Su0013 hell (win98 First & Second Edition)

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again, but if you think the outdated Fdisk file could be interfering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.

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

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

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???

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!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

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

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!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

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!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

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

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/