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
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs
of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy drive, the XP a USB one. What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the way of system resources. Yes, obviously it isn't cost-effective to use one, so I use a good one, but just on principle, I'd like to know what's going on: On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously - the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or more - comes up with an error message; again, the system is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it refuses - by going into the I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy. Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor floppy.) I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both systems so much. (I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might be interested/have views/answers.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
XP is a more complex piece of software than Win 9x, and goes about trying
to read data from a damaged disk differently, and tries more methods in the attempt. This can result in Explorer locking-up CPU resources for some time if it does not have any initial success. If there's any chance a floppy may be compromised, you should not use Windows Explorer to read the disk - but try instead using a "Window's Command Prompt" first. The difference being, if there's not going to be any success in reading the disk, and you have waited a long time with no success, then all you need do is press the [Ctrl-C] key combination to discontinue trying to read the drive. Also, if you do use Explorer (as I sometimes do, not realising there may be a problem with a disk) - and find that CPU usage has reached maximum and no-data is being read from the floppy - then you can always simply close that instance of Windows Explorer, and the drive-read operation will also be terminated - then simply just re-open another Explorer - avoiding the damaged disk again. == Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message ... At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy drive, the XP a USB one. What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the way of system resources. Yes, obviously it isn't cost-effective to use one, so I use a good one, but just on principle, I'd like to know what's going on: On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously - the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or more - comes up with an error message; again, the system is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it refuses - by going into the I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy. Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor floppy.) I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both systems so much. (I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might be interested/have views/answers.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf There is no character, howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule, howsoever poor and witless. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? Is it really the CPU time it's hogging? (Check in a good task manager..) It might be the low level driver waiting and timing out and retrying that takes all the time. Other parts of the system often have to wait for low level driver accesses to complete, the same sort of thing shows up with browsers trying to get remote data, etc. One thing I read about bad floppies, is that it's worth just letting it retry up to 100 times overnight if need be, that it usually gets a read in the end if there's no scarring of the disk surface. Another thing I used to do that often worked, is to gently pinch the sides of the disk together while firmly turning the centre bit to wipe the disk surface on its liners (Arguably the 100 retries are only doing what the pinch-and-turn does, just a lot more slowly and gently...). That very oftem improved things. I'd image that disk then and write the image to a new one if I needd to. (I still have a big DiskBank.zip full of files I can use in WinImage). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor floppy.) Remember that currently, computer = Turing Machine, i.e. literally one instruction at a time, so a low level timing function can hold up everything else. Whether a task manager always interprets that as actual CPU hogging when it's not, I don't know without experimenting, but all redraws and anything else that needs CPU time have to wait. I don't think the CPU is any busier though, I think it's just waiting like everything else when low level I/O access is held up. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed: At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy drive, the XP a USB one. What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the way of system resources. Yes, obviously it isn't cost-effective to use one, so I use a good one, but just on principle, I'd like to know what's going on: On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously - the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or more - comes up with an error message; again, the system is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it refuses - by going into the I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy. Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor floppy.) I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both systems so much. (I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might be interested/have views/answers.) Everyone who has responded so far has given good information. Taken together, IMO they give a good picture of what's going on. A bit higher level explanation might go thusly: Being magnetic, floppy disks do lost their data over time as short as 6 months and as long as a year or so, depending on the care they receive in storage and the condition of the floppy drive. Back in the days of floppies & pre affordable hard drives, most companies had a program of "refreshing" their floppies every 6 months or thereabouts. Refreshing consisted of nothing but copying the data off the drive, doing a Quick Format on it, and then copying the data back to the floppy. Floppies would last several years that way as long as they were stored somewhat reasonably away from heat, brght light (susnlight) and anything magnetic like speakers. My collection of around 700 CP/M & DOS floppies actually lasted long enough to finally be copied to hard disks and external drives for backup archives. They're historcal records. When a floppy starts to be formatted and begins taking forever (over a couple minutes) without advancing it's a pretty good guess that the floppy is bad. The OS makes several attempts to read the sectors (at least twice, up to a hundred times or so) And then compares each of the reads, picking the largest quantity of reads that are the same, and "assumes" that was a good read and thus uses it. With 512k sectors that can get to be very time consuming and a waste of time. As someone mentioned, it's often best to use the command line for formatting floppies for the extra control it provides. There are DOS programs around that are meant to "recover" decaying floppies. Mine seems to be lost in the archives somewhere; all I see left is the WordStar to Word converter, meaning several others are hiding away from me too. The "recover floppy" program did a lot better and more efficient job than anything you could do manually and was often surpsingly effectively. I guess Google would be the best way to find it now. As for locking up the sy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
In ,
Twayne typed: In , J. P. Gilliver (John) typed: At work I use a '95 system to test some hardware, and transfer the logs of the test to an XP system via floppy. The '95 has a built-in floppy drive, the XP a USB one. What I am puzzled about is why a bad floppy sucks away so much in the way of system resources. Yes, obviously it isn't cost-effective to use one, so I use a good one, but just on principle, I'd like to know what's going on: On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? On the XP system, if the read fails, it also seems to lock up the system. I don't know _what_ it is doing: it sits there, not even accessing the floppy continuously - the light comes on for a few seconds, then goes off for a few seconds, and eventually - sometimes after a minute or more - comes up with an error message; again, the system is a little sluggish to do anything else, though nothing like as much so as the '95 system. But what is really weird is that it seems to sulk where the floppy is concerned: once it has decided there is a problem, it refuses - by going into the I'll-stop-responding-for-ages-and-then-put-up-an-error-message mode - to do _anything_ with the floppy, even delete or rename a file, _or use a (different, good) floppy. Sometimes, if I think it has locked up completely, I kill the process with Task Manager, which works - XP is more robust that way - but from the way it does it, it is clearly having a _major_ effect: it usually closes _all_ explorer windows, blanks and eventually redraws the taskbar, breaks iconoid, redraws the desktop, and so on. Again, I can't see why doing something as trivial as accessing a floppy - even if it's dud - should have such a major effect on the system. (I also think the XP system is less tolerant of the poor floppy.) I repeat, I _know_ a good floppy is only pennies, and I have one: it's just the principle that bugs me, of why doing such a nominally simple thing should cripple both systems so much. (I've included the '98 newsgroup as I thought they might be interested/have views/answers.) Everyone who has responded so far has given good information. Taken together, IMO they give a good picture of what's going on. A bit higher level explanation might go thusly: Being magnetic, floppy disks do lost their data over time as short as 6 months and as long as a year or so, depending on the care they receive in storage and the condition of the floppy drive. Back in the days of floppies & pre affordable hard drives, most companies had a program of "refreshing" their floppies every 6 months or thereabouts. Refreshing consisted of nothing but copying the data off the drive, doing a Quick Format on it, and then copying the data back to the floppy. Floppies would last several years that way as long as they were stored somewhat reasonably away from heat, brght light (susnlight) and anything magnetic like speakers. My collection of around 700 CP/M & DOS floppies actually lasted long enough to finally be copied to hard disks and external drives for backup archives. They're historcal records. When a floppy starts to be formatted and begins taking forever (over a couple minutes) without advancing it's a pretty good guess that the floppy is bad. The OS makes several attempts to read the sectors (at least twice, up to a hundred times or so) And then compares each of the reads, picking the largest quantity of reads that are the same, and "assumes" that was a good read and thus uses it. With 512k sectors that can get to be very time consuming and a waste of time. As someone mentioned, it's often best to use the command line for formatting floppies for the extra control it provides. There are DOS programs around that are meant to "recover" decaying floppies. Mine seems to be lost in the archives somewhere; all I see left is the WordStar to Word converter, meaning several others are hiding away from me too. The "recover floppy" program did a lot better and more efficient job than anything you could do manually and was often surpsingly effectively. I guess Google would be the best way to find it now. As for locking up the system, that shouldn't be happening of course. That I'd attribute to either malware or more likely simply a corrupted system file somewhere or a conflict with another program sitting in RAM. You might try using the Command Line and Safe Mode if the floppy works n Safe Mode; pretty sure it does. IMO it's never useful to try to check a floppy for bad sectors: Let a Full Format do that for you; it'll mark out any bad sectors for you unless there are too many of them or the ID area of the floppy is damaged, which is often the case. Fgure out what the system lines should have for data and try rewriting them. It might work, might now. Probably the most effective way to gt data off a floppy that was really important to me/us was to use a hex editor and completely bypass the OS. Copy the data, less the system data sectors, to another location and try to open that; often it'll open. If it's a text file that often works, but if it's an executable, and doesn't work, you're out of luck with this method. That's my 'IIRC' anyway from some years agog. It all depends on how important the data on the floppy is to you. If it's really important, time is of the essence; floppies begin to degrade on the closer together inner tracks and works its way outwards most of the time. HTH, Twayne` |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
In message , Tim Meddick
writes: XP is a more complex piece of software than Win 9x, and goes about trying to read data from a damaged disk differently, and tries more methods in the attempt. This can result in Explorer locking-up CPU resources for some time if it does not have any initial success. [] Also, if you do use Explorer (as I sometimes do, not realising there may be a problem with a disk) - and find that CPU usage has reached maximum and no-data is being read from the floppy - then you can always simply close that instance of Windows Explorer, and the drive-read operation will also be terminated - then simply just re-open another Explorer - avoiding the damaged disk again. [] Not with that XP system: if explorer seems to be getting nowhere, then attempting to close that Explorer instance (by clicking the X) usually is ignored too. (Or may generate an error message, after a _long_ time.) If I attempt to close it from task manager, that succeeds, but usually closes _all_ Explorer windows. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Dailysex, or is it spelled dyslexia, rules KO! (Dr[.] J.[ ]B.[ ]Davis) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
bad floppies under '9x and XP
In message ,
Lostgallifreyan writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in : On the '95 system, if the floppy is bad, the write just fails with an error message, that isn't a problem. But if I run the (Windows) disc checking tool under A:'s Properties, it not only runs very slowly - as I'd expect - but also slows down the response time of anything else the system is doing, to an incredible extent. Why does the simple task of checking a floppy for bad sectors hog the processor so much? Is it really the CPU time it's hogging? (Check in a good task manager..) It might be the low level driver waiting and timing out and retrying that takes all the time. Other parts of the system often have to wait for low level driver accesses to complete, the same sort of thing shows up with browsers trying to get remote data, etc. No, everything slows to an unusable state on the '95 system when testing the bad floppy. On the XP system, if I'm using the browser to access a site that is being sluggish to respond, I can still use most other functions without difficulty (email, explorer etc.). I can't say how browser waiting would affect the '95 system, as it isn't networked, but I don't _think_ it would slow it down as much as scanning the floppy does. (As to whether it's the CPU or a low level driver, I have no idea - I just know the computer goes treacly. My main question is _why_; even '95 is a nominally multitasking system [yes I know multitasking is an illusion on a Turing machine], so I don't see why.) One thing I read about bad floppies, is that it's worth just letting it retry up to 100 times overnight if need be, that it usually gets a read in the end if there's no scarring of the disk surface. Another thing I used to do that [] Sorry, I clearly didn't stress enough that this is purely an intellectual puzzle: lots of people are being very kind and helping me to recover data from a dud floppy. I'm not: I have a good floppy for the data transfers I need to do. I'm just curious as to why, on the '95 system, _scanning_ the failing floppy seems to hog so much of the system resources, and on the XP system, why once having had a "bad read" or similar experience, it seems to screw up use of the (USB) floppy drive for getting on for the remains of that session, even if I use the good floppy. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Dailysex, or is it spelled dyslexia, rules KO! (Dr[.] J.[ ]B.[ ]Davis) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
windows 95 on floppies | hammy | Setup & Installation | 6 | November 30th 07 09:47 PM |
Windows 98 original floppies. | FREE_WORLD | Setup & Installation | 6 | September 3rd 05 01:29 PM |
Are all Win98 Startup Floppies the same? | Ed | Setup & Installation | 12 | August 28th 05 05:37 PM |
how do i copy from cd to floppies? | Debbie | Setup & Installation | 1 | November 15th 04 11:28 PM |
Windows 98 on Floppies | Kathy | Disk Drives | 1 | July 22nd 04 07:11 PM |