ME Reinstallation (Clean Install) Problems

[RN]

I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new processor
and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating system and
made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.

So, I decided to try a clean install on a new drive. Problem is the system
does not recorgnize the ME installation CD (it's an upgrade from 95). For the
heck of it I tried the old Windows95 installation CD. However the
system will happily let me try to install XP. So the issue is not the CD
drive.

So does Microsoft rig it's CD's to not work after a certain date? Anyone have
any other suggestions?

Thanks In advance.

[RN]

Sorry, but I left a few words off the original. The additions are in CAPS to be recognizable.
>
>I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new processor
>and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating system and
>made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.
>
>So, I decided to try a clean install on a new drive. Problem is the system
>does not recorgnize the ME installation CD (it's an upgrade from 95). For the
>heck of it I tried the old Windows95 installation CD -- SAME THING, IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED. THE
>DISKS ARE CLEAN. However the system will happily let me try to install XP. So the issue is not
the CD drive.
>
>So does Microsoft rig it's CD's to not work after a certain date? Anyone have
>any other suggestions?
>
>Thanks In advance.
>

[Noel Paton]

ME and previous CD's are NOT bootable - use a floppy!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sorry, but I left a few words off the original. The additions are in CAPS
to be recognizable.
> >
> >I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new
processor
> >and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating system
and
> >made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.
> >
> >So, I decided to try a clean install on a new drive. Problem is the
system
> >does not recorgnize the ME installation CD (it's an upgrade from 95). For
the
> >heck of it I tried the old Windows95 installation CD -- SAME THING, IT IS
NOT RECOGNIZED. THE
> >DISKS ARE CLEAN. However the system will happily let me try to install
XP. So the issue is not
> the CD drive.
> >
> >So does Microsoft rig it's CD's to not work after a certain date? Anyone
have
> >any other suggestions?
> >
> >Thanks In advance.
> >
>

[RN]

>ME and previous CD's are NOT bootable - use a floppy!

Since I'm doing a clean install on a new drive, I shouldn't need to boot with
a floppy should I? There is no operating system anywhere. There is no data
anywhere on the DD -- only a feshly formatted DD. The CD should read as a an
installation disk.

At least that's what happened when I originally built the system. It's also
what's happening when I try an XP installation CD.

[Noel Paton]

That's the precise reason that you need the floppy!
There are two types of CD - Bootable, and non-Bootable. (same as floppies)

Until Win2K and Win XP MS did NOT manufacture Bootable CD's at all.

Either your system already had a boostrap OS on the HD. or your memory is at
fault. (or your original CD was not from MS)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Since I'm doing a clean install on a new drive, I shouldn't need to boot
with
> a floppy should I? There is no operating system anywhere. There is no data
> anywhere on the DD -- only a feshly formatted DD. The CD should read as a
an
> installation disk.

[RN]

Thanks for being persistent with me. I'll dig out the old ME boot disk that I
created years ago.

Hope that no one that has moved to one of the new boxes sans diskette runs
into the problem. I guess they'd be SOL!




>That's the precise reason that you need the floppy!
>There are two types of CD - Bootable, and non-Bootable. (same as floppies)
>
>Until Win2K and Win XP MS did NOT manufacture Bootable CD's at all.
>
>Either your system already had a boostrap OS on the HD. or your memory is at
>fault. (or your original CD was not from MS)
>
>--
>No
>
>

[Noel Paton]

If you don't find it - go to www.bootdisk.com and download the OEM ME
diskmaker, and use that to create an ME boot disk on another machine

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thanks for being persistent with me. I'll dig out the old ME boot disk
that I
> created years ago.
>
> Hope that no one that has moved to one of the new boxes sans diskette runs
> into the problem. I guess they'd be SOL!
>
>
>
>
> >That's the precise reason that you need the floppy!
> >There are two types of CD - Bootable, and non-Bootable. (same as
floppies)
> >
> >Until Win2K and Win XP MS did NOT manufacture Bootable CD's at all.
> >
> >Either your system already had a boostrap OS on the HD. or your memory is
at
> >fault. (or your original CD was not from MS)
> >
> >--
> >No
> >
> >
>

[Mike M]

> I guess they'd be SOL!

Why? Such a user can use a bootable CD which could then be removed and then
setup launched from the Win Me CD.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



RN > wrote:

> Thanks for being persistent with me. I'll dig out the old ME boot disk
> that I created years ago.
>
> Hope that no one that has moved to one of the new boxes sans diskette runs
> into the problem. I guess they'd be SOL!

[RN]

That is true, and I suspect that most people getting new boxes (sans diskette)
probably aren't
playing with ME anyway.

In article >,
says...
>
>> I guess they'd be SOL!
>
>Why? Such a user can use a bootable CD which could then be removed and then
>setup launched from the Win Me CD.
>--
>Mike Maltby MS-MVP

[Mike M]

RN > wrote:

> That is true, and I suspect that most people getting new boxes (sans
> diskette) probably aren't
> playing with ME anyway.

Too true, or any other 9x operating system come to that. Microsoft currently
only market XP Home and Pro (and their variants such as MCE and Tablet)
although Win2K is also still available in some circumstances.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP

[src]

how odd - mine are - 98se and me but not upgrade versions.



"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> ME and previous CD's are NOT bootable - use a floppy!
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> or
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp
>
> "RN" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Sorry, but I left a few words off the original. The additions are in
CAPS
> to be recognizable.
> > >
> > >I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new
> processor
> > >and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating system
> and
> > >made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.
> > >
> > >So, I decided to try a clean install on a new drive. Problem is the
> system
> > >does not recorgnize the ME installation CD (it's an upgrade from 95).
For
> the
> > >heck of it I tried the old Windows95 installation CD -- SAME THING, IT
IS
> NOT RECOGNIZED. THE
> > >DISKS ARE CLEAN. However the system will happily let me try to install
> XP. So the issue is not
> > the CD drive.
> > >
> > >So does Microsoft rig it's CD's to not work after a certain date?
Anyone
> have
> > >any other suggestions?
> > >
> > >Thanks In advance.
> > >
> >
>
>

[Mike M]

In which case they are OEM CDs and not those from Microsoft. Check the CDs
and you will probably find something like "Only to be sold with a new PC"
printed on them or even an OEM identifier such as HP, Gateway, Compaq or
whatever.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



src > wrote:

> how odd - mine are - 98se and me but not upgrade versions.

[Noel Paton]

In that case, they're not MS CD's - but OEM ones.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"src" > wrote in message
...
> how odd - mine are - 98se and me but not upgrade versions.
>
>
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ME and previous CD's are NOT bootable - use a floppy!
> >
> > --
> > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)
> >
> > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> >
> > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
NG's
> > or
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp
> >
> > "RN" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Sorry, but I left a few words off the original. The additions are in
> CAPS
> > to be recognizable.
> > > >
> > > >I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new
> > processor
> > > >and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating
system
> > and
> > > >made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.
> > > >
> > > >So, I decided to try a clean install on a new drive. Problem is the
> > system
> > > >does not recorgnize the ME installation CD (it's an upgrade from 95).
> For
> > the
> > > >heck of it I tried the old Windows95 installation CD -- SAME THING,
IT
> IS
> > NOT RECOGNIZED. THE
> > > >DISKS ARE CLEAN. However the system will happily let me try to
install
> > XP. So the issue is not
> > > the CD drive.
> > > >
> > > >So does Microsoft rig it's CD's to not work after a certain date?
> Anyone
> > have
> > > >any other suggestions?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks In advance.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[src]

quite happy if you add that differentiation Mike and Noel. Specific PC
maker versions apart, previous postings didnt differentiate or in some cases
even mention the route ex MS to user and could therefore have been (I am
sure unintentionally) misleading. The point is they do exist as an
alternative to your very valid suggestion of using a boot disk.

Keep up the good work - your joint efforts and assistance are very welcome
even to old computer wrinklies like me.


"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> In which case they are OEM CDs and not those from Microsoft. Check the
CDs
> and you will probably find something like "Only to be sold with a new PC"
> printed on them or even an OEM identifier such as HP, Gateway, Compaq or
> whatever.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
>
>
>
> src > wrote:
>
> > how odd - mine are - 98se and me but not upgrade versions.
>

[Mike M]

src,

It does however seem to be you that is confusing matters here. Both Noel and
myself made it quite clear and always have that Microsoft Win Me CDs are not
bootable, just as Microsoft CDs for Win 95, 98 and 98SE are not bootable. You
are the one who chose to contradict our statements. :-) OEMs appear to
choose many different ways of distributing the OS, either a straight copies of
the Microsoft CDs, customising the CDs and making them bootable, or instead by
distributing customised images of the system as installed allowing the user to
only restore that image and not clean install the OS. It is because of this
that I, and I know Noel also, have always clearly qualified our comments by
referring to "Microsoft CDs"

Cheers from another old wrinkly who started with punch tape and punched cards
<vbg>.
--
Mike M


src > wrote:

> quite happy if you add that differentiation Mike and Noel. Specific PC
> maker versions apart, previous postings didnt differentiate or in some
> cases even mention the route ex MS to user and could therefore have been
> (I am sure unintentionally) misleading. The point is they do exist as an
> alternative to your very valid suggestion of using a boot disk.
>
> Keep up the good work - your joint efforts and assistance are very welcome
> even to old computer wrinklies like me.

[Rick T]

Noel Paton wrote:

> In that case, they're not MS CD's - but OEM ones.
>

******, now you're screwing up my internal filing system... I always
thought OEM referred to the MS-produced CDs that say "For Sale with a
New Computer System Only" (or somesuch) just like "white box" hardware
components are referred to as OEM. Not saying it doesn't make sense, but
still....


Rick

[Noel Paton]

There are two types of MS CD - Retail and OEM (and within them both - the
Full and Upgrade versions)
OEM 's have the ability (and rights) to create their own versions of an OEM
disk - which can be anything from a straight copy of the MS CD, to a
compressed file within a recovery disk.

All MS ME CD's have full-CD holograms, AFAIK - the OEM ones having the words
'Only for distribution with a new PC' added to the print on the CD, and
box/case cover.
The OEM CD's can have just about anything on them - but almost always
include a variation of the phrase 'Only for distribution....'



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Noel Paton wrote:
>
> > In that case, they're not MS CD's - but OEM ones.
> >
>
> ******, now you're screwing up my internal filing system... I always
> thought OEM referred to the MS-produced CDs that say "For Sale with a
> New Computer System Only" (or somesuch) just like "white box" hardware
> components are referred to as OEM. Not saying it doesn't make sense, but
> still....
>
>
> Rick

[src]

hate to admit it Mark, but I beat you - I started on double sided printed
circuit boards programmed by drilling a hole and interconnecting the sides
with a rivet! Any mistakes could be corrected by drilling out the rivet.
(Prefer current practice!)

On main point there clearly is some genuine confusion here somewhere but I
dont propose we lose any sleep over it - I have had bootable 98SE CDs
clearly made by MS (or else they are such brilliant fakes that they fool me
and I spot most fakes a mile off and avoid them like the plague!) On ME I am
working from memory and may well be mistaken. I am ignoring upgrade CDs
which - agreed - I have never seen in bootable form and copies/own
versions/restore cds by OEMs which I agree turn up in many odd variations.

Clearly I must have a very valuable one off which I shall guard with great
care as I find it far easier to use than the other available options. It
arrived some years ago and in all honesty I cannot remember where from. (Old
age and volume of goods through workshop make tying down a source that far
back a lost cause)

The whole thing is very intriguing.

(For any other readers benefit - before you ask - no you cant have a copy -
I only buy legit and I dont do copies! Anyway Mark and Noels advice on
downloading is a very viable - and AFAIK legal - alternative.)

Best wishes
Steve

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> src,
>
> It does however seem to be you that is confusing matters here. Both Noel
and
> myself made it quite clear and always have that Microsoft Win Me CDs are
not
> bootable, just as Microsoft CDs for Win 95, 98 and 98SE are not bootable.
You
> are the one who chose to contradict our statements. :-) OEMs appear to
> choose many different ways of distributing the OS, either a straight
copies of
> the Microsoft CDs, customising the CDs and making them bootable, or
instead by
> distributing customised images of the system as installed allowing the
user to
> only restore that image and not clean install the OS. It is because of
this
> that I, and I know Noel also, have always clearly qualified our comments
by
> referring to "Microsoft CDs"
>
> Cheers from another old wrinkly who started with punch tape and punched
cards
> <vbg>.
> --
> Mike M
>
>
> src > wrote:
>
> > quite happy if you add that differentiation Mike and Noel. Specific PC
> > maker versions apart, previous postings didnt differentiate or in some
> > cases even mention the route ex MS to user and could therefore have been
> > (I am sure unintentionally) misleading. The point is they do exist as an
> > alternative to your very valid suggestion of using a boot disk.
> >
> > Keep up the good work - your joint efforts and assistance are very
welcome
> > even to old computer wrinklies like me.
>

[Mike M]

Steve,

Once again Microsoft DID NOT and have NEVER produced bootable Win 9x CDs.
What you have seen is quite clearly an OEM CD. That you cannot accept this is
regrettable and almost certainly due to a lapse of memory. When you find that
CD and get to read what is printed on it you will realise your mistake.

So, not intriguing at all, but rather simply the result of approaching old
age. :-)
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



src > wrote:

> hate to admit it Mark, but I beat you - I started on double sided printed
> circuit boards programmed by drilling a hole and interconnecting the
> sides with a rivet! Any mistakes could be corrected by drilling out the
> rivet. (Prefer current practice!)
>
> On main point there clearly is some genuine confusion here somewhere but I
> dont propose we lose any sleep over it - I have had bootable 98SE CDs
> clearly made by MS (or else they are such brilliant fakes that they fool
> me and I spot most fakes a mile off and avoid them like the plague!) On
> ME I am working from memory and may well be mistaken. I am ignoring
> upgrade CDs which - agreed - I have never seen in bootable form and
> copies/own versions/restore cds by OEMs which I agree turn up in many odd
> variations.
>
> Clearly I must have a very valuable one off which I shall guard with great
> care as I find it far easier to use than the other available options. It
> arrived some years ago and in all honesty I cannot remember where from.
> (Old age and volume of goods through workshop make tying down a source
> that far back a lost cause)
>
> The whole thing is very intriguing.
>
> (For any other readers benefit - before you ask - no you cant have a copy
> - I only buy legit and I dont do copies! Anyway Mark and Noels advice on
> downloading is a very viable - and AFAIK legal - alternative.)

[Rick T]

Noel Paton wrote:

> There are two types of MS CD - Retail and OEM (and within them both - the
> Full and Upgrade versions)
> OEM 's have the ability (and rights) to create their own versions of an OEM
> disk - which can be anything from a straight copy of the MS CD, to a
> compressed file within a recovery disk.
>
> All MS ME CD's have full-CD holograms, AFAIK - the OEM ones having the words
> 'Only for distribution with a new PC' added to the print on the CD, and
> box/case cover.
> The OEM CD's can have just about anything on them - but almost always
> include a variation of the phrase 'Only for distribution....'
>

I was sorta hoping to get unconfused....

So there are M$ OEM CDs (as in produced by MS for system mfrs)

and OEM MS CDs (as in licensed by MS but produced by system mfrs,
themselves) ? Are these what I've been referring to as "Recovery CDs"?
or is that a different thing altogether.


My Win95 "Only for...." came with a M$ printed booklet with a MS
"Certificate of Authenticity" glued to the front. There is nothing on
the CD or on the booklet that refer to any other corporation except
Microsoft.


Rick

[Noel Paton]

These are the options....

MS manufacture
Retail CD's - bit Upgrade and Full
OEM CD's - both Upgrade and Retail - for sale with hardware only

OEM's manufacture whatever the hell they like - within the parameters of
their likens. The bigger they are, the more they can afford to tailor the
package it comes in to reduce support costs ("Just put the CD in the slot
and type Restore at the DOS prompt - problem solved!" = reformat/reinstall
done with no interaction whatsoever - and no warning either!)

When Gateway started in the UK, they shipped systems with full MS OEM CD's -
together with a 'System CD' which contained extra drivers, and a recovery
option (I still have one somewhere). When they ran away from Europe, they
were selling with Recovery/Restore disks, and the customer never saw the OS
disk at all, AFAIK.

Your Win 95 CD sounds like an MS OEM one - most manufacturers' OEM CD's have
the manufacturer's name plastered all over them, and the booklet is not
normally supplied.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> I was sorta hoping to get unconfused....
>
> So there are M$ OEM CDs (as in produced by MS for system mfrs)
>
> and OEM MS CDs (as in licensed by MS but produced by system mfrs,
> themselves) ? Are these what I've been referring to as "Recovery CDs"?
> or is that a different thing altogether.
>
>
> My Win95 "Only for...." came with a M$ printed booklet with a MS
> "Certificate of Authenticity" glued to the front. There is nothing on
> the CD or on the booklet that refer to any other corporation except
> Microsoft.
>
>
> Rick

[Rick T]

Noel Paton wrote:

> These are the options....
>
> MS manufacture
> Retail CD's - bit Upgrade and Full
> OEM CD's - both Upgrade and Retail - for sale with hardware only
>
> OEM's manufacture whatever the hell they like - within the parameters of
> their likens. The bigger they are, the more they can afford to tailor the
> package it comes in to reduce support costs ("Just put the CD in the slot
> and type Restore at the DOS prompt - problem solved!" = reformat/reinstall
> done with no interaction whatsoever - and no warning either!)
>
> When Gateway started in the UK, they shipped systems with full MS OEM CD's -
> together with a 'System CD' which contained extra drivers, and a recovery
> option (I still have one somewhere). When they ran away from Europe, they
> were selling with Recovery/Restore disks, and the customer never saw the OS
> disk at all, AFAIK.
>
> Your Win 95 CD sounds like an MS OEM one - most manufacturers' OEM CD's have
> the manufacturer's name plastered all over them, and the booklet is not
> normally supplied.
>

Thanks Noel

Rick

[Noel Paton]

NP, Rick

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Noel Paton wrote:
>
> > These are the options....
> >
> > MS manufacture
> > Retail CD's - bit Upgrade and Full
> > OEM CD's - both Upgrade and Retail - for sale with hardware only
> >
> > OEM's manufacture whatever the hell they like - within the parameters of
> > their likens. The bigger they are, the more they can afford to tailor
the
> > package it comes in to reduce support costs ("Just put the CD in the
slot
> > and type Restore at the DOS prompt - problem solved!" =
reformat/reinstall
> > done with no interaction whatsoever - and no warning either!)
> >
> > When Gateway started in the UK, they shipped systems with full MS OEM
CD's -
> > together with a 'System CD' which contained extra drivers, and a
recovery
> > option (I still have one somewhere). When they ran away from Europe,
they
> > were selling with Recovery/Restore disks, and the customer never saw the
OS
> > disk at all, AFAIK.
> >
> > Your Win 95 CD sounds like an MS OEM one - most manufacturers' OEM CD's
have
> > the manufacturer's name plastered all over them, and the booklet is not
> > normally supplied.
> >
>
> Thanks Noel
>
> Rick

[RN]

Well, I'm not making much progress, and have to admit that I'm stumped. I've
installed ME and XP about six other times, but have never had as much trouble
as with this one. Here are the details.

1) I can use an old DD that has ME installed, and can get the machine to boot.
BIOS load goes asa it should with the CPU speed and memory registering
properly.

2) I've used Western Digital's Lifeguard utility to format and partion the new
drive. I used the most current version of the software. I picked a WinME
option for the OS. The first partition, c:, is bootable by Western's software.

3) I'm using a WinME startup disk created from WnME to boot the floppy. I pick
the "cd rom support" method, and the floppy software loads properly. While
this is happening, I get an error message telling me that the DD does not
include a valid Fat or FAT32 partition (despite point 2 above). D: is
recognized as the CD.

4) When I input d:setup, I get the following error message: "If HPFS or NTFS
is on the DD, you will need to create an MS-Boot partition." Proplem is I
have already done this - by point 2 above. As a matter of fact, I formatted
the DD three different times just in case I did something wrong.

5) One funny thing though -- as opposed to point 1 above, with the new DD, I
don't see a memory count. I know that the drive is good as I've used it as a
slave in point 1 as well as on another XP machine. I use the same ribbon
cable and power cable installed the same way for the working drive and the
non-working drive. As a matter of fact I leave them attached to the
motherboard, and simply move as needed between the drive. Both drives are set
up by jumpers as single drives -- and have been installed in the box that way.

I find it hard to beleive that it's the WD software, as I used the same
software to format a DD for XP, and it worked fine.

Anyone have any ideas?





In article >,
says...
>
>I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to install a new
processor
>and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the operating system and
>made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at all.

[Mike M]

1) Good. This shows that the system is OK and the problem solely related to
the new hard disk.

2) Why use WD's LifeGuard rather than fdisk and format using a Win Me boot
floppy?

3) See 2.

4) If using a Win Me boot floppy the D drive will be a RAMDRIVE. Your CD-ROM
will be E.

5) I don't see what the attached disk drive has to do with the bios memory
count which only normally takes place when the PC is first switched on and
before any attempt has been made to access the hard disk.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



RN > wrote:

> Well, I'm not making much progress, and have to admit that I'm stumped.
> I've installed ME and XP about six other times, but have never had as
> much trouble as with this one. Here are the details.
>
> 1) I can use an old DD that has ME installed, and can get the machine to
> boot. BIOS load goes asa it should with the CPU speed and memory
> registering properly.
>
> 2) I've used Western Digital's Lifeguard utility to format and partion
> the new drive. I used the most current version of the software. I picked
> a WinME option for the OS. The first partition, c:, is bootable by
> Western's software.
>
> 3) I'm using a WinME startup disk created from WnME to boot the floppy. I
> pick the "cd rom support" method, and the floppy software loads properly.
> While this is happening, I get an error message telling me that the DD
> does not include a valid Fat or FAT32 partition (despite point 2 above).
> D: is recognized as the CD.
>
> 4) When I input d:setup, I get the following error message: "If HPFS or
> NTFS is on the DD, you will need to create an MS-Boot partition." Proplem
> is I have already done this - by point 2 above. As a matter of fact, I
> formatted the DD three different times just in case I did something wrong.
>
> 5) One funny thing though -- as opposed to point 1 above, with the new
> DD, I don't see a memory count. I know that the drive is good as I've
> used it as a slave in point 1 as well as on another XP machine. I use the
> same ribbon cable and power cable installed the same way for the working
> drive and the non-working drive. As a matter of fact I leave them
> attached to the motherboard, and simply move as needed between the drive.
> Both drives are set up by jumpers as single drives -- and have been
> installed in the box that way.
>
> I find it hard to beleive that it's the WD software, as I used the same
> software to format a DD for XP, and it worked fine.
>
> Anyone have any ideas?

[RN]

Mike M Asked:
>
>2) Why use WD's LifeGuard rather than fdisk and format using a Win Me boot
>floppy?

Two reasons. First, I've used WD's software repeatedly over the last 4 years
without any difficulty, and second, I really want to partition the drive. I
have to admit I've not used fdisk, but was under the impression it would not
let me set up partitions. I like the c drive to be a max of 12 gigs because
scandisk, when it runs, takes forever for big drives. I've never run out of c
drive room, but if I do, I can always install a program on a different drive.

>
>4) If using a Win Me boot floppy the D drive will be a RAMDRIVE. Your CD-ROM
>will be E.

The dos boot does say that it recognizes the cd drive to be the d drive. If
you are right, then maybe that is my problem. I'll try a setup off of the e
drive.

Thanks for your response, Mike.

[Mike M]

RN,

fdisk is the Microsoft tool used to partition a disk with a maximum of four
primary partitions with one being an extended partition that can then contain
multiple drives). For more details see KB255867 - "How to Use the Fdisk Tool
and the Format Tool to Partition or Repartition a Hard Disk"
(http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=255867)

Try typing DIR D: and then DIR E: from the DOS prompt. Which shows the
contents of the CD-ROM?

Best of luck and I hope you get this resolved soon.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



RN > wrote:

>> 2) Why use WD's LifeGuard rather than fdisk and format using a Win Me
>> boot floppy?
>
> Two reasons. First, I've used WD's software repeatedly over the last 4
> years without any difficulty, and second, I really want to partition the
> drive. I have to admit I've not used fdisk, but was under the impression
> it would not let me set up partitions. I like the c drive to be a max of
> 12 gigs because scandisk, when it runs, takes forever for big drives.
> I've never run out of c drive room, but if I do, I can always install a
> program on a different drive.
>
>>
>> 4) If using a Win Me boot floppy the D drive will be a RAMDRIVE. Your
>> CD-ROM will be E.
>
> The dos boot does say that it recognizes the cd drive to be the d drive.
> If you are right, then maybe that is my problem. I'll try a setup off of
> the e drive.
>
> Thanks for your response, Mike.

[Noel Paton]

....and don't forget - the CD is E: (or higher)!!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> RN,
>
> fdisk is the Microsoft tool used to partition a disk with a maximum of
four
> primary partitions with one being an extended partition that can then
contain
> multiple drives). For more details see KB255867 - "How to Use the Fdisk
Tool
> and the Format Tool to Partition or Repartition a Hard Disk"
> (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=255867)
>
> Try typing DIR D: and then DIR E: from the DOS prompt. Which shows the
> contents of the CD-ROM?
>
> Best of luck and I hope you get this resolved soon.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
>
>
>
> RN > wrote:
>
> >> 2) Why use WD's LifeGuard rather than fdisk and format using a Win Me
> >> boot floppy?
> >
> > Two reasons. First, I've used WD's software repeatedly over the last 4
> > years without any difficulty, and second, I really want to partition the
> > drive. I have to admit I've not used fdisk, but was under the impression
> > it would not let me set up partitions. I like the c drive to be a max of
> > 12 gigs because scandisk, when it runs, takes forever for big drives.
> > I've never run out of c drive room, but if I do, I can always install a
> > program on a different drive.
> >
> >>
> >> 4) If using a Win Me boot floppy the D drive will be a RAMDRIVE. Your
> >> CD-ROM will be E.
> >
> > The dos boot does say that it recognizes the cd drive to be the d drive.
> > If you are right, then maybe that is my problem. I'll try a setup off of
> > the e drive.
> >
> > Thanks for your response, Mike.
>

[Mike M]

Which is what I said in my previous reply and why I suggested in the post to
which you replied that RN should DIR both D: and E:
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP



Noel Paton > wrote:

> ...and don't forget - the CD is E: (or higher)!!

[BarryG]

<snip>
>I know that the drive is good as I've used it as a
>slave in point 1 as well as on another XP machine.
<snip>
>
>I find it hard to believe that it's the WD software, as I
used the same
>software to format a DD for XP, and it worked fine.
>

Perchance, if you are using the hard disk in a XP machine,
is it formatted as NTFS? If so, then WinME can't see it
when booted from a WinME startup disk. Maybe ramdisk is
then C: drive, and CD-ROM becomes D: drive?
You really need to Fdisk the hard disk with WinME's fdisk,
and format with with WinME's format to really be sure you
get fat32, which WinME can read.

Good luck,
BarryG

>
>
>
>In article <tKjBc.596
>,
says...
>>
>>I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to
install a new
>processor
>>and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the
operating system and
>>made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at
all.
>
>
>.
>

[Noel Paton]

Good point - FDISK /STATUS should show whether the disk is formatted
correctly or not.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"BarryG" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
> >I know that the drive is good as I've used it as a
> >slave in point 1 as well as on another XP machine.
> <snip>
> >
> >I find it hard to believe that it's the WD software, as I
> used the same
> >software to format a DD for XP, and it worked fine.
> >
>
> Perchance, if you are using the hard disk in a XP machine,
> is it formatted as NTFS? If so, then WinME can't see it
> when booted from a WinME startup disk. Maybe ramdisk is
> then C: drive, and CD-ROM becomes D: drive?
> You really need to Fdisk the hard disk with WinME's fdisk,
> and format with with WinME's format to really be sure you
> get fat32, which WinME can read.
>
> Good luck,
> BarryG
>
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <tKjBc.596
> >,
> says...
> >>
> >>I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to
> install a new
> >processor
> >>and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the
> operating system and
> >>made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at
> all.
> >
> >
> >.
> >

[RN]

Noel and Barry, you just may be on to something here. I have been formatting the drive on an XP
machine, but I have specifically been formatting as an ME DD (or at least I think I have. I've
been farting around with this long enough that there's not really much that I am sure of!)

1) Ramdisk is C: and the CD is D: -- as you suggested (when using an ME start floppy in the
non-working machine.

2)In the non-working machine set up as a single drive: no recognition of the boot capability --
using an ME start flopp and ME fdisk does not recognize the drive . When I flip it into slave
mode and use another ME DD to boot the machine, only the first partition of the trouble DD is
recognized

3)In the working XP machine: full recognition of the partitions (as set up as a slave).

4)For the heck of it one time I did a bootable c: in XP format and did the equivalent of a copy
*.* from the XP c: to the DD I've been having trouble with. So the thing should have booted as an
XP machine. Took it to the machine I've been having trouble with, set it up as a single drive ,
-- and the da*n thing still did not recognize the c: boot sectors.

4a)After doing 4 above, I took the thing back to the XP machine and put the drive in as a single
drive -- and the machine DID NOT recognize a bootable c: (I did not check this on the XP machine
before doing 4 above)

5)BIOS is set up with SMART HD enabled and I've run all tests on the drive, and everything is ok.

6)Ran a current AV on the drive and although there are no viruses, I did see something strange --
2 master boot records and 8 boot records on a 3 partition drive.

7)One other strange thing: reference 4 above -- the non-working machine is adding one file to the
drive WIN386.SWP at 47,200 bytes.

I've just formatted the DD again -- this time as non bootable again in ME format. I'll try ME
fdisk again.

Any other suggestions? Thanks for your help


>
>Perchance, if you are using the hard disk in a XP machine,
>is it formatted as NTFS? If so, then WinME can't see it
>when booted from a WinME startup disk. Maybe ramdisk is
>then C: drive, and CD-ROM becomes D: drive?
>You really need to Fdisk the hard disk with WinME's fdisk,
>and format with with WinME's format to really be sure you
>get fat32, which WinME can read.
>
>Good luck,
>BarryG
>
>>
>>
>>
>>In article <tKjBc.596
>,
says...
>>>
>>>I had a processor die a few weeks ago, so I decided to
>install a new
>>processor
>>>and motherboard. Of course this played havoc with the
>operating system and
>>>made it very unstable. It'us useable, but not stable at
>all.
>>
>>
>>.
>>

[RN]

Well, after all the dailogue, I guess I'm convinced that the problem involves my switching back
and forth bewteen the XP and ME formats - and the incompatability of XP's DD formatting vs that
of ME.

Problem is that I can't use ME fdisk to fix the issue as it does not recognize the DD. I
apparently can't use Western Digital's current software as it does not seem to have worked so
far.

So I, went back to three year old WD software that I've used to set up ME DDs in the past. I'm
running a BIOS check on the DD now. The old WD software will load EX-BIOS on the DD and partition
the thing. The only continuing issue is that this fix is SLOOOOOWWWWWW. It's taking the old
software about 2 seconds a cylinder -- so, if I'm lucky it might be done tomorrow!

Thanks for putting up with my insanity!

[RN]

Oh, I forgot to make an observation: It sure would have been easier for me to go out and get a
new 120 gig drive for 50 bucks as I've sure put a lot more than 50 bucks of labor into this
effort.

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:04:35 +0100, "Mike M"

>1) Good. This shows that the system is OK and the problem solely related to
>the new hard disk.

Oversnip and missed earlier posts may account for this, but from what
I've read of this thread, I haven't seen enough to exclude bad
hardware other than HD (i.e. RAM, overclocking, heating issues, or
problems within "the untestables").

>2) Why use WD's LifeGuard rather than fdisk and format using a Win Me boot
>floppy?

If HD > 99G, FDisk - even WinME or "fixed" one for older Win9x - will
not be able to properly display capacities over 99G or (more
significantly) allow such capacites to be input.

For that, I use BING from www.bootitng.com

>5) I don't see what the attached disk drive has to do with the bios memory
>count which only normally takes place when the PC is first switched on and
>before any attempt has been made to access the hard disk.

Yep. Makes me wonder about a crash that ate CMOS settings, defaulting
back to "fast/quiet boot". Manual setup that changed that BIOS/CMOS
default may also have done other changes to keep the system stable
with overclocking or sub-spec RAM, and if those settings were lost at
the same time, then you may end up with porridge.

I'd do http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/bthink.htm before trying to
(re-)install the OS again. Clearly doing so for the nth time is
unlikely to be time well spent :-(




>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[RN]

cquerke, thanks for your post. I'm still nowhere with this. I've installed the WD software on a
drive with a working ME OS. Loaded ME then went into the software and VERY SPECIFICALLY formatted
the problem DD as bootable and with a FAT32 designation. WD's software then let's you do a
complete copy of the working c drive to what will be the first partition of the new drive. When
it was done, I made the problem drive the c drive, turned the machine on -- and the machine did
not view the DD as bootable. This is the same problem I've had. I ran fdisk from an ME start
floppy, and again fdisk could not access the problem DD. The thing is almost acting like it
refuses to be reformatted - but no error messages show up.



>Oversnip and missed earlier posts may account for this, but from what
>I've read of this thread, I haven't seen enough to exclude bad
>hardware other than HD (i.e. RAM, overclocking, heating issues, or
>problems within "the untestables").



I'm using half a gig of kingston 2700 ddr, have not overclocked the cpu, have an extra capacity
heart sink and fan on the cpu. Have set an emergency overheat shutdown in BIOS -- and have not
had a shutdown. As I said in my first post a very long time ago, we're dealing with a new
motherboard and an AMD 2500+ cpu. Plus a different DD loaded with the ME OS boots fine.



>If HD > 99G, FDisk - even WinME or "fixed" one for older Win9x - will
>not be able to properly display capacities over 99G or (more
>significantly) allow such capacites to be input.




I'm dealing with a 30 gig Western Digital DD that's 3 years old, but has passed every SMART test
there is.




>Yep. Makes me wonder about a crash that ate CMOS settings, defaulting
>back to "fast/quiet boot". Manual setup that changed that BIOS/CMOS
>default may also have done other changes to keep the system stable
>with overclocking or sub-spec RAM, and if those settings were lost at
>the same time, then you may end up with porridge.



I did have to reset the memory jumpers on the motherboard because the machine was misrecognizing
the CPU and memory speed as an AMD 1900+ and memory speed of 133.; In reality it was AMD 2500+
and memory speed of 166.

I'd wonder about other hardware, CMOS settings etc, too -- except for one thing: If I take
another old DD (and old 6 gig WD that was built in '97) that has a working ME OS on it, the
system does boot. ME does start. Everything works with this other DD.

That leads me ot the only conclusion that I can make: this is a DD problem. I just don't
understand what it is.

I'm out of here for the weekend. I'll take a look at any responses on Monday. Again thanks to
those of you that have ventured opinions.

[Noel Paton]

When you made the new disk the master, did you remember to reset the
jumpers??

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
.. .
> cquerke, thanks for your post. I'm still nowhere with this. I've installed
the WD software on a
> drive with a working ME OS. Loaded ME then went into the software and VERY
SPECIFICALLY formatted
> the problem DD as bootable and with a FAT32 designation. WD's software
then let's you do a
> complete copy of the working c drive to what will be the first partition
of the new drive. When
> it was done, I made the problem drive the c drive, turned the machine
on -- and the machine did
> not view the DD as bootable. This is the same problem I've had. I ran
fdisk from an ME start
> floppy, and again fdisk could not access the problem DD. The thing is
almost acting like it
> refuses to be reformatted - but no error messages show up.
>
>
>
> >Oversnip and missed earlier posts may account for this, but from what
> >I've read of this thread, I haven't seen enough to exclude bad
> >hardware other than HD (i.e. RAM, overclocking, heating issues, or
> >problems within "the untestables").
>
>
>
> I'm using half a gig of kingston 2700 ddr, have not overclocked the cpu,
have an extra capacity
> heart sink and fan on the cpu. Have set an emergency overheat shutdown in
BIOS -- and have not
> had a shutdown. As I said in my first post a very long time ago, we're
dealing with a new
> motherboard and an AMD 2500+ cpu. Plus a different DD loaded with the ME
OS boots fine.
>
>
>
> >If HD > 99G, FDisk - even WinME or "fixed" one for older Win9x - will
> >not be able to properly display capacities over 99G or (more
> >significantly) allow such capacites to be input.
>
>
>
>
> I'm dealing with a 30 gig Western Digital DD that's 3 years old, but has
passed every SMART test
> there is.
>
>
>
>
> >Yep. Makes me wonder about a crash that ate CMOS settings, defaulting
> >back to "fast/quiet boot". Manual setup that changed that BIOS/CMOS
> >default may also have done other changes to keep the system stable
> >with overclocking or sub-spec RAM, and if those settings were lost at
> >the same time, then you may end up with porridge.
>
>
>
> I did have to reset the memory jumpers on the motherboard because the
machine was misrecognizing
> the CPU and memory speed as an AMD 1900+ and memory speed of 133.; In
reality it was AMD 2500+
> and memory speed of 166.
>
> I'd wonder about other hardware, CMOS settings etc, too -- except for one
thing: If I take
> another old DD (and old 6 gig WD that was built in '97) that has a working
ME OS on it, the
> system does boot. ME does start. Everything works with this other DD.
>
> That leads me ot the only conclusion that I can make: this is a DD
problem. I just don't
> understand what it is.
>
> I'm out of here for the weekend. I'll take a look at any responses on
Monday. Again thanks to
> those of you that have ventured opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[RN]

In article >,
says...
>
>When you made the new disk the master, did you remember to reset the
>jumpers??


Thanks Noel. Yes, I set the jumpers correclty. When I use as a single DD, I
always take off all jumpers. For WD DDs a master is set on the middle set of
pins and a slave is set on the set of pins right of center,

For whatever reason I believe that the disk is not reformatting completely.
The thing was set up three years ago as a 4 partition non bootable ME DD and
was used as a slave.

Now I'll flash forward to a few days ago, after multiple attempts to reformat
the thing, I was at what I thought was 3 partitions. I ran a Norton AV on it,
found no virus activity, but did find 2 master boot records and 8 boot
records. I can understand 1 and 3, but 2 and 8 on a freshly partitioned 3
partition disk? That does not make sense.

[Noel Paton]

There's often a backup set made - but 8 BR's on a 3-partition disk does
sound strange.

I also would no;t trust anything that a Norton application told me about
anything to do with windows - they have enough problems identifying problems
with their own files , and are totally unreliable as regards anything else.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >When you made the new disk the master, did you remember to reset the
> >jumpers??
>
>
> Thanks Noel. Yes, I set the jumpers correclty. When I use as a single DD,
I
> always take off all jumpers. For WD DDs a master is set on the middle set
of
> pins and a slave is set on the set of pins right of center,
>
> For whatever reason I believe that the disk is not reformatting
completely.
> The thing was set up three years ago as a 4 partition non bootable ME DD
and
> was used as a slave.
>
> Now I'll flash forward to a few days ago, after multiple attempts to
reformat
> the thing, I was at what I thought was 3 partitions. I ran a Norton AV on
it,
> found no virus activity, but did find 2 master boot records and 8 boot
> records. I can understand 1 and 3, but 2 and 8 on a freshly partitioned 3
> partition disk? That does not make sense.
>
>

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:21:43 GMT, (RN)

>cquerke, thanks for your post. I'm still nowhere with this. I've installed the WD software on a
>drive with a working ME OS.

I'm nervous about using vendorware for partitioning and formatting,
unless I am COAB certain that it doesn't insert non-standard code into
the pre-OS boot axis (i.e. the MBR).

If it does, then the way a HD boot and a non-HD boot will see the HD
may vary, and that will chew your butt hugely if you ever need to do
data recovery, formal virus check, or other hands-off maintenace. If
anything - such as an OS install, or av clean-up of MBR infector, or
side-effect of some other maintenace - replaces the "special" MBR with
what is after all supposed to be standard system code, then Snap!

>Loaded ME then went into the software and VERY SPECIFICALLY formatted
>the problem DD

Diskette Drive or Hard Drive?

>as bootable and with a FAT32 designation. WD's software then let's you do a
>complete copy of the working c drive to what will be the first partition of the new drive. When
>it was done, I made the problem drive the c drive, turned the machine on -- and the machine did
>not view the DD as bootable. This is the same problem I've had.

There are two points at which pre-file-system code has to be present,
plus one additional setting. These are:

1) MBR (Master Boot Record); system-level boot code
2) Active byte set within partition table for that partition
3) PBR (Partition Boot Record); OS-level boot code

If any of those are missing, then no boot.

FDisk won't automatically do (2) unless the primary is created
"dummy-style" as all of the HD, and it will refuse to set the byte at
all unless it's the HD in the PC and thus "bootable".

I'd not expect the WD sware to inherit (or mimic) this limitation, but
it's possible, so check that out.

How to fix (1):
- new HD as first HD on system
- use FDisk /MBR to copy standard system boot code to the new HD

How to fix (2):
- new HD as first HD on system
- FDisk "2" to set primary partition active

How to fix (3):
- new HD as first HD on system
- correct OS version diskette boot with the Sys program on it
- use Sys C: to copy in PBR, IO.SYS etc. to "make bootable"

>I ran fdisk from an ME start floppy, and again fdisk could not access the
>problem DD. The thing is almost acting like it refuses to be reformatted

Ah, hello! Look out for settings - CMOS most likely, but also
concievably jumpers - that "protect" the HD, make it read-only, or
enable "antivirus protection" that walls out writes to MBR.

Also, remember that FDisk may only write changes to HD when you exit
FDisk (so don't reboot without exiting FDisk) and that Format doesn't
re-read the partition structure from HD before formatting (so always
reboot after FDisking or partitioning, before Formatting)

Some HD defect patterns (or interaction hassles) can cause this sort
of "I write changes but don't see them" problems. Incorrect geometry
can cause changes to be written to the wrong place, so that they
appear not to have stuck as well.

Make sure CMOS is set to use HD as LBA, not Auto, Large, CHS or
Normal, else you may have geometry/addressing issues too.

>>Oversnip and missed earlier posts may account for this, but from what
>>I've read of this thread, I haven't seen enough to exclude bad
>>hardware other than HD (i.e. RAM, overclocking, heating issues, or
>>problems within "the untestables").

>I'm using half a gig of kingston 2700 ddr, have not overclocked the cpu, have an extra capacity
>heart sink and fan on the cpu. Have set an emergency overheat shutdown in BIOS -- and have not
>had a shutdown. As I said in my first post a very long time ago, we're dealing with a new
>motherboard and an AMD 2500+ cpu.

I still don't see RAM diags there, though this isn't the sort of
pattern I'd expect with that kind of problem. You did say WD's diags
are happy with the HD. May be worthwhile checking the FAQ section of
your mobo's web site, in case there's an "issue" there; I don't like
suggesting BIOS updates, but it's a possible requirement.

New hardware certainly does fail, and sometimes in the first few weeks
(if manufacturing defects bite).

>I'm dealing with a 30 gig Western Digital DD that's 3 years old, but has
>passed every SMART test there is.

Ah, it's a 30G. Well, that should be well within any sort of capacity
limits for any new motherboard - but it may be that the WD installware
predates WinME and doesn't work properly with it?

Thinking: 30G is close to 32G limit, and if part of a range that goes
over that limit, may ship with installware that uses "special" MBR
code to override BIOS in case BIOS isn't > 32G OK.

Unlikely, given that when the 32G limit bites, it usual;ly does so on
IDE detection - so the driver never gets to run. More likely that
approach would be used to overcome an older 8G limitation.

>>Yep. Makes me wonder about a crash that ate CMOS settings, defaulting
>>back to "fast/quiet boot". Manual setup that changed that BIOS/CMOS
>>default may also have done other changes to keep the system stable
>>with overclocking or sub-spec RAM, and if those settings were lost at
>>the same time, then you may end up with porridge.

>I did have to reset the memory jumpers on the motherboard because the machine was misrecognizing
>the CPU and memory speed as an AMD 1900+ and memory speed of 133.; In reality it was AMD 2500+
>and memory speed of 166.

RAM speed of 166MHz sounds rather non-standard. What's the PCI speed?
If it's over 33MHz, you may well see problems there.

Did you have to change jumpers for CPU voltage? Seems odd, to still
have to use jumpers to set up a CPU in 2004.

>I'd wonder about other hardware, CMOS settings etc, too -- except for one thing: If I take
>another old DD (and old 6 gig WD that was built in '97) that has a working ME OS on it, the
>system does boot. ME does start. Everything works with this other DD.

That's still a shrug - when you break the surface of the digital level
of abstraction (as flakyness at the analog level does) then very
strange things can happen. For example, a cap that can ramp up a wave
pulse in time for the clock with one HD in place may fail to do so if
the other HD pulls a bit more juice.

>That leads me ot the only conclusion that I can make: this is a DD problem. I just don't
>understand what it is.

One quick guess would be CMOS address type not set to LBA. Another
quick guess would be "special" MBR code imposed by WD's sware.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:48:02 GMT, (RN)

>Now I'll flash forward to a few days ago, after multiple attempts to reformat
>the thing, I was at what I thought was 3 partitions. I ran a Norton AV on it,
>found no virus activity, but did find 2 master boot records and 8 boot
>records. I can understand 1 and 3, but 2 and 8 on a freshly partitioned 3
>partition disk? That does not make sense.

Two possibilities, one of them highly notable:

1) NAV is seeing inactive backup copies of the xBRs
2) There are two sets of xBRs

Item (2) may well apply if you are viewing the same HD through the
lens of two different geometry/address schemes - e.g. if the WD tools
use one, but the OS uses another.

If that's the case, then everything else falls into place... here's a
test; set different (and unique) volume names from OS and from WD
tools, then see if these environments are able to see their own
changes but not each others.

For final forensics, search for those volume name strings at the raw
disk level and see where they turn up. Hmm.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Rick T]

RN wrote:

> Oh, I forgot to make an observation: It sure would have been easier for me to go out and get a
> new 120 gig drive for 50 bucks as I've sure put a lot more than 50 bucks of labor into this
> effort.
>

Well.... um.... next time try not to come across as knowing what you're
talking about.... the FAT32 vs. NTFS filing system is usually the first
thing not the last thing mentioned (good eye Barry)


:)
all in good humour


Rick

PS:
DD in microconputer land usually stands for "Double Density" not "Disk
Drive"

[RN]

Mike, cquirke, and Noel, thanks for your recent inputs. I am certain that the
problem I have been having is a hard drive formatting issue, but I do not
understand what the issue is.

Here's what I have done/learned since last week. I have been dealing with two
boxes. In the balance of this message I'll call the boxes 1) the working box
(previously referred to as the XP machine and 2) the non working box
(previously referred to as the ME machine). I have also been working with 4
different hard drives I'll cal them 6 gig, 30.7 gig (this is the drive that
has been giving me problems), 60 gig, and 120 gig. The 6 gig and 60 gig drives
have working ME OSs. The 120 gig drive has a working XP OS. All 4 drives were
made by Western.

1) All three drives with working OS in them work interchangeably in either the
working or non-working boxes. (Thank god for systems restore points because
the OS really hates moving between mother boards!). For this reason, I don't
believe I'm dealing with a BIOS or other hardware issue.

2) I used XP's computer management disk management functionality to reformat
the 30.7 gig drive for nteenth time. I created 1 parimary partition and 1
extended partition that includes 2 logical drives. Formatted as FAT32. So,
this theoretically eliminates the possibility that Western's formatting
software is the issue.

3) When I set up the 120 gig drive as master, and the others as slaves (1 at a
time) here's what I get when I look at the other drives thru XP's disk
management function:

6 gig drive: fat32 primary partition - healthy active status. Designated as
drive I. (the 120 gig drive has 5 partitions).

30.7 gig drive: fat 32 primary partition - healthy active status. There is one
extended partition with two logical drives -- both fat 32 healthy status).
There is one thing a bit strange here the drives are labeled New Volume I, New
Volume J and New Volume K (The "new volume" thing is a bit strange - haven't
seen that before)

60 gig drive: fat 32 primary partition - health active status. There is one
extended partition with three logical drives -- all three are fat 32 healthy
status. They are labeled drives I, J, K and L.

4) When I look the drives thru an ME startup diskette (without CD support) in
DOS, I get strange results:

6 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 primary partition, however,
when I make the drive a single drive and don't use DOS, ME OS DOES boot (very
strange).

30.7 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 partitions.

60 gig drive -- DOS recognizes partitions, ME OS does boot.

120 gig drive -- DOS recognizes paritions, XP OS does boot.

So the questions are: Why does DOS not recognize the fat32 setup on the 6 gig
drive, and yet the drive will boot it's OS (which means there REALY IS a
properly set up system partition)? Why does DOS not recognize the fat32 setup
on the 30.7 gig drive which was written by, and is recognized by XP disk
management? I guess there is a third question, is there a way for me to
install ME to the primary partition of a slave drive -- while in either XP or
ME on the C drive (as opposed to DOS)?

This is all very strange. Thanks for any opinions.

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:43 GMT, (RN)

>I am certain that the problem I have been having is a hard drive
>formatting issue, but I do not understand what the issue is.

Yep, that's my take too.

>Here's what I have done/learned since last week. I have been dealing with two
>boxes. In the balance of this message I'll call the boxes

>1) the working box (previously referred to as the XP machine
>2) the non working box (previously referred to as the ME machine).

OK - 1 = known-good, 2=known-dubious

>I have also been working with 4 different hard drives I'll cal
>them 6 gig, 30.7 gig (this is the drive that has been giving me problems),
>60 gig, and 120 gig. The 6 gig and 60 gig drives have working ME OSs.
>The 120 gig drive has a working XP OS. All 4 drives were made by WD

OK. You make me nervous when you list the OSs; surely you don't let
those baskets off the leash in the wrong PC?

>1) All three drives with working OS in them work interchangeably in either the
>working or non-working boxes. (Thank god for systems restore points because
>the OS really hates moving between mother boards!).

Well duh <g> ...those are dice I would leave unrolled.

>I don't believe I'm dealing with a BIOS or other hardware issue.

You could still be. The sequence of geometry control may differ
between running an OS (where the OS gains control immediately, and may
look up and re-use the old system's recorded geometry) and installing
it (where the wannabe-OS may take the BIOS's view of the geometry as
the starting point, and go hopelessly off the rails thereafter).

>2) I used XP's computer management disk management functionality to reformat
>the 30.7 gig drive for nteenth time.

That useless garbage not only can't format FAT32 > 32G, it fails as
destructively (destroys existing data) and annoyingly (grinds all the
way to 32G before falling on its ass) as possible.

Run away screaming!

>I created 1 parimary partition and 1 extended partition that includes
>2 logical drives. Formatted as FAT32. So, this theoretically eliminates
>the possibility that Western's formatting software is the issue.

Not really, no. What it sees then could differ to what it sees on
reboot. But I never use XP's native formatter, so dunno... when
something stinks that badly, I have no wish to taste it :-)

>3) When I set up the 120 gig drive as master, and the others as slaves (1 at a
>time) here's what I get when I look at the other drives thru XP's disk
>management function:

>6 gig drive: fat32 primary partition - healthy active status. Designated as
>drive I. (the 120 gig drive has 5 partitions).

>30.7 gig drive: fat 32 primary partition - healthy active status. There is one
>extended partition with two logical drives -- both fat 32 healthy status).
>There is one thing a bit strange here the drives are labeled New Volume I, New
>Volume J and New Volume K (The "new volume" thing is a bit strange - haven't
>seen that before)

Each volume has a label, which is actually stored in two places - one
is within the Partition Boot Record (primary) or Volume "Boot" Record
(logical on extended), and the other is stored as a directory entry in
the root. The latter is "zero-bytes" i.e. points to no data cluster,
and has the Volume attribute set. Until LFNs came along, it was the
only directory entry type that used the Volume attribute bit.

So what you prolly see there is that the formatter has populated the
volume label field with "New Volume", or that moniker is thrown up by
the OS when it finds a nul volume label field.

>60 gig drive: fat 32 primary partition - health active status. There is one
>extended partition with three logical drives -- all three are fat 32 healthy
>status. They are labeled drives I, J, K and L.

>4) When I look the drives thru an ME startup diskette (without CD support) in
>DOS, I get strange results:

>6 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 primary partition, however,
>when I make the drive a single drive and don't use DOS, ME OS DOES boot (very
>strange).

Yep. Perhaps when you boot it, the OS's geometry as recorded in the
PBR is put into effect, whereas when you boot off something else, that
something else uses geometry as provided by BIOS.

>30.7 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 partitions.
>
>60 gig drive -- DOS recognizes partitions, ME OS does boot.
>
>120 gig drive -- DOS recognizes paritions, XP OS does boot.

As you're processing the 120G without hard lockups on xIDE detect,
both systems should be new enough to use modern LBA addressing. But
are they set to use that in CMOS setup, or left as "Auto"?

Perhaps it's time we had the motherboard chipsets, or at least some
generation info (Slot One vs. Socket 370 vs. Socket 478 etc.)?

Golden Rule:

Don't work on HDs outside the PC that is going to live with them, when
it comes to partitioning, formatting or OS installation.

I suspect that's why I don't see more of these horrors :-)



>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Hello DOS mode my old friend
I've come to hack with you again
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

[RN]

cquirke, thanks for the response.

>OK. You make me nervous when you list the OSs; surely you don't let
>those baskets off the leash in the wrong PC?

Yeah, I've moved them between PC's. I've done it lots of times in the past and the worst case is
having to reload the OS -- not that painful (at least until now). The 60 gig drive with ME OS has
always worked in the non-working box, and I had to change the CPU and motherboard anyway when the
old CPU died, so the OS was going to go thru some turmoil one way or the other. The 120 gig drive
with XP OS was installed in the working box about a week ago, but I never register it because of
all of the uncertainty this problem has caused. I DID try it in the non-working box, and it did
work. However, with XP's tight license requirements, it now won't let me in without immediately
registering (of how I love MSFT!) (There should be 22 days before I have to register!) This
should be no big deal, If I have to reload XP, I'll strip the C drive and reload. I have no data
on the drive -- just the XP OS, AV, firewall and java.

>You could still be. The sequence of geometry control may differ
>between running an OS (where the OS gains control immediately, and may
>look up and re-use the old system's recorded geometry) and installing
>it (where the wannabe-OS may take the BIOS's view of the geometry as
>the starting point, and go hopelessly off the rails thereafter).

Although I'm more technically proficient than most people that post here and don't mind getting
into the box, I'm not a technical expert. You have lost me with that one.
>
>>2) I used XP's computer management disk management functionality to reformat
>>the 30.7 gig drive for nteenth time.
>
>That useless garbage not only can't format FAT32 > 32G, it fails as
>destructively (destroys existing data) and annoyingly (grinds all the
>way to 32G before falling on its ass) as possible.

Again, I'm only dealing with 30.7 gigs on the trouble drive. Besides I do have the 60 gig ME
drive that works perfectly. I thought that the G.T 32 gig rule applies to the whole drive only if
the drive is not partitioned into partitions of less than 32 gigs.


>Not really, no. What it sees then could differ to what it sees on
>reboot. But I never use XP's native formatter, so dunno... when
>something stinks that badly, I have no wish to taste it :-)

I'm no fan of XP either. That's why I've stayed away from it until now, and also why I'm trying
to rebuild a good ME machine. Any suggestions about what other formatter I could use? As I think
I've said in the past, I've also used Western Digitals formatter (on the 6, 60, and 120 gig
drives -- as well as originally on the 30.7 gig drive a few years ago)

>
>Each volume has a label, which is actually stored in two places - one
>is within the Partition Boot Record (primary) or Volume "Boot" Record
>(logical on extended), and the other is stored as a directory entry in
>the root. The latter is "zero-bytes" i.e. points to no data cluster,
>and has the Volume attribute set. Until LFNs came along, it was the
>only directory entry type that used the Volume attribute bit.
>
>So what you prolly see there is that the formatter has populated the
>volume label field with "New Volume", or that moniker is thrown up by
>the OS when it finds a nul volume label field.

You've lost me with that one. Sorry.
>
>
>>6 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 primary partition, however,
>>when I make the drive a single drive and don't use DOS, ME OS DOES boot (very
>>strange).
>
>Yep. Perhaps when you boot it, the OS's geometry as recorded in the
>PBR is put into effect, whereas when you boot off something else, that
>something else uses geometry as provided by BIOS.
>
Sorry, you've lost me on that one, too. Incidentally, BIOS does correctly detect all the drives.

>
>As you're processing the 120G without hard lockups on xIDE detect,
>both systems should be new enough to use modern LBA addressing. But
>are they set to use that in CMOS setup, or left as "Auto"?

Before I did any of the stuff referred to in my post of earlier today, I did go into BIOS and
changed the setting to LBA addressing. It had been set to Auto.
>
>Perhaps it's time we had the motherboard chipsets, or at least some
>generation info (Slot One vs. Socket 370 vs. Socket 478 etc.)?
>
We're dealing with an ECS Elite Group motherboard for AMD processors. (KT600-a model).

o KT600 Northbridge Chipset.

o VT8237 Southbridge Chipset

o Mobo includes dual channel IDE interfaces, floppy contoller and the usual assortment of ports
and interfaces.

o Award BIOS

Thanks again for your input!

[Noel Paton]

Why are you so resistant to using the tools that come with ME - the floppy,
and FDISK/FORMAT

At least then you know that the tool is the right one!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
...
> I'm no fan of XP either. That's why I've stayed away from it until now,
and also why I'm trying
> to rebuild a good ME machine. Any suggestions about what other formatter I
could use? As I think

[RN]

>
>Why are you so resistant to using the tools that come with ME - the floppy,
>and FDISK/FORMAT
>
>At least then you know that the tool is the right one!

Noel, there have been so many postings on this topic, you might have missed a point I made last
week. I CAN'T use an ME floppy ( I do have one that works, believe it or not), because when I
load the diskette, the floppy ME DOS does not find any hard drive fat32 partitions. If I use
fdisk to try to do the formatting, the OS tells me that it can't access the hard drive. If I
can't get to the drive, I can't format it.

If I could use the ME start floppy to get to the 30.7 gig drive, I would. I have tried -
repeatedly.

BTW, the reason that I know that the ME floppy works is that I can and have used it to access the
60 and 120 gig drives.

Keep those cards and letters coming in! :-)

[B.J.Honeycut]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:20:24 (RN) penned
this whopper in microsoft.public.windowsme.setup

>
>>
>>Why are you so resistant to using the tools that come with ME - the
>>floppy, and FDISK/FORMAT
>>
>>At least then you know that the tool is the right one!
>
> Noel, there have been so many postings on this topic, you might have
> missed a point I made last week. I CAN'T use an ME floppy ( I do have
> one that works, believe it or not), because when I load the diskette,
> the floppy ME DOS does not find any hard drive fat32 partitions. If I
> use fdisk to try to do the formatting, the OS tells me that it can't
> access the hard drive. If I can't get to the drive, I can't format it.
>
>
> If I could use the ME start floppy to get to the 30.7 gig drive, I
> would. I have tried - repeatedly.
>
> BTW, the reason that I know that the ME floppy works is that I can and
> have used it to access the 60 and 120 gig drives.
>
> Keep those cards and letters coming in! :-)
>

Just a hunch: have you checked the power and IDE cables to the drive, both
at the drive and MB side?

--
"Time will bring to light whatever is hidden;
it will cover up and conceal what is now shining in splendor."
Horace (65 - 8 BC); Roman poet.

Mike

[Noel Paton]

If FDISK doesn't see the drive, then you have a hardware or BIOS problem!
Presumably the BIOS sees the HD OK?

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"RN" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> >
> >Why are you so resistant to using the tools that come with ME - the
floppy,
> >and FDISK/FORMAT
> >
> >At least then you know that the tool is the right one!
>
> Noel, there have been so many postings on this topic, you might have
missed a point I made last
> week. I CAN'T use an ME floppy ( I do have one that works, believe it or
not), because when I
> load the diskette, the floppy ME DOS does not find any hard drive fat32
partitions. If I use
> fdisk to try to do the formatting, the OS tells me that it can't access
the hard drive. If I
> can't get to the drive, I can't format it.
>
> If I could use the ME start floppy to get to the 30.7 gig drive, I would.
I have tried -
> repeatedly.
>
> BTW, the reason that I know that the ME floppy works is that I can and
have used it to access the
> 60 and 120 gig drives.
>
> Keep those cards and letters coming in! :-)
>

[RN]

>
>If FDISK doesn't see the drive, then you have a hardware or BIOS problem!
>Presumably the BIOS sees the HD OK?
>
Well, Noel, cquirke, Mike and anyone else that has tried to help, thanks for your efforts, but I
give up. I'll go out later today and buy a new drive. I've expended far more time on this than is
warranted and it's not worth any addiditonal effort.

Noel (and the rest), I am convinced that we are dealing with a hardware problem, and the piece of
problem hardware is the 30.7 gig drive -- despite the fact that all SMART tests say the drive is
fine.

I'm convinced this is not a hardware or BIOS issue in the non-working box because:
1) BIOS sees all 4 drives, and the three drives including OSs all boot
2) ME start floppy sees a bootable primary partition on the 60 and 120 gig drives, and FDISK
sees the FAT32 partitions.
3) ME start floppy DOES NOT see a bootable partition on the 6 gig drive, but FDISK does access
the disk (says nothing about formatting as opposed to the 60 and 120 gig)
4) ME start floppy DOES NOT see a bootable partition on the 30.7 gig drive, and FDISK says it
cannot access the drive.

Another reason I'm convinced it's a hard drive problem is that I took it over to the working box
and reformatted in NTES (remember this is the box I successfully formatted the 120 gig drive on
and installed XP on last week).

When I tried to install XP on the drive BIOS lit up and warned me that the "the disk boot sector
is to be modified" (yes or continue). If you pick yes, then windows setup appears to proceed, but
then returns to the windows setup screen where it tells you that it cannot find a hard drive. If
you pick continue at the BIOS prompt, setup appears to continue, but then setup ceases and an
error message appears: "unexpected error (769) at line 5152 in d:xpsp1\base\boot\setup\setup.c."

The only thing constant, and therefore the only place the problem could be, is the 30.7 gig
drive. I've already verified that I CAN format the thing to be used as a slave in an XP system,
so I may do that -- although I am not certain that I trust the drive at all because I don't
really understand what the problem is.

Again, thanks everybody for trying to help. I appreciate your attempts.

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:20:58 GMT, (RN)

> cquirke, thanks for the response.

Sorry I've been away for a while (on RLIs)

>>OK. You make me nervous when you list the OSs; surely you don't let
>>those baskets off the leash in the wrong PC?

>Yeah, I've moved them between PC's. I've done it lots of times in the past and the worst case is
>having to reload the OS -- not that painful (at least until now).

You and I differ in terms of what constitutes pain.

The more you learn about...
- the need to patch out-the-box code
- the need to manage out-the-box risky duhfault settings
....the less you will tolerate the damage of "just re-install".

>The 60 gig drive with ME OS has always worked in
>the non-working box,

I presume by "has" you mean "had"?

>and I had to change the CPU and motherboard anyway when the
>old CPU died, so the OS was going to go thru some turmoil one
>way or the other.

OK. Un-muddied waters are clearer to troubleshoot in - plus running
any Windows when there are doubts about...
- hardware flakiness
- HD geometry settings
- file system condition
- active malware
....is IMO unacceptably dangerous, because the OS *will* write to the
file system and will run active malware embedded or patched into it.

>The 120 gig drive with XP OS was installed in the working box about
>a week ago, but I never register it

I presume you mean "activate", not "register". It's a matter of
privacy concern when these terms are bandied about interchangeably,
given that the first is private and mandatory while the second has
privacy implications and is optional. By mixing these up, readers can
fall into "mandatory privacy damage" territory.

>because of all of the uncertainty this problem has caused.

Yep. WPA really is a PITA in these conditions.

>I DID try it in the non-working box, and it did work. However, with
>XP's tight license requirements, it now won't let me in without
>immediately registering

ACTIVATE, not REGISTER, please! Once the user base accepts mandatory
registration, the door is open for rental slavery, and that is a
future to be avoided. Don't shoot "own goals", please :-)

>>You could still be. The sequence of geometry control may differ
>>between running an OS (where the OS gains control immediately, and may
>>look up and re-use the old system's recorded geometry) and installing
>>it (where the wannabe-OS may take the BIOS's view of the geometry as
>>the starting point, and go hopelessly off the rails thereafter).

>Although I'm more technically proficient than most people that post here
>and don't mind getting into the box, I'm not a technical expert. You have
>lost me with that one.

I find this confusing stuff too, and I can't quote you the mechanics
as to how or why these things fall apart - it's Shroedinger's Cat
territory; one moment you're OK and the next you aren't, and what
actually happens within the box during the state change is... obscure.

So I re-state the approach as a "voodoo" rule:

Don't partition and format a HD in a PC other than the one
it is destined to operate in, unless you are COAB certain
that both PCs share identical BIOS/CMOS HD geometry
and addressing strategies

I stick to the rule, or I come unstuck :-)

>>>2) I used XP's computer management disk management functionality to reformat
>>>the 30.7 gig drive for nteenth time.
>>
>>That useless garbage not only can't format FAT32 > 32G, it fails as
>>destructively (destroys existing data) and annoyingly (grinds all the
>>way to 32G before falling on its ass) as possible.
>
>Again, I'm only dealing with 30.7 gigs on the trouble drive. Besides I do have the 60 gig ME
>drive that works perfectly. I thought that the G.T 32 gig rule applies to the whole drive only if
>the drive is not partitioned into partitions of less than 32 gigs.

Yes, it does - but why trust a tool that you know is broken? If they
are prepared to release it in such broken form, who knows what other
screw-ups it may make? I'd rather fire the dangerously-incompitent
employee than give him a different mission-critical job to screw up.

>I'm no fan of XP either.

Oh, I like XP. I just have no illusions about a system that large
being uniformally excellent throughout, and stay away from the
half-assed (NTFS with no maintenance OS, flawed user accounts model,
incompitent disk management) or broken bits.

>Any suggestions about what other formatter I could use?

BING. I was reluctant to use a 3rd-party partitioner/formatter, as a
corollory of the voodoo rule I mentioned (i.e. "don't use partitioning
or formatting tools that aren't native to the intended OS"), but I
find that BING not only doesn't screw up, but it works where
low-horizon native OS tools do screw up (FDisk > 99G).

>>Each volume has a label, which is actually stored in two places - one
>>is within the Partition Boot Record (primary) or Volume "Boot" Record
>>(logical on extended), and the other is stored as a directory entry in
>>the root. The latter is "zero-bytes" i.e. points to no data cluster,
>>and has the Volume attribute set. Until LFNs came along, it was the
>>only directory entry type that used the Volume attribute bit.

>>So what you prolly see there is that the formatter has populated the
>>volume label field with "New Volume", or that moniker is thrown up by
>>the OS when it finds a nul volume label field.

>You've lost me with that one. Sorry.

OK. It's not crucial, so I'll just say: Stare at it until it makes
sense, or file it away until you've grown molars that can chew it <g>
....as X-Files would have it, "the truth is in there" :-)

>>>6 gig drive -- DOS DOES NOT recognize the fat32 primary partition, however,
>>>when I make the drive a single drive and don't use DOS, ME OS DOES boot (very
>>>strange).

>>Yep. Perhaps when you boot it, the OS's geometry as recorded in the
>>PBR is put into effect, whereas when you boot off something else, that
>>something else uses geometry as provided by BIOS.

>Sorry, you've lost me on that one, too. Incidentally, BIOS does correctly detect all the drives.

BIOS sees entire HDs at the hardware level; that is all.

The BIOS's system code extension in the boot HD's MBR (Master Boot
Record) is what has to see partitions properly.

Once control passes to the OS's PBR (Partition Boot Code), the OS's
view of HD and partition geometry may prevail.

So when you boot HD A, you get the BIOS code that is common to that PC
in all cases, then HD A's MBR, then HD A's PBR and OS. When you boot
HD B, you get different MBR and PBR/OS. When you boot off some other
device, you have that device's boot code and OS instead.

So you can see the potential for variance there.

I'm sorry if this stuff is confusing or "dense", but I can't change
what it is - dummying it down to what it is not would be a disservice
to you, so I'm trying to describe it as accurately as I can. That
way, you know what you have to read up to understand, and once you do,
you should be OK without thinking you are on top of things that are
still unknown and will bite you later.

That's my general posting approach - maybe other readers can flesh out
the gap between what I've written (hopefully tech-accurate, but too
dense for everyone to understand?) and what you need to read.

>>As you're processing the 120G without hard lockups on xIDE detect,
>>both systems should be new enough to use modern LBA addressing. But
>>are they set to use that in CMOS setup, or left as "Auto"?

>Before I did any of the stuff referred to in my post of earlier today, I did go into BIOS and
>changed the setting to LBA addressing. It had been set to Auto.

Ah. I wonder how often that screws things up; I always change that to
LBA on Day Zero, knowing that Windows uses LBA and hoping that will
keep BIOS and Windows speaking the same language.

I worry because I see different capacities when the same HD is viewed
by BIOS/CMOS setup using the different addressing options there. As
soon as you see that capacity variance, you can expect trouble.

>>Perhaps it's time we had the motherboard chipsets, or at least some
>>generation info (Slot One vs. Socket 370 vs. Socket 478 etc.)?

>We're dealing with an ECS Elite Group motherboard for AMD processors. (KT600-a model).

OK, but mobo brand isn't as useful to know as chipset, and perhaps the
BIOS vendor and version. As it's AMD, you are in the shaky hands of
VIA or SiS, or the hopefully stronger hands of nVidia.

>o KT600 Northbridge Chipset.
>o VT8237 Southbridge Chipset

Ah, bless; the info I was hoping to see! Both VIA, who are known to
have screwed up big time at least once (a defective chipset design
that corrupted xIDE data under particular circs) and to have managed
that crisis poorly (no board recall, just a BIOS update that
dumbed-down timings to try and avoid the screw-up).

Read those chipsets up (as well as the mobos and BIOSs) to see if the
FAQs etc. hold any dirty linen. If so, and if they punt a BIOS update
as the fix, then read everything about that to spot caveats, procedure
warnings, and other likely fall-out such as "you may need to
re-install the OS (because wev'e screwed up the assumption base of the
OSs PnP and have killed the settings WPA was expecting)"

>o Award BIOS

OK, nice that there's same BIOS vendor for both. There may be details
within BIOS version, and as Award sell BIOS to mobo vendors as source
code the vendors can mutate, take Award's advice about "check your
mobo vendor" at face value and do just that :-)



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:37:01 +0100, "Noel Paton"

>Why are you so resistant to using the tools that come with ME - the floppy,
>and FDISK/FORMAT

>At least then you know that the tool is the right one!

In this case (60G HD and smaller) I agree with you, Noel; these tools
are more compitent than XP's broken stuff - until you get to 99G+,
after which there's no MSware that doesn't suck, and it's hello BING.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
"This bahaviour is by design"?
What kind of 'design' is that?
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 06:42:37 +0100, "Noel Paton"

Sorry to post-flood, but each post in this thread seems to have
something in it that I feel the urge to choep about :-)

>If FDISK doesn't see the drive, then you have a hardware or BIOS problem!

Yes, that is true.

But there's a difference between FDisk notr seeing the HD, and FDisk
seeing the HD but not seeing any partitions, or seeing a different
partition layout. This is the wilderness the OP is in, and it's WILD.

>Presumably the BIOS sees the HD OK?

Yep. That's not the problem, though it may be (most likely is) the
problem that different BIOSs are seeing the same HDs through the lens
of different CHS values and addressing strategies.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
No, perfection is not an entrance requirement.
We'll settle for integrity and humility
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Noel Paton]

You? dogmatic? Nah!
:)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2004, Win9x)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
or
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/Mar01/Mar27pmvp.asp

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> But I could be wrong, not having followed this thread with the rigor
> I'd need to make maximally-dogmatic comments on :-)
>
> <snip>
>

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:49:05 GMT, (RN)

>>If FDISK doesn't see the drive, then you have a hardware or BIOS problem!
>>Presumably the BIOS sees the HD OK?

>Well, Noel, cquirke, Mike and anyone else that has tried to help, thanks for your efforts, but I
>give up. I'll go out later today and buy a new drive.

If, as I suspect, the problem locus is BIOS addressing, then you will
have to face the same demons with the new HD unless you follow the
voodoo rule I gave you a while back.

And if you are prepared to follow that rule, and don't mind nuking the
HD you already have, no need to buy a new one.

In order to swap HDs between PCs, both PCs MUST use compatible
addressing schemes unless your method of use is proven (by your own
testing) to work around this. For what you are doing, you need to
learn about Auto vs. LBA vs. CHS vs. Normal vs. Large, tho the most
likely end-point will be "force LBA on all PCs before setting up HDs"

>I've expended far more time on this than is
>warranted and it's not worth any addiditonal effort.

Blindly throwng money at a problem in the hope that it will stick is a
valid tshooting approach (not first choice, but desperate days make
desperate solutions look interesting) but not one that always works.

IOW I'm not knocking your decision here, just a heads-up that you may
find it doesn't squash the hamster under the carpet.

>Noel (and the rest), I am convinced that we are dealing with a hardware problem, and the piece of
>problem hardware is the 30.7 gig drive -- despite the fact that all SMART tests say the drive is fine.

I think you have the wrong problem locus there - it's more likely bad
settings in CMOS, or a sucky mobo/BIOS.

But I could be wrong, not having followed this thread with the rigor
I'd need to make maximally-dogmatic comments on :-)

<snip>



>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
"Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer."
-- Peter da Silva
>------------------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 23:38:19 +0100, "Noel Paton"

>You? dogmatic? Nah!
>:)

"Arf! she said" - FZ

<g>


>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Am I the only one who thinks sliced bread sucks?

[RN]

Noel & Chris, thanks for additional follow-up on the issue.

I've been on vacation (holiday, for you Chris (I think you call it what the Euros do)) for the
last week and am just now starting to read the new posts to the thread.

I'll be back!