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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff,
In your reply to "Paul" regarding his post "I have new computer and I can't install Windows 98SE" you included this article from MS Knowledge Base: http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q263044 (Fdisk Does Not Recognize Full Size of Hard Disks Larger than 64 GB) I have the old version of FDisk and it does misreport sizes of my 80GB and 120Gb drives. Always thought that was mainly cosmetic, but could this be impacting Win98 setup? And the last sucessful install I did may in fact pre-date the large drives (previously had 40Gb and 13Gb), but other than incorrect sizes, Fdisk APPEARED to run normally (even has correct percentages of space reported---just wrong actual sizes of whole disk). Not looking forward to Fdisking and re-creating partitions all over again, but if you think the outdated Fdisk file could be interfering with Win98 installation, I'll give it a shot after downloading Fdisk update. Thanks, Larry Jeff Richards wrote: Oops - the unneeded devices should, of course, be disabled in BIOS setup. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "Jeff Richards" wrote in message ... snip I would recommend stripping the machine down to the minimum required to run setup (including removing extra memory modules, if appropriate, and disabling unneeded devices in device manager). Then run hardware diagnostics, and try the install again. If it succeeds, you can add back or re-enable hardware items one at a time. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I think it's likely that's the cause of the problem :-(
Do FDISK / Status from a DOS prompt. If the result isn't correct for the actual drive you are using, then you need to fix the partitioning. Starting over is one option, and if there's no useful data on the disk is probably the simplest and safest way to go. Otherwise, BootitNG might be another option. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) wrote in message oups.com... Jeff, In your reply to "Paul" regarding his post "I have new computer and I can't install Windows 98SE" you included this article from MS Knowledge Base: http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q263044 (Fdisk Does Not Recognize Full Size of Hard Disks Larger than 64 GB) I have the old version of FDisk and it does misreport sizes of my 80GB and 120Gb drives. Always thought that was mainly cosmetic, but could this be impacting Win98 setup? And the last sucessful install I did may in fact pre-date the large drives (previously had 40Gb and 13Gb), but other than incorrect sizes, Fdisk APPEARED to run normally (even has correct percentages of space reported---just wrong actual sizes of whole disk). Not looking forward to Fdisking and re-creating partitions all over again, but if you think the outdated Fdisk file could be interfering with Win98 installation, I'll give it a shot after downloading Fdisk update. Thanks, Larry |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Well.. installing the update corrected the reported size of the disks
immediately (after reboot anyway). Unfortunately it didn't magically fix the SU0013 problem...yet. But then I haven't yet tried deleting and re-creating all partitions on first disk with new Fdisk yet. Over the weekend will probably give it a shot. Oddly, the BSOD's from voltrack and Csvd4d vxd's have stopped since the Fdisk update was installed. Maybe just coincidence though. Jeff AND Bill, Thanks, but no thanks as far as "Bootit" is concerned. Despite being relatively bold with experimentation on my PC as long as I have everything backed up, Bootit (which I tried at least twice before and abandoned) is just a little too much for me. I tried really hard to like it, but it scared me. In fact...it did something weird as I was trying to un-install it earlier tonight. It unhid ALL of my partitions on ALL 3 hard disks. Didn't matter if the partition was NTFS or Fat 32, Primary or Logical, hidden or anything. And no... I did not select the Bootit option that permits more than 4 primary partitions to be added to the bootmenu. Finally was able to get into Partition magic and re-hide about 22 partitions spread across my hard drives (includes hidden partitions). I doubt I'll try BootIt again anytime soon. Larry "Jeff Richards" wrote in message ... I think it's likely that's the cause of the problem :-( Do FDISK / Status from a DOS prompt. If the result isn't correct for the actual drive you are using, then you need to fix the partitioning. Starting over is one option, and if there's no useful data on the disk is probably the simplest and safest way to go. Otherwise, BootitNG might be another option. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) wrote in message oups.com... Jeff, In your reply to "Paul" regarding his post "I have new computer and I can't install Windows 98SE" you included this article from MS Knowledge Base: http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q263044 (Fdisk Does Not Recognize Full Size of Hard Disks Larger than 64 GB) I have the old version of FDisk and it does misreport sizes of my 80GB and 120Gb drives. Always thought that was mainly cosmetic, but could this be impacting Win98 setup? And the last sucessful install I did may in fact pre-date the large drives (previously had 40Gb and 13Gb), but other than incorrect sizes, Fdisk APPEARED to run normally (even has correct percentages of space reported---just wrong actual sizes of whole disk). Not looking forward to Fdisking and re-creating partitions all over again, but if you think the outdated Fdisk file could be interfering with Win98 installation, I'll give it a shot after downloading Fdisk update. Thanks, Larry |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A new wrinke now.
Was preparing to start over with the first hard drive (primary master, Disk 0--or 1 as Fdisk calls it) and as I entered Fdisk, noticed that although the correct 80G size is showing correctly for first 2 disks (both 80G), the 3rd disk (Disk 2, or 3 to Fdisk) is showing as only 10g and it is a 120G drive. Am hesitant to create more variables now, or should I procede with Fdisk of Disk 0, to see if that solves this too. Do I have a new problem, I wonder, or just another symptom of same problem??? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I'm getting closer to finding the culprit...I think.
Tried disconnecting devices earlier to isolate possible cause, but results were inconclusive. Till today! After disconnecting my 120GB Maxtor Hard Drive, setup for Win98SE ran and did NOT generate the SU0013 error. Reconnecting it causes the error to return. What I find odd is that this is not the primary boot drive. It is 3rd of 3 disks, connected to a Promise Ultra 133 card, and used mainly for backups. To be sure it was the hard drive, I [one at a time] swapped out the IDE cable and moved the drive to different locations, including the motherboard. The only way setup runs and does not SU0013 me, is when this drive is disconnected. Next task will be determining if the drive is causing a problem simply cause its too big for Win98, or because something's wrong with the partitions, or its a physical defect. Before I relocate the backups (its used mainly as a backup drive) to other disks, and then fdisk it and start all over, is it more likely this is a hardware problem (or Win98 problem with drives that size) or that the disk's geometry requires that I redo the partitions from scratch? Thanks for any input/ideas. Larry |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding SU0013, I believe I've reached a dead end, but figured I'd
send the detail from the error message displayed when attemptng setup from inside Windows (in Dos, there is no additional info.): SUWIN caused a general protection fault in module SUWIN.EXE at 0003:000044d1. Registers: EAX=19270000 CS=19bf EIP=000044d1 EFLGS=00000246 EBX=00009040 SS=1927 ESP=00009142 EBP=0000915c ECX=00000000 DS=1927 ESI=0000cd0a FS=0000 EDX=00000000 ES=1927 EDI=00000080 GS=0167 Bytes at CS:EIP: c4 1e 10 8f 26 81 bf fe 01 55 aa 74 03 e9 99 01 Stack dump: 0080cd0a 001019bf cd0a0000 00800000 19270000 465c9182 918219bf 00004667 916c0080 cd0a1927 00000080 fe05ffc1 0000ffff 8b3b0000 91a80138 00041927 This means nothing to me, and some of it is probably machine specific, but if any of it points toward a certain piece of hardware---or even a certain TYPE of hardware (ultra 133 card, CDRW, Hard Drive, or even the motherboard)---please let me know. I'm well aware too that it could be a very generic group of data...but running out of hope that I'll ever find out. Thanks in advance, Larry cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: On 5 Dec 2004 18:58:49 -0800, wrote: Was preparing to start over with the first hard drive (primary master, Disk 0--or 1 as Fdisk calls it) and as I entered Fdisk, noticed that although the correct 80G size is showing correctly for first 2 disks (both 80G), the 3rd disk (Disk 2, or 3 to Fdisk) is showing as only 10g and it is a 120G drive. Be advised: FDisk and Format have capacity limits, even if BIOS is OK - Win95/98 FDisk can't "see" over 50M or so - bugfixed FDisk and WinME FDisk can't input or display over 99M - Format may quote odd capacities, but does seem to work OK For HDs in the 60G - 80G range, you can use either WinME's FDisk, or the bugfixed FDisk for earlier Win9x that MS had for download. For 120G HDs, I'd use BING instead. For 137G, sanity-check the OS can cope first. --------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm baaaack! --------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Larry, Did you remove some memory like Jeff suggested? You mentioned you made an entry to accommodate 712 to make Windows think it's only 512. If the entry was made in Windows it may not be valid until you do it again from Windows. Regards, Bill Watt Computer Help and Information http://home.epix.net/~bwatt/ ____________________________________________ On 13 Dec 2004 18:09:11 -0800, "1966olds" wrote: Regarding SU0013, I believe I've reached a dead end, but figured I'd send the detail from the error message displayed when attemptng setup from inside Windows (in Dos, there is no additional info.): SUWIN caused a general protection fault in module SUWIN.EXE at 0003:000044d1. Registers: EAX=19270000 CS=19bf EIP=000044d1 EFLGS=00000246 EBX=00009040 SS=1927 ESP=00009142 EBP=0000915c ECX=00000000 DS=1927 ESI=0000cd0a FS=0000 EDX=00000000 ES=1927 EDI=00000080 GS=0167 Bytes at CS:EIP: c4 1e 10 8f 26 81 bf fe 01 55 aa 74 03 e9 99 01 Stack dump: 0080cd0a 001019bf cd0a0000 00800000 19270000 465c9182 918219bf 00004667 916c0080 cd0a1927 00000080 fe05ffc1 0000ffff 8b3b0000 91a80138 00041927 This means nothing to me, and some of it is probably machine specific, but if any of it points toward a certain piece of hardware---or even a certain TYPE of hardware (ultra 133 card, CDRW, Hard Drive, or even the motherboard)---please let me know. I'm well aware too that it could be a very generic group of data...but running out of hope that I'll ever find out. Thanks in advance, Larry cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: On 5 Dec 2004 18:58:49 -0800, wrote: Was preparing to start over with the first hard drive (primary master, Disk 0--or 1 as Fdisk calls it) and as I entered Fdisk, noticed that although the correct 80G size is showing correctly for first 2 disks (both 80G), the 3rd disk (Disk 2, or 3 to Fdisk) is showing as only 10g and it is a 120G drive. Be advised: FDisk and Format have capacity limits, even if BIOS is OK - Win95/98 FDisk can't "see" over 50M or so - bugfixed FDisk and WinME FDisk can't input or display over 99M - Format may quote odd capacities, but does seem to work OK For HDs in the 60G - 80G range, you can use either WinME's FDisk, or the bugfixed FDisk for earlier Win9x that MS had for download. For 120G HDs, I'd use BING instead. For 137G, sanity-check the OS can cope first. --------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm baaaack! --------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bill,
Not sure exactly what you're asking. Windows Sys.ini was edited long ago (though I checked again) and also MSconfig, and WIn98 thinks only 512MB installed. When you right click on "My Computer" Icon it shows only 512MB memory. And I also cannot get through setup in DOS, and I wouldn't expect that to be affected by the entry anyway. I wasn't able to remove any memory sticks, cause I have RDRAM and it has that thing about everything being in pairs. I tried...but computer would not boot without all 4 Rimm slots occupied. Somewhere I have the two "dummy" memory sticks (0 MB) that once were in place, but haven't been able to find them yet. Could too much RDRAM on board affect DOS install? (I swear, though, that I installed Win98 at least once or twice after RAM upgrade from 256MB to 768MB. I'm leaning towards some kind of hardware failure as the cause, even if its not the RAM, but after a lot of swapping of cables, drives, and even PCI slots, SU0013 error remains. Thank you for your suggestions, though. Even if so far not the answer I need. Larry |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Dec 2004 04:37:23 -0800, "1966olds"
wrote: Bill, Not sure exactly what you're asking. Windows Sys.ini was edited long ago (though I checked again) and also MSconfig, and WIn98 thinks only 512MB installed. When you right click on "My Computer" Icon it shows only 512MB memory. And I also cannot get through setup in DOS, and I wouldn't expect that to be affected by the entry anyway. I wasn't able to remove any memory sticks, cause I have RDRAM and it has that thing about everything being in pairs. I tried...but computer would not boot without all 4 Rimm slots occupied. Somewhere I have the two "dummy" memory sticks (0 MB) that once were in place, but haven't been able to find them yet. Could too much RDRAM on board affect DOS install? (I swear, though, that I installed Win98 at least once or twice after RAM upgrade from 256MB to 768MB. I'm leaning towards some kind of hardware failure as the cause, even if its not the RAM, but after a lot of swapping of cables, drives, and even PCI slots, SU0013 error remains. Thank you for your suggestions, though. Even if so far not the answer I need. Larry Larry, See this MS article for what stage the error occurs in during Setup and a description of the stage. It may give you a clue. BTW disable any Anti-virus features you may have loading at boot. Although for that to affect a Dos install it would have to be in the Autoexec.bat file. Description of Windows 98 Setup Process http://support.microsoft.com/support...s/195/5/68.asp Hope you solve this soon, it must be a pain. Happy Holidays Everyone, Bill Watt Computer Help and Information http://home.epix.net/~bwatt/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Win98 Se b edition | Arran | General | 5 | August 1st 04 12:37 PM |
Upgrade Win98 First Edition to Win98 SE | jrystar | Software & Applications | 1 | July 20th 04 06:17 PM |
Upgrade Win98 to Win98 Second Edition | KANDO | General | 6 | July 16th 04 07:44 PM |
Registry Problem while installing Win98 Second Edition | sudhi | Setup & Installation | 1 | July 15th 04 05:06 PM |
Win98 FIRST edition not able to ping my router | mgm | Networking | 5 | July 1st 04 09:45 PM |