If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scandisk won't run on USB drive
Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a USB drive.
It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running Scandisk first does not help. The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was writing to the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try to add any more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine. I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right? Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM. Thanks in advance for any assistance Oscar |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Scandisk won't run on USB drive
Just out of interest are you aware of the 512MB limit of RAM for WIN 98SE?
I am pasting some comments into this post from another Newsgroup that you should be aware of. Alan " Hugh Candlin wrote: I don't know what book of tricks you have, so I will simply ask, have you tried throttling back the RAM? ....you're kidding me again Hugh right wnk But for the sake of other readers not from this group I will say yes of course I did. My word tricks was just a matter of speech - procedures would be a better word. My point was saying that I tried every procedure there is and I researched and actually tried them all, simply because I wanted to succeed, and had the products in hand to do so; however I'd quickly find out for todays 'modern hardware' it's just not commonly possible to go 'beyond' 1 GB of RAM in 9x with any complete stability no matter what procedure you use. With older setups with less demanding hardware I've heard of a few were being able to run 1.5 GB but I have not seen it myself, but we all know and have never heard anyone ever able to use 2GB in 9x. You know Hugh as well as I that the well known common procedures of what to do has been mentioned a thousand times in this group so I'm not saying anything new, but for sake of others not from the MS 98 group or who don't know... For anyone wanting to use anything over 512 RAM then editing the system.ini with: [vcache] MaxFileCache=512000 Using this prevents Windows from mapping an excessive large amount of RAM for use as disk cache. If it's not there then it is possible for windows to prompt with various false 'out of memory' errors because of the large disk cache, or other memory related errors . However having that setting still allows 9x to use the full amount of the installed RAM for a users data files and their application programs, alongside windows components. Currently myself having 1 GB installed I leave mine at 512 and never once had any problems whatsoever with it, on the contrary for large memory tasks having the use of 1GB has worked exceptionally well. Other more detailed information about the errors from MS he http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q253912 & http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;Q184447 Sure there may be some people or websites that talk about using the full 2GB of ram for W95/98/ME since these were said to be originally intended being able to support up to 2 GB of physical RAM, but the truth is the hardware to test that capability was not readily available until well after they were released and so 2GB of RAM was never properly field tested during the development stages of these OS's. Since then though we now know with the modern hardware now available it has been shown that there have been problems in these OS's for 'some' people using more than 512 as explained above with the various memory errors, instability, etc, and even moreso happens if stretching that to using 1GB - and so to just set the MaxFileCache to 512000 helps to stay clear of the known problems that can arise - and it does work and yes I do personally use it. When I say 'modern hardware' in this post am referring to like high performance VideoCards and todays performance MB's, etc, that their demanding complexity use up even more memory addresses which more readily provides the opportunity to produce the errors; these hardwares are really designed for W2K or WXP and most of them now do not even support installing 9x. However for anyone wanting to try more than 1 GB of RAM in 9x (which I do not recommend for the majority) will need to at least also edit the system.ini file to prevent windows from attempting to use more than 1 GB of the total RAM which is necessary to help stay clear of those instability problems (if even possible with todays hardware), and that would be again in the system.ini to add this entry: [386enh] MaxPhysPage=40000 This setting has helped some use 1.5 GB, however I think the reality is if anyone took a thousand different 'modern hardware'd 9x setups you won't see many actually being able with any trusting stability run 1.5 GB - surly congratulations if they do, but for 2 GB I doubt you will ever see even One person be able to run it let alone even being able to have the 2 GB of RAM plugged in 9x at all without all kinds of various errors even after setting the MaxPhysPage to 40000. I know I've tried all the procedures and still cannot achieve stability even with 1.5GB - not to mention the escalating numerous problems with the 2 GB even inserted and it's just not worth it. Why would I want 2GB plugged in even if I could anyway if I had to MaxPhysPage=40000 which limits it to only 1GB anyway ..well yes of course if one was to dual or triple boot like many of us do then it's convenient to use 2GB in 2K/XP (if you need it) ..however, if you also want to boot to W9x on the same MB but 9x won't handle it - then it's a little p.i.t.a but will need to physical unplug the extra GB stick. Since I don't normally really need 2GB I've just decided not even to bother to swap them in/out anymore since 1GB is normally plenty - at least while I'm still nostalgically keeping 9x in the boot loop anyway. Websites to read more infos from: http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#64mb http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm Rick " "Occupant" wrote in message ... Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a USB drive. It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running Scandisk first does not help. The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was writing to the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try to add any more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine. I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right? Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM. Thanks in advance for any assistance Oscar |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Scandisk won't run on USB drive
There's a reference list for Scandisk problems here, with several mentions
of the memory error: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/scandisk.html While it is possible that you need to run Scandisk to fix the problem, do not assume that the fixup will preserve your existing files on the drive. Be sure to copy them to backup before attempting any repairs. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Occupant" wrote in message ... Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a USB drive. It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running Scandisk first does not help. The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was writing to the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try to add any more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine. I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right? Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM. Thanks in advance for any assistance Oscar |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Scandisk won't run on USB drive
The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free.
I think, the problem it that you use the drive with more than 137GB capacity. Win98/98SE does not work with such drives properly: the generic Win98 drivers do not support 48-bit LBA (the addressing, that is using for the drives larger than 137GB). The additional information: http://www.intel.com/support/chipset.../cs-009281.htm http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327202/en-us http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q229154 -- Mikhail Zhilin MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) http://www.aha.ru/~mwz Sorry, no technical support by e-mail. Please reply to the newsgroups only. ====== On Mon, 15 May 2006 16:51:44 -0700, "Occupant" wrote: Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a USB drive. It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running Scandisk first does not help. The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was writing to the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try to add any more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine. I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right? Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM. Thanks in advance for any assistance Oscar |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Scandisk won't run on USB drive - THANKS
Thanks to all who have responded.
It seems that I have a bigger problem than I originally thought and have some work to do. Oscar "Occupant" wrote in message ... Scandisk tells me I don't have enough memory to run when I try to check a USB drive. It works OK when I check the internal drives. Rebooting and running Scandisk first does not help. The USB drive has 105GB used and 80GB free. Windows crashed while it was writing to the drive and now I get an error telling me the drive is full when I try to add any more files to it. I can read the existing files just fine. I figure I need to run Scandisk. Is this right? Any suggestions on how to proceed? I'm running Win98SE 4.10 with 640MB RAM. Thanks in advance for any assistance Oscar |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tosh Satellite Bios gone bye bye? | bry | General | 18 | March 7th 06 10:55 PM |
registry problem. | Mark Garron | General | 13 | May 18th 05 03:38 PM |
WIN98SE BOOT PROBLEM | R.L. Barnhart | Disk Drives | 2 | May 12th 05 10:25 PM |
installing new hard driive, copying from old to new | Larry | General | 12 | February 17th 05 09:20 PM |
Using scandisk on hard drive | Wayne | General | 5 | January 6th 05 06:23 PM |