A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » Disk Drives
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Problem with accessing a partition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 31st 10, 06:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Problem with accessing a partition

Right and true Steven!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:59:41 -0500, "Hot-text"
wrote:

All Windows system put boots on C


Well yes but the truth is slightly reversed. DOS and Windows search a
disk for a partition with the boot indicator set before anything else.
Such a partition will always be found first and allocated the drive
letter C. Andrew is talking about changing the bootable flag in the
partition table entries and this will change which partition Windows
regards as C. The other primary partitions (if formatted acceptably)
will appear after all the logical partitions in the volume list.

Setting the boot indicator on more than one primary partition entry
normally causes the MBR code to have a hernia. I suppose one could
change this code to find the first and not worry about the rest.

Cheers,
--
Steven


  #52  
Old May 31st 10, 01:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time, but
this might lead to a breakthrough.


It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB


The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?


An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven


.

  #53  
Old May 31st 10, 01:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time, but
this might lead to a breakthrough.


It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB


The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?


An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven


.

  #54  
Old May 31st 10, 03:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Problem with accessing a partition

I'm sorry to say Today the last day for
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general for effective June 1, 2010 this
newsgroup will be closed..

I reading all the previous comments.

If Windows 98 can not read a Format, then the format is flat wrong for 98
not me.


My suggestions was for and to Steven's efforts in helping you out, For he
99.98% right and that 2% need input and Info.
You Just need to work with Steven and he help you out.

For little contributions i just give right or wrong will help him Thank it
out and fine the right Info for you!

And my old post or not junk but will work.

Next time, but not now you need to start C: at 1 Gb. for a Boot Drive only!



"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous
comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time,
but
this might lead to a breakthrough.

It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This
is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had
to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB

The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure
that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?

An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How
PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven


.

  #55  
Old May 31st 10, 03:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default Problem with accessing a partition

I'm sorry to say Today the last day for
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general for effective June 1, 2010 this
newsgroup will be closed..

I reading all the previous comments.

If Windows 98 can not read a Format, then the format is flat wrong for 98
not me.


My suggestions was for and to Steven's efforts in helping you out, For he
99.98% right and that 2% need input and Info.
You Just need to work with Steven and he help you out.

For little contributions i just give right or wrong will help him Thank it
out and fine the right Info for you!

And my old post or not junk but will work.

Next time, but not now you need to start C: at 1 Gb. for a Boot Drive only!



"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous
comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time,
but
this might lead to a breakthrough.

It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This
is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had
to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB

The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure
that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?

An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How
PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven


.

  #56  
Old May 31st 10, 10:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

Thanks again for lots of interesting and useful details.

1. I understand your discomfort, but please relax and rest insured that:
- my philosophy is to take sole responsibility for whatever I do
- I never start risky actions without having a recent clone of my drive.

2. Did PowerQuest/Symantec develop this partinfo.exe? If so, then it's a
part of the PM installation and I used its W98 version a week ago, but it
didn't report any problems

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just

leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ?

3. If I understand properly, Win98 doesn't tolerate another primary active
partition on the system*. What's more, if you have PM installed, then it
takes care of sticking to the rules for you, so I can't do much about it. It
will change what it finds necessary. I know that my approach with switching
to another system isn't perfect, but I can deal with it.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was

just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

4. While creating a new partition (here E, PM asks you about the size of
the clusters to be used and I chose 8kB. By the way:
- only my WinXP partition uses 16kB clusters and the other partitions use
8kB clusters.
- As far, as I understand, 4kB cluster you mentioned is the MS default size
for partitions up to 8GB, but you can still use bigger clusters. Am I right?
Originally, I thought, it was only a slack problem.

5. The problem we are trying to resolve occurred when I extended WinXP
partition (with 16kB clusters) to 35 GB (over 32 GB). However, I didn't see
any problems with WinXP, but only with my partition D: (under Win98se). I do
hope that the cluster size wasn't a culprit in this case, although it should
increase to 32 kB.

Now, I will try to read more about the problem and perform some tests. Soon,
I will also resize WinXP partition as before, which can make my D:
inaccessible.

Regards,
Andrew

PS *A few quotations from the PM manual
If your hard disk has more than one primary partition, only one is visible
by default. When you use the Set Active operation, PartitionMagic unhides the
selected primary partition and hides other primary partitions.
If you are running Windows NT/2000/XP, partitions are not hidden
automatically; therefore, you can have multiple visible primary partitions.
Only one partition on a hard disk can be active at a time.


"Steven Saunderson" wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time, but
this might lead to a breakthrough.


It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had to go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB


The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about these
strange values?


An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven
.

  #57  
Old May 31st 10, 10:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

Thanks again for lots of interesting and useful details.

1. I understand your discomfort, but please relax and rest insured that:
- my philosophy is to take sole responsibility for whatever I do
- I never start risky actions without having a recent clone of my drive.

2. Did PowerQuest/Symantec develop this partinfo.exe? If so, then it's a
part of the PM installation and I used its W98 version a week ago, but it
didn't report any problems

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just

leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ?

3. If I understand properly, Win98 doesn't tolerate another primary active
partition on the system*. What's more, if you have PM installed, then it
takes care of sticking to the rules for you, so I can't do much about it. It
will change what it finds necessary. I know that my approach with switching
to another system isn't perfect, but I can deal with it.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was

just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

4. While creating a new partition (here E, PM asks you about the size of
the clusters to be used and I chose 8kB. By the way:
- only my WinXP partition uses 16kB clusters and the other partitions use
8kB clusters.
- As far, as I understand, 4kB cluster you mentioned is the MS default size
for partitions up to 8GB, but you can still use bigger clusters. Am I right?
Originally, I thought, it was only a slack problem.

5. The problem we are trying to resolve occurred when I extended WinXP
partition (with 16kB clusters) to 35 GB (over 32 GB). However, I didn't see
any problems with WinXP, but only with my partition D: (under Win98se). I do
hope that the cluster size wasn't a culprit in this case, although it should
increase to 32 kB.

Now, I will try to read more about the problem and perform some tests. Soon,
I will also resize WinXP partition as before, which can make my D:
inaccessible.

Regards,
Andrew

PS *A few quotations from the PM manual
If your hard disk has more than one primary partition, only one is visible
by default. When you use the Set Active operation, PartitionMagic unhides the
selected primary partition and hides other primary partitions.
If you are running Windows NT/2000/XP, partitions are not hidden
automatically; therefore, you can have multiple visible primary partitions.
Only one partition on a hard disk can be active at a time.


"Steven Saunderson" wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time, but
this might lead to a breakthrough.


It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had to go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB


The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about these
strange values?


An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven
.

  #58  
Old May 31st 10, 10:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

I'm sorry, your comments are neither hepful to me, nor to Steven.
It's really time for you to say goodbye.

"Hot-text" wrote:

I'm sorry to say Today the last day for
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general for effective June 1, 2010 this
newsgroup will be closed..

I reading all the previous comments.

If Windows 98 can not read a Format, then the format is flat wrong for 98
not me.


My suggestions was for and to Steven's efforts in helping you out, For he
99.98% right and that 2% need input and Info.
You Just need to work with Steven and he help you out.

For little contributions i just give right or wrong will help him Thank it
out and fine the right Info for you!

And my old post or not junk but will work.

Next time, but not now you need to start C: at 1 Gb. for a Boot Drive only!



"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous
comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time,
but
this might lead to a breakthrough.

It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This
is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had
to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB

The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure
that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?

An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How
PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven

.

  #59  
Old May 31st 10, 10:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Andrew[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 35
Default Problem with accessing a partition

I'm sorry, your comments are neither hepful to me, nor to Steven.
It's really time for you to say goodbye.

"Hot-text" wrote:

I'm sorry to say Today the last day for
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general for effective June 1, 2010 this
newsgroup will be closed..

I reading all the previous comments.

If Windows 98 can not read a Format, then the format is flat wrong for 98
not me.


My suggestions was for and to Steven's efforts in helping you out, For he
99.98% right and that 2% need input and Info.
You Just need to work with Steven and he help you out.

For little contributions i just give right or wrong will help him Thank it
out and fine the right Info for you!

And my old post or not junk but will work.

Next time, but not now you need to start C: at 1 Gb. for a Boot Drive only!



"Andrew" wrote in message
...
Oh boy!
Hot-text, I'm sorry to say, but I'm really fed up with your contributions!
You just post this junk now and again without even reading previous
comments.
All your suggestions and guesses are flat wrong. D: is FAT32 and this was
clearly stated before. I think, it's better if you switch to another
discussion group instead of interfering with Steven's efforts to help me.

"Hot-text" wrote:

D: maybe just FAT
win98 can not see the old FAT its a 16
Xp read all!

"Steven Saunderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:23:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

Thanks a lot for your interesting comments and helpful ideas.
I'm sorry to bother you again with my questions, hopefully last time,
but
this might lead to a breakthrough.

It's not a bother but I'm sure you will be rather irked if your system
gets trashed due to my suggestions. If you want to see the details of
your disk layout can you download and run PartInfo.exe. It is a DOS
program and you can redirect the output to a file (e.g. "partinfo
my.lst").

You mentioned changing the boot indicator (00 or 80). Why not just
leave both your primary partitions as type 0x0C and change the boot
indicator when you want to change from XP to 98 or vice versa ? This
is
how I do it and the only complication in your case would be if PM has
changed your MBR code. This is unlikely but I honestly don't know.

To resize my WinXP(* partition located in the following sequence of
partitions: [C: Win98, (* WinXP, D:, E:, Unallocated] by 7GB, PM had
to
go
through 5 'elementary' steps in the order displayed below:
a. Resize Extended (* by 7GB (taken from Unallocated)
b. Move E: up by 7GB
c. Move D: up by 7GB
d. Resize Extended (* down by 7GB
e. Resize WinXP (* by 7GB

The overlapping copies in steps b and c could be risky but I'm sure
that
PM is doing them carefully so there is no data loss if a crash (e.g.
power loss) occurs. Step d sounds a bit risky because the LBA keys in
the EPBRs are relative to the extended partition. Step d would involve
changing each EPBR and then updating the MBR and I'm not sure how PM
could recover from a crash in this short step.

Are these details somehow useful for confirmation of your idea about
these
strange values?

An authoritative reference for FAT32 is an MS document called
FATGEN103.PDF which should be easy to find. "Hidden sectors" is
generally the offset of the volume from the sector containing its
partition entry. So, for primary partitions it is the absolute key and
for logical partitions it is 63. But, I've seen exceptions and the
volumes are still accessible so maybe the value isn't used.

You mentioned a high "first cluster of root" after you'd resized E:.
This suggests that PM has created new directory records and switched
over to these lists once the data copying was complete.

Expanding your E: volume could have been a major task for PM. E: was
just under 8GB which means it could have 4kB clusters. When you
increase it to over about 8.3GB the cluster size has to be increased or
the cluster count will be too high for utilities such as DeFrag. How
PM
can do this safely is beyond me.

I still haven't answered your question about D: being inaccessible in
Win98. Can you setup your disk so D: is inaccessible and then run
PartInfo to get the list ? One other source of info here is the MSFN
forums (search for Win98 IO.SYS).

Cheers,
--
Steven

.

  #60  
Old June 1st 10, 04:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.disks.general
Steven Saunderson
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 37
Default Problem with accessing a partition

On Mon, 31 May 2010 14:15:01 -0700, Andrew
wrote:

3. If I understand properly, Win98 doesn't tolerate another primary active
partition on the system*.


I assume that by "active" you mean the bootable indicator is set (0x80).
You're right that multiple active partitions are a no-no (only primary
partitions can be active) but it is the code in the MBR that will catch
this. Anyway, it's a silly thing to do even if the O/S doesn't catch
it. However Win98 (and others) have no problems with multiple primary
partitions. In the volume list (e.g. in Explorer) the first primary
will appear, then all the logical volumes (in the extended partition),
and then all the other (max 2 I guess) primaries.

If you want to test this while the system is set to run XP, run ptedit
from a DOS floppy, change the first primary from 0x1C to 0x0C, then set
the boot flag in the first partition and reset the boot flag in the
second. When the PC boots it should start Win98 and the XP volume will
appear as drive F. If you later boot from the floppy again and flip the
boot flags the PC should start XP when booted. If this doesn't happen
then there is something strange with your setup and we'll have to check
further.

I'm in a hurry at the moment and haven't read all of your post. Also,
if the doomsayers are correct, this newsgroup might be dead and we'll
have to move to alt.windows98. I'll follow up later.

Cheers,
--
Steven
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
problem accessing Ms-Dos oer General 2 May 15th 06 08:21 PM
Problem w/Win 98 client accessing WIn 2003 domain [email protected] Networking 0 April 7th 06 01:27 AM
Problem accessing https secure sites since Saturday Lil' Dave General 1 October 12th 04 12:28 PM
Problem accessing Websites over a secure connection Jim Internet 0 October 3rd 04 05:45 PM
Problem accessing XP printer Craig Patton Printing 1 July 20th 04 06:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.