean the CD drive that failed years ago, or do you mean the HD-that-was-G/H/I whose failure started this whole saga? If the latter, I wonder if setting that to CS might have cured the original problem )-:! There is no CD drive involved in any of this. In fact the CD drive in this computer died years ago. I really dont have any need for one on my Win98 machine. I have the Win98 install files right on the HDD. I dont play games or anything that needs a CD. I do have a CD player on my XP machine, but rarely use it. But I would need it to reinstall XP, and once and awhile I copy a music CD and turn it into MP3 songs for my MP3 player. If I want to listen to CDs, I have a regular CD player on my stereo. Anyhow, I was referring to my old 2nd drive / Slave (G: H: I:). I ma tempted to try the actual Master and Slave settings with the jumpers and see if that works. I dont know if one way is better than the other, or not? Does anyone know which jumper setting is the best? Does anyone know whether using master/slave jumpering with a cable on which CS works might cause problems? I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older [] If the cable truly has the same connections on all three connectors, then I can't see how it's selecting either. I know floppy drive cables had a twist in the cable. Yep, floppy cables do have a twist, but not these IDE Hard drive cables. So how that CS works is beyond my comprehension. I do know that for Maybe there's an internal break in one line - so the cable from the mobo to the first connector is 80 way, but between them is 79 or 78 way? (I take it there's nothing obvious like one of the connectors having one of its holes blanked.) This is a brand new cable. Of course anything can be defective. Ah, I've just looked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Cable_select says it is done using pin 28 - often just by omitting the contact from the middle (slave, grey) connector, so you'd have to look extremely hard to see it! It also says line 28 is only used so the drives know which they are, not for control by the mobo, so if the drives are jumpered as master and slave anyway, it is ignored (and that doesn't have to be master at the end). So you can try it if you want. When the controller says "master drive, please respond", both drives receive the command, but only one of them responds - either because it is jumpered as master, or because both are jumpered as CS and one of them knows it is master. (Apparently also "drive 0" and "drive 1" - apparently "master" and "slave" don't actually appear in the specification.) Which does suggest that having one drive "hard jumpered" and the other as CS _could_ cause problems, depending on position on the cable. Ok, that explains it.... awhile I had the Master drive on the first connector and Slave on the last connector. THAT IS WRONG, but it was that way for a year or more and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first drive (which seems backwards). No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle connector). I better understand this now. I know I have the cable right now, and since I changed that jumper to CS, it looks like everything works fine now. (At least so far). I have copied and deleted files and defragged and scandisked, and ran Norton Dick Doctor. I even ran scandisk from Dos. Everything checks out ok. I sort of am wondering if the problem on my old slave drive may have been caused by the jumpers being incorrectly set, but I had them drives that way for at least 2 years. I'd think that would have shown up a lot sooner. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:02:20 -0500, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle connector). I like to draw pictures for people. For a single IDE drive, it *always* goes on the end, like this. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Master Cable_Select (if 80 wire, CS is allowed) When you add a second drive, it can be like this. Or, you can run CS on both drives, if you are using an 80 wire cable (with that twist in it). I didn't want to junk up the diagram, by adding CS to the table for both drives. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Slave Master Master with Slave (some brands have a distinction on the jumpers) Do *not* do this, as the end of the cable constitutes a stub and causes excess reflections and corrupted data. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Oopsy ULooz Even in the best of circumstances, the signals on that cable look horrible. The signals look more horrible in that last case. One of the things that SATA does, is banish those bad design ideas... to the pit. With point to point SATA, there are no more simulation nightmares for engineers to look at. Someone (of course) can still make a SATA cable out-of-spec, but the field reports seem to be pretty good. Almost as if most of the rolls of raw cables come from one cable plant, and that helps keep the process "honest". You should not bend a SATA cable until it kinks, as that causes unpredictable results to your data. You could get away with it, or not. Don't crush the excess SATA cable and tightly wrap duct tape around it. Bad. If you have too much SATA cable, buy a shorter one from the store and try again. HTH, Paul I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable has so few wires compared to the IDE cables, and even more puzzling why the power connectors have all those pins, when there is still only 5V 12V and a copule grounds needed (4 wires). Why do they have all them pins? Why didnt they just use the common 4 pin connecters they have used for years. All that did is make power supplies more complicated and the need to buy adapters to use older power supplies. That "dd" thing sounds too much like Linux command line **** to me. I dont touch that ****.... I'd rather run scandisk, chkdsk, or Norton Disk Doctor (NDD). Ndd runs faster than scandisk, so I normally run that. Scandisk took 13 hours to scan a 40gb drive, Ndd takes 4 or 5 hours to do the same. I do question how much drives are abused by running all this stuff. Like, how much life is taken away from drives by beating the crap out of them with these sector by sector tests? This is not like normal use, this is extreme abuse. Some of those tests are made so they can be run 10x or even more. Not only would that make my computer unusable for several days, but probably eliminates 50% of the drive's lifespan. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
wrote:
I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable has so few wires compared to the IDE cables, and even more puzzling why the power connectors have all those pins, when there is still only 5V 12V and a copule grounds needed (4 wires). Why do they have all them pins? Why didnt they just use the common 4 pin connecters they have used for years. All that did is make power supplies more complicated and the need to buy adapters to use older power supplies. The SATA 7 pin data uses TX+,TX-,RX+,RX-, and those are differential serial connections. The data travels serially, a bit at a time, like a modem. Only it happens at 6Gbit/sec, which is "faster than your microwave oven". It's a signal at microwave frequencies. So that's how they squeezed down the data cable, by going serial. USB uses this approach too. USB3 uses TX+,TX-,RX+,RX- . This document is 3.6MB and it has a picture of what the SATA data signal looks like, at 6Gbit/sec. And it isn't even an eye diagram picture - the picture is standalone ones and zeros. Page 4 has the picture. http://download.tek.com/datasheet/4HW_19377_15_0.pdf ******* The SATA connector is designed for SATA backplanes. It's usage in desktop computers is an afterthought. The hard drive was supposed to slide into a hole in a chassis, and the back of the drive mates with a backplane connector that "sticks out" of the backplane PCB board. And via hotswap, on a server you could add or remove drives while the server remained powered and running. ******* The 15 pin power is 5 groups of 3 pins each. A pin carries 1 ampere of current. Three pins carry 3 amps. And 3 amps is just enough for the +12V source, to run the hard drive motor. At one time, some hard drives would draw 3 amps for the first ten seconds, until the spindle was up to speed. So the contact count for power, was made generous enough to run existing hard drives. Actual current flow measurements, show drives now being "all over the place" with regard to the level of current flow at startup. I don't think I found any samples I tested, drawing the whole 3 amps. The groups on the power connector are 3.3V, 5V, 12V, GND, GND The expectation is, a design might use two of three power sources, so only two ground groups are needed. A conventional disk drive uses 5V, 12V, GND, GND and so there are just enough grounds to match the current flow level on the supply pins. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:15:58 -0500, Paul wrote:
The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-) It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart. Paul I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive Any PC you pull from storage, should have some basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days ago... just in case. Paul How do you test RAM? Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux.... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Il giorno Sat 16 Dec 2017 08:26:40p, ** ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001 an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it imho -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:40:50 +0000 (UTC), Ammammata
wrote: This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001 an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it imho Bull****. Unless it's dead, it works just fine, and I have used it almost daily for the past 17 years. I have radios and power tools from the 1950s and 60s that still work fine too. Then again, I'm almost 70 years old, and I still work pretty well too. You sound like one of todays spoiled rotten youth who cant stand to have anything more than 2 years old, and waste a lot of your parents hard earnings on expensive toys, because your old toy (which is one year old) no longer gives you any thrills). I cant wait to see all you spoiled youth crash when the economy goes to ****. Maybe you'll learn the value of a dollar that YOU had to earn yourself, and you'll have to wear an old coat you've had for 4 years and be forced to use a 5 year old cellphone or computer, or do without them completely. Your generation makes me want to puke. Not only are you spoiled so rotten that you stink, but you are the worst polluters to ever inhabit this earth, with all the waste you create (because it's old). |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:15:58 -0500, Paul wrote: The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-) It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart. Paul I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive Any PC you pull from storage, should have some basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days ago... just in case. Paul How do you test RAM? Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux.... Windows does have a memory diagnostic. On WinXP, you get a copy by downloading it. On more modern Windows OSes, it's included on C: (but you have to figure out where it's located of course). https://web.archive.org/web/20070102...en/windiag.asp (640KB - shirely a joke) https://web.archive.org/web/20070102.../en/mtinst.exe The virustotal scan suggests that might be installing itself as a multiboot. I need to know this, to know whether it's a good idea for me to click this or not :-) What it might be doing, is adding an item to the boot menu, for a boot-time memory test. https://www.virustotal.com/#/file/ce...0ffbe/behavior In any case, that's one way to do it. Try it out, tell me what happened or something :-) I *have* run the Windows memory tester on a later Windows, but I cannot recollect right now what menu I saw it in. It's possible it was testing while Windows was running, and it didn't test every memory location (the 300MB of locations Windows is using). ******* This one, you combine it with a blank floppy. It tests every memory location, except "BIOS reserved" locations totaling around 1MB or so. If it were to write to BIOS locations, some BIOS call might crash later. There is actually a table the BIOS presents, of locations "you must not touch". http://www.memtest.org The downloads are half way down that web page. For example, the floppy in front of me, is this one. 274,506 bytes. http://www.memtest.org/download/4.10....10.floppy.zip The contents of the ZIP a memtestp.bin install64.bat install.bat ---- insert blank floppy, run this one in Command Prompt README.txt dd.exe rawrite.exe What the file set does, is a sector-by-sector transfer of "memtestp.bin" to the sectors of the floppy. When finished, if you try to list the floppy "there is nothing on it". There is no file system on the floppy. You insert the floppy later if you want and boot from it. Once the 640x480 screen appears, the floppy contents are stored in memory, so you can pop the floppy out and put it away somewhere. The "memtestp.bin" is like an OS and when the BIOS hands off control, that program runs the whole machine and does the memory test. After it has completed one pass, press the esc key to exit and boot the OS again. You can stop the test at any time by pressing that key. If it finds errors, they're printed in the middle of the screen. If there are too many errors, the error list will scroll. When I had one completely dead memory chip, it scrolled... a lot. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Ammammata wrote:
Il giorno Sat 16 Dec 2017 08:26:40p, ** ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001 an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it imho I have a few 18 year old machines, still in mint condition. No complaints. The installed OS still runs, just like it used to. These machines use a lot of electricity though. One machine I measured some time ago, it used 150W just sitting there doing nothing. Like it was a V8 car with big fins on the back :-) The machines back then, had hardly any power-saving features. That's one reason they make poor choices if your electricity is expensive. ******* They won't boot off a DVD though, because when the machines were invented, DVDs didn't exist, and nobody prepared for the arrival of DVDs. I even put a DVD drive in the machines to test this. I was disappointed, but not surprised. On earlier computers, some of the booting process is done by "hard drive emulation". The BIOS converts other device types to "look like" a hard drive. And part of that methodology involves "fixed size disks". So when the DVD came along, it was much larger than anything the designers had anticipated. Amongst other problems. I don't think the BIOS knows what the DVD command set looks like either. It wasn't an El Torito problem I was seeing, it was a physical layer problem - the BIOS just didn't want to touch the drive. One other quirk someone else in the newsgroups tested at the time, is they inserted a SATA PCI card into the machine. And the BIOS just ignored it, and the OS couldn't use it. So again, if you use hardware cards the BIOS has never heard of, there will be problems. But these really aren't surprises. It's to be expected things like this will happen. I was booting something just yesterday, and in the boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk". Then the next line said "this is a really big disk". No ****. So again, modern software is never prepared for surprises, even if the software was written in 2017. I don't know how the booting OS in that case, had managed to query the disk drive, but it got an absurdly large (wrong) size from it. No software is really "prepared for infinity and beyond" :-) The main problem with old computers, is there's no decent web browser to use on them. That's why the machines sit in the Junk Room. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
In message , Paul
writes: [] I like to draw pictures for people. For a single IDE drive, it *always* goes on the end, like this. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Master Cable_Select (if 80 wire, CS is allowed) IF I understood the Wikipedia article, some 40 wire cables _did_ allow CS, by omitting line 28 between the remote connectors, and master having to be the middle one, with the unterminated bit of cable providing all the reflections you'd expect )-:. Probably why CS wasn't used much in the early days. I _think_ I _do_ remember seeing 40 wire IDE cables where the cable between the remote connectors was two ribbons, i. e. had a gap in it - not a twist like a floppy connector, just a gap, which had I looked closer I'd have seen was the omitted line 28. (Presumably line 28 was just connected to 0 or 5V on the mobo.) When you add a second drive, it can be like this. Or, you can run CS on both drives, if you are using an 80 wire cable (with that twist in it). I didn't want to junk (Not a twist, just an omission. Apparently often done by just omitting the insert on the middle connector's line 28.) up the diagram, by adding CS to the table for both drives. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Slave Master Master with Slave (some brands have a distinction on the jumpers) (I'd forgotten that! Wonder why.) Do *not* do this, as the end of the cable constitutes a stub and causes excess reflections and corrupted data. Mobo X --------------+--------+ | | Oopsy ULooz Even in the best of circumstances, the signals on that cable look horrible. The signals look more horrible in that last case. Must have been even worse with the 40 line cables! [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13 |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
In message , Paul
writes: wrote: I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable Some BIOS/MOBOs can make them "look like" an [E]IDE drive. I don't know if that would make W98 be able to use them. has so few wires compared to the IDE cables, and even more puzzling why the power connectors have all those pins, when there is still only 5V 12V and a copule grounds needed (4 wires). Why do they have all them pins? Why didnt they just use the common 4 pin connecters they have used for years. All that did is make power supplies more complicated and the need to buy adapters to use older power supplies. The SATA 7 pin data uses TX+,TX-,RX+,RX-, and those are differential serial connections. The data travels serially, a bit at a time, like a modem. Yes, the clue is in the S (and the P in the alternative name for [E]IDE, PATA). [] So that's how they squeezed down the data cable, by going serial. [] The 15 pin power is 5 groups of 3 pins each. A pin carries 1 ampere of current. Three pins carry 3 amps. And 3 amps is just enough for the +12V source, to run the hard drive motor. At one time, some hard drives would draw 3 amps for the first ten seconds, until the spindle was up to speed. So the contact count for power, was made generous enough to run existing hard drives. It seems an odd choice to me, to use small contacts, and then use a lot of them. Fair enough, I suppose, if you're feeding power through an existing multiway connector (though many connectors, e. g. DIN 41612, manage fine with varying pin sizes - I suppose not really on if you're using ribbon cable, though, as you'd need special ribbon), but in the case of the SATA connector, it's a separate connector anyway, so why not just use bigger pins! But it's settled now, so I suppose we're stuck with it. But I share James's dissatisfaction with it - the power connector being bigger than the data one, without it being obvious that's the reason because it has bigger pins, feels odd. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13 |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
In message ,
writes: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:01:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] I hesitate to ask, but when you say "the old drive" above, do you mean the CD drive that failed years ago, or do you mean the HD-that-was-G/H/I whose failure started this whole saga? If the latter, I wonder if setting that to CS might have cured the original problem )-:! There is no CD drive involved in any of this. In fact the CD drive in this computer died years ago. I really dont have any need for one on my That was the one I was thinking of - I thought maybe you'd kept it, if only to block the hole in the front, so you could have a look to see if it was set to be slave or cable select. [] Anyhow, I was referring to my old 2nd drive / Slave (G: H: I:). [] Does anyone know whether using master/slave jumpering with a cable on which CS works might cause problems? (I think I've answered my own question: no, no problems; if jumpered as master/slave explicitly, the drives will ignore what the cable's telling them. If one was jumpered as master or slave, and the other as CS, _and_ they were in the awkward position on the cable, then they'd either both respond at once or not at all, which might harm them.) [] Ah, I've just looked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Cable_select says it is done using pin 28 - often just by omitting the contact from the middle [] and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first drive (which seems backwards). No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle connector). I better understand this now. I know I have the cable right now, and since I changed that jumper to CS, it looks like everything works fine now. (At least so far). I have copied and deleted files and defragged and scandisked, and ran Norton Dick Doctor. I even ran scandisk from Dos. Everything checks out ok. I sort of am wondering if the problem on my old slave drive may have been caused by the jumpers being incorrectly set, but I had them drives that way for at least 2 years. I'd think that would have shown up a lot sooner. I too am wondering that, but I agree it seems unlikely that the problem would show up after a while - I'd have thought it would be there from the start, or not at all. And the fact that it only showed up in one position (partition) does sound like a surface fault. (The fact that reformatting now shows no fault _may_ mean the drive's electronics are "sparing out" the dud bit, and the drive is usable again, but like you I wouldn't use it for anything important.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf (please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk) (William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course) |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
In message , Paul
writes: [] I have a few 18 year old machines, still in mint condition. No complaints. The installed OS still runs, just like it used to. Yes, in the support department I worked in until March, we had one that, when you turned it on, did a ticking memory test (remember those?), until it got up to its massive 4M (IIRR) of memory, and then loaded DOS 4.x from its (10M it might have been) hard disc. It was one of those heavy old machines with a machined metal case, and the huge power lever switch on the side - original IBM style I think. It was kept to test equipment (the company made avionics) of the same vintage; since it worked, and we only got those units in once in a blue moon, it was not worth rewriting all the software and redesigning the test hardware to run on anything more modern. [] I was booting something just yesterday, and in the boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk". Then the next line said "this is a really big disk". What, those actual words? I like it when I come across someone with a sense of humour! [] The main problem with old computers, is there's no decent web browser to use on them. That's why the machines sit in the Junk Room. Indeed. Or rather, there are decent web browsers for them, but there are few websites that will now run with those browsers. (As a browser, Firefox 2 - or even Netscape 6 to 9 - are fine. It's just that web pages these days are mostly made using compilers that assume more capabilities on the part of the browser, even when not necessary.) Such machines can have standalone uses, such as the one above described, or controlling hardware (such as machine tools), or even as servers - print, storage, etc. - in even more modern networks, they don't _have_ to sit in the junk room. (There are even the usual stories about servers - the story usually says Linux - which have been walled up somewhere, and continued for years.) Paul -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf (please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk) (William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course) |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:56:17 -0500, Paul wrote:
Ammammata wrote: Il giorno Sat 16 Dec 2017 08:26:40p, ** ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001 an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it imho I have a few 18 year old machines, still in mint condition. No complaints. The installed OS still runs, just like it used to. These machines use a lot of electricity though. One machine I measured some time ago, it used 150W just sitting there doing nothing. Like it was a V8 car with big fins on the back :-) The machines back then, had hardly any power-saving features. That's one reason they make poor choices if your electricity is expensive. ******* They won't boot off a DVD though, because when the machines were invented, DVDs didn't exist, and nobody prepared for the arrival of DVDs. I even put a DVD drive in the machines to test this. I was disappointed, but not surprised. On earlier computers, some of the booting process is done by "hard drive emulation". The BIOS converts other device types to "look like" a hard drive. And part of that methodology involves "fixed size disks". So when the DVD came along, it was much larger than anything the designers had anticipated. Amongst other problems. I don't think the BIOS knows what the DVD command set looks like either. It wasn't an El Torito problem I was seeing, it was a physical layer problem - the BIOS just didn't want to touch the drive. One other quirk someone else in the newsgroups tested at the time, is they inserted a SATA PCI card into the machine. And the BIOS just ignored it, and the OS couldn't use it. So again, if you use hardware cards the BIOS has never heard of, there will be problems. But these really aren't surprises. It's to be expected things like this will happen. I was booting something just yesterday, and in the boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk". Then the next line said "this is a really big disk". No ****. So again, modern software is never prepared for surprises, even if the software was written in 2017. I don't know how the booting OS in that case, had managed to query the disk drive, but it got an absurdly large (wrong) size from it. No software is really "prepared for infinity and beyond" :-) The main problem with old computers, is there's no decent web browser to use on them. That's why the machines sit in the Junk Room. Paul Interesting. I never knew these old computers could not handle DVDs. I've never used much optical media of any sort, so I never even thought about it. I do somewhat question where the dividing line is as far as power hungry computers, VS those which are less hungry. This old machine never seems to throw out much heat. It's a basic Pentium with coppermine processor. The original power supply was 100W, which was too small as soon as I added extra HDDs and other stuff. That PS failed, so I replaced it with a 350W supply which I have used since. However some of the old dual core machines were power hogs. I knew someone with a Dell dual core machine that had 3 fans. You did not dare run that thing in hot weather if the house had no AC. One of the fans died in that machine and it was hot enough to fry an egg on it. I replaced the fan for that person. What amazed me was that machine running XP home ed. was 5 times slower than my 2001 machine I am using right now. I actually thought the CPU had gotten so hot that it was fried, but I was told that machine had always been that slow. A few years later I acquired 2 similar machines. One was identical, the other similar. Both of them were also very slow, and ran very hot. I have since learned that those early dual core Dell machines were always slow and were lousy computers. (Because of that, I'd never buy a Dell). Although I never measured the power draw on those machines, I know that heat is power consumption and those beasts were almost like electric heaters. I am sure they sucked lots of power. But the newer stuff runs cooler even with quad cores and a lot more power needs. So, I kind of wonder if my 2001 machine is really not all that bad on power use??? You got that right as far as no browser support anymore.... I keep hoping someone will create a browser for them, but I wont hold my breath. I do have to keep asking why the internet is so bloated these days. It actually worked better in the old days and was 10X more useful back then. nd no, it's NOT videos thats causing the problems. I can run darn near any video on this old computer with no problems, unless I am defragging or running a HDD scanner at the same time. (Using Win98). Of course the video software matters too. I use Media Player Classic. Simple to use with no crap and no bloat. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Il giorno Tue 19 Dec 2017 12:12:01p, ** ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: You sound like one of todays spoiled rotten youth who cant stand to have anything more than 2 years old bull**** [cutting all the trash talk you wrote] I'm 50yo, my home personal computer is a 10+ yo laptop where I put an SSD to make it faster than light, and I'm saving money for my twins, using free software (linux mint) this doesn't mean that my opinion is what I wrote above: at *work* I have an updated (4yo) computer just because my job requires such a device; at home I make daily backups because I know that sooner or later the hw will die and to close this discussion, my 1993 486dx still runs windows nt4, the 1996 double pentium-pro runs w2k and the [unknown] thinkpad 380ED, with MSDOS 6, allows me to play Duke Nukem 3D whenever I want. r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn, pbtyvbar -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Il giorno Tue 19 Dec 2017 01:56:17p, *Paul* ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio news:p1b29f$2hp$1@dont- email.me. Vediamo cosa ha scritto: I was booting something just yesterday, and in the boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk". Then the next line said "this is a really big disk". I remember, running a game on my old 486 with 20Mb RAM, the message shown on screen: "Please check your RAM because there must be an error" :) -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: wrote: I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable Some BIOS/MOBOs can make them "look like" an [E]IDE drive. I don't know if that would make W98 be able to use them. Intel provided that mode specifically for legacy OSes. Because it shows up in I/O Space for the registers, and it uses INT14 and INT15 for the interrupt coming from those logic blocks. It looks exactly like a crusty old IDE Southbridge. That was Compatible IDE mode. I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2 processor, and it screams. Even though it only can use one core of the processor. So yes, you can run Win98 on at least some modern hardware. I think the Compatible mode disappeared at some point. The Native IDE mode, the registers are in PCI space, and the interrupts fall where-ever the equivalent of INTA would go. WinXP has a driver for that, in-box I believe. WinXP doesn't have an ACPI driver, which comes later in time. It seems an odd choice to me, to use small contacts, and then use a lot of them. Fair enough, I suppose, if you're feeding power through an existing multiway connector (though many connectors, e. g. DIN 41612, manage fine with varying pin sizes - I suppose not really on if you're using ribbon cable, though, as you'd need special ribbon), but in the case of the SATA connector, it's a separate connector anyway, so why not just use bigger pins! But it's settled now, so I suppose we're stuck with it. But I share James's dissatisfaction with it - the power connector being bigger than the data one, without it being obvious that's the reason because it has bigger pins, feels odd. [] It was designed as a backplane connector, with the 7 and 15 portions in a fixed relation to one another. Kinda a 22 pin connector with a gap. The wafer design means it can be made as cheaply as USB. Just extend the PCB of the hard drive, to make some contacts. While the personal computer application rates the connector at 50 insertions, I would expect the backplane application, with the extra guidance provided by the packaging, the insertion count would be a lot higher. The backplane doesn't have to do any "pinching" to hold the connector on. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On 12/19/2017 01:23 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:15:58 -0500, Paul wrote: The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-) It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart. Paul I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive Any PC you pull from storage, should have some basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days ago... just in case. Paul How do you test RAM? Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux.... The memory test should be run from a bootable cd https://www.memtest86.com/download.htm free version is fine If there are any errors at all you do not have to run the test any further, your memory is either bad or the contacts need to be cleaned. Any serious errors will show up within the first few minutes, but I'd let it run for at least an hour. But like I said, any error at all you can stop the test |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On 12/19/2017 06:56 AM, Paul wrote:
snip e in the newsgroups tested at the time, is they inserted a SATA PCI card into the machine. And the BIOS just ignored it, and the OS couldn't use it. So again, if you use hardware cards the BIOS has never heard of, there will be problems. But these really aren't surprises. It's to be expected things like this will happen. I was booting something just yesterday, and in the boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk". Then the next line said "this is a really big disk". No ****. So again, modern software is never prepared for surprises, even if the software was written in 2017. I don't know how the booting OS in that case, had managed to query the disk drive, but it got an absurdly large (wrong) size from it. No software is really "prepared for infinity and beyond" :-) The main problem with old computers, is there's no decent web browser to use on them. That's why the machines sit in the Junk Room. Â*Â* Paul A few years ago I gave away a huge, dual power supply server with a lot of SCSI drives in it. Worked just fine but it absolutely would have run up the electric bill For the last few years I've been getting those inexpensive cpu/mobo combos. No problems with them and they take 25 watts maybe |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Ammammata wrote:
Il giorno Tue 19 Dec 2017 12:12:01p, ** ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: You sound like one of todays spoiled rotten youth who cant stand to have anything more than 2 years old bull**** [cutting all the trash talk you wrote] I'm 50yo, my home personal computer is a 10+ yo laptop where I put an SSD to make it faster than light, and I'm saving money for my twins, using free software (linux mint) this doesn't mean that my opinion is what I wrote above: at work I have an updated (4yo) computer just because my job requires such a device; at home I make daily backups because I know that sooner or later the hw will die and to close this discussion, my 1993 486dx still runs windows nt4, the 1996 double pentium-pro runs w2k and the [unknown] thinkpad 380ED, with MSDOS 6, allows me to play Duke Nukem 3D whenever I want. r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn, pbtyvbar Close as I could translate... and for good hand, you go **** yourself, before you talk bad about someone doing at least pretend to know who he is and what he does, asshole. -- |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:50:10 -0500, Paul wrote:
I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2 processor, and it screams. Even though it only can use one core of the processor. So yes, you can run Win98 on at least some modern hardware. Roughly when (year) did they stop making mobos and drivers for Win98 compatibility? I've been thinking about getting a faster machine that I can still run Win98 on. Often those old machines sell for little to nothing on ebay and I'd kind of like to have a different tower case anyhow, since I cant close mine due to the oversize power supply. I'd most likely get another Lenovo (IBM) machine since they last forever. It WONT be a Dell though.... I always wanted to see just how fast Win98 can run on newer hardware. plus it would be nice to get a MOBO with USB 2 ports. |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
|
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:50:10 -0500, Paul wrote: I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2 processor, and it screams. Even though it only can use one core of the processor. So yes, you can run Win98 on at least some modern hardware. Roughly when (year) did they stop making mobos and drivers for Win98 compatibility? I've been thinking about getting a faster machine that I can still run Win98 on. Often those old machines sell for little to nothing on ebay and I'd kind of like to have a different tower case anyhow, since I cant close mine due to the oversize power supply. I'd most likely get another Lenovo (IBM) machine since they last forever. It WONT be a Dell though.... I always wanted to see just how fast Win98 can run on newer hardware. plus it would be nice to get a MOBO with USB 2 ports. This is the motherboard I was using at the time. "4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0" https://www.asrock.com/MB/VIA/4CoreD...s.asp#Download It's got a little of everything, but it does have plenty of limits. Don't overpay for it - it was only $65 Canadian at the time. 4 PCI slots (I might have had one of my CMI8738 sound cards in there...) 1 AGP8X slot (for my FX5200 AGP, Win98SE driver) 1 PCIe x16 slot (wired x4, there was a compatible video card list) (I never even tested this. I doubt Win98 has the arch for this either, as it would only have GART.) DDR400 two slots or DDR2-533 (it says 667 but just use low CAS DDR2-533 in it, as it's as stable as the Rock of Gibraltar that way.) Core2 Dual or Quad - try a dual core, as the quad slowed down a bit for some reason. - FSB is limited to FSB1066. I used an FSB800 processor. It would be nice to use an E8400 with FSB1333, but the chipset won't go that high on the FSB. I used an E4700, but there is also the E7600. The reason I didn't go with the E7600 is because I didn't know whether the chipset (overclocked when running at FSB1066) would handle it well or not. https://ark.intel.com/products/34441...Hz-800-MHz-FSB https://ark.intel.com/products/41495...z-1066-MHz-FSB The only time the amount of cache matters, is when you compress with 7ZIP. The R2 board (revision 2), they changed the clock generator chip, then they didn't update the BIOS file with driver code for the new clock generator. As a result, the board runs fine if you don't overclock. The clockgen accepts BSEL signals from the LGA775 socket that select the correct clock. However, if you enter the BIOS and even touch the knob to turn up the BCLK, the register writing code is all wrong for the new clock gen, and the board goes nuts. So you can't overclock using the BIOS. I did manage to overclock it, doing a BSEL socket mod and a VCore voltmod. But it wasn't stable so I turned it down again. It ran for about 10 minutes at 3.2GHz or so. A lot of fun for $65. The processor cost more than that. It only really has one egregious sin. I plugged my WinTV card into a PCI slot, and that triggers a workaround which *ruins* performance. As soon as you unplug the WinTV (BT878) card, everything returns to normal. I got another motherboard to replace it at that point, a board that would not flinch if a WinTV card was plugged in. I had no hint this was going to happen, until I plugged in the card. What happens when you plug in the WinTV card, is the disk drive sustained read drops to 30MB/sec. As time passes (around ten minutes), the disk drive drops to 20MB/sec. At that level of I/O, this gets tired fast. If I wanted that kind of speed, I'd use my Mac :-) On the plus side, that board is really easy on power consumption. The 65W processor uses 36W running Prime95, and the VIA chipset is a miser on power. Because there are no graphics in the Northbridge, and because the PCIe lane count is only x4 lanes, it doesn't really have a lot of high speed I/O. The AGP slot interface probably used more power than anything else on the Northbridge. The Southbridge only had two SATA ports, but the 8237S supports SATA II drives, so the thing isn't all bad. I've never tested any really fast drives on it, to see if it had any sins to report. Like, use an SSD on it. The board is really a "hackers delight". It's not the best choice for someone who expects an all-you-can-eat buffet. Everything you do is a little project. The best BIOS for the motherboard, is a hacked version done by a guy in Germany. Just to give you some idea. He didn't fix the clockgen though, as I don't know if the necessary code is floating around in the wild for that. What the hacked BIOS did have, was working EIST, something that Intel lawyers were trying to prevent Asrock from giving to customers. EIST changes the multiplier from say x9 to x6 on my other Core2 processor, to save power when the desktop is idle. Intel wanted to punish Asrock for continuing to ship a VIA chipset, by revoking their right to put EIST on the motherboard. The guy in Germany turned it back on again. The ease with which the guy in Germany turned it back on, tells me it was a legal issue, not a technical issue, that prevented Asrock from turning that on, BIOS release after BIOS release. Asrock never fixed that. What was weird, is they kept releasing new BIOS revisions, but there were a few things they just refused to fix. I concluded from that, that lawyers were involved. Intel at the time, was trying to squeeze VIA out of the picture (they didn't license the next bus interface to VIA, preventing VIA from making newer chipsets). If I was looking for such a product on Ebay, I'd look for a whole system, and hope that the person selling it, knew what to do to it :-) If you put a quad processor on it, like an E6700, it would make the system run hotter. And then, would you try to run Win10 on it ? It would be fast enough for that. But there was some issue with benchmarks seeming to indicate some clock was getting turned down a bit. Since I wasn't running a quad, I never did any further research on it. On the RAM, it officially takes 2x1GB DDR2-533 no problem. The VIA web site says 2x1GB is the limit, yet I did plug 2x2GB into it, and it recognized the RAM. However, it was throwing errors like crazy with the 2x2GB, which tells you the BIOS wasn't "tuned" to run 2GB sticks. So even VIA would not admit (on their web site) that it could use 2GB sticks. Weird. With the 2x1GB plugged back in, you could Prime95 all day long, no sweat. Very stable. To install Win98, you do the basic install, then you stop the install before it reboots, and edit the file that limits "visible" RAM, to 512MB. Then allow it to boot to Windows and the screen comes up for the first time. I used Linux to edit that text file :-) The machine had 2x1GB installed, which is too much for Win98, but the file edit reduces the visible RAM to a more comfortable 512MB. That's one of the reasons it runs OK. Paul |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Il giorno Wed 20 Dec 2017 02:44:53a, *JT* ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn, pbtyvbar Close as I could translate... naq sbe tbbq unaq, lbh tb shpx lbhefrys, orsber lbh gnyx onq nobhg fbzrbar qbvat ng yrnfg cergraq gb xabj jub ur vf naq jung ur qbrf, nffubyr. well, my idea was to obfuscate bad words (there are children reading the ng) and leave the final comment as "private" -- /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\ -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=- http://www.bb2002.it :) ............ [ al lavoro ] ........... |
New HDD, has corrupted Data - AGAIN
Ammammata wrote:
Il giorno Wed 20 Dec 2017 02:44:53a, JT ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio . Vediamo cosa ha scritto: r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn, pbtyvbar Close as I could translate... naq sbe tbbq unaq, lbh tb shpx lbhefrys, orsber lbh gnyx onq nobhg fbzrbar qbvat ng yrnfg cergraq gb xabj jub ur vf naq jung ur qbrf, nffubyr. well, my idea was to obfuscate bad words (there are children reading the ng) and leave the final comment as "private" Oops! Sorry about that. JT -- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Win98Banter.com