Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ed999

  1. Bitmap printing problems in Windows 98

    It would be helpful to know whether the printer is connected by USB, USB 2.0, or Parallel port. Also, could you please identify the make and model of the printer. My standard troubleshooting procedure in similar cases is to re-install the driver software, from the original disks that came with the printer.
  2. Norton Ghost 2003 HDD size limits?

    I wonder if Norton Ghost 2003 for DOS is truly a viable subject for this topic? The program is notorious for creating corrupt image files, due to faulty compression (although it's possibly okay for uncompressed disk-to-disk direct cloning). Users typically run into real problems with image files created by it. IMHO, encouraging the use of the program is unwise. There always seem to be those who can't grasp the distinction between its compressed and uncompressed options, or who just don't think to test their image backups before they need to rely on restoring them! Norton's Ghost for DOS v8.3, for instance, does not have this fault. Norton Ghost 2003 might be a more sophisticated product - well, alright, it is - but it's just not as reliable. Sorry this is somewhat off-topic. But I get nervous when I come across this particular program. At the very least, anyone reading this topic needs to be aware of the risks that are involved in using Norton Ghost 2003.
  3. Why do you still use 9X

    I use Windows 9x because it works! I'm a firm believer in the golden rule: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. Let's leave aside the fact that my computer isn't powerful enough to run a newer operating system. So let's leave aside the cost of having to buy a new computer in order to run that newer operating system (and the waste of money in junking an existing computer which works perfectly well). Let's leave aside, too, the cost of junking all the expensive software which I've bought over the years that might not run on a different operating system. Then again, why should I pay out good money on a new computer when the existing one does everything that I need it to? That would be dumb! But, for me, it's more important to have a computer that works, rather than risk changing to some bug-ridden new one. I've read the posts on the forums by people complaining about Windows XP's faults: I remember how many bug fixes there were to get Windows 9x working properly, and I don't choose to go through that all over again! Also, I don't see that Windows XP offers any advantage over Windows 9x to an ordinary home user. I've read how bloated and slow XP is, and I see it as a backward step: I'd be buying a new computer that's slower than my existing one. That would be *really* dumb! I've added a PCI card with USB 2.0 and e-SATA ports. So whenever necessary I add a new (internal or external) 120 GB hard disk - either a PATA or a SATA disk - to increase my disk storage. And I use my CD-writer to save an unlimited amount of data on CD-RW discs. Having become familiar with Windows 9x, over many years, I also know how to fix any problems that come up. Being able to get the computer going again myself (e.g. restoring a registry backup if a new piece of software hijacks some important setting) is invaluable. To me, as a typical home user, Windows 9x is a tried and proven success: it works, does everything I need it to, and does it quickly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
  4. You can switch the disks around physically, changing them over on the IDE cables and resetting the jumpers appropriately, but there is no way to fool the program into working on any disk other than the Primary Master. The program can't be made to believe a disk is the Primary Master by reassigning the active partition to the Primary Slave or Secondary Master.
  5. I would have been happy to save the first 95 sectors as a single backup file, if there was a utility which could restore it. But both FINDPART.EXE and its earlier incarnation PUTSECT.EXE can only write a single sector to disk. Even MBRutilD.exe will only restore the first track, i.e. the first 63 sectors; and that only for the Primary Master disk. Although it is theoretically possible to swap disks around on the IDE cables in order to use the program to restore the first 63 sectors of any disk (by making each in turn the Primary Master), it is not a convenient solution. And opening the computer's case is not something to be recommended to inexperienced users! What's needed is a software solution: hence my Batch file, which saves and restores the six key sectors individually (more if the disk has more than a single partition). You seem to recollect using another program in the past, one that could write a single 95 sector backup file back to disk. However, I've not come across such a program for FAT32. There used to be utilities for old-style FAT12 disks which could save and restore all the first 63 sectors (which was where the FAT was stored) - just as MBRutilD.exe now does for FAT32 disks. The function of saving the FAT as a single backup file has now become SRCFAT.EXE, which saves and restores millions of sectors at once, but which only starts at sector 96. Someone who knows what they are doing (i.e. not me!) could probably re-engineer SRCFAT.EXE to save sectors 1 to 95 instead of sectors 96 to 14 million. But even Svend thinks that such a tool is too dangerous, judging by the precautions he has woven around PUTSECT and FINDPART - which limit the PUTSECT function to a single sector - which is presumably why no one has so far created one.
  6. Although the PUTSECT command can only write a 512 byte file - (a) the program MBRutilD.exe can save and restore the entire TRACK 0 (CHS 0-0-1 to 0-0-63), but ONLY for Disk 1, and (b) the program SRCFAT.COM can (as pointed out) save and restore an entire FAT. More details are given in my posts at Routine to BACKUP and RESTORE key sectors of a FAT32 Hard Disk That post outlines a strategy (a BATCH file strategy) for making effective use of PUTSECT to create the necessary backups of the key sectors in a FAT32 partition, bearing in mind that usually only a handful of sectors are involved (as most of the 63 sectors in Track 0 are blank in a standard FDISK partition structure). As for the FAT, for a given size of partition the size of the FAT and of the backup FAT will always be constant. The FAT is allocated a fixed size on the creation of the partition, and does not vary in size as files or directories are added or deleted. Backing up the first FAT or second FAT for a particular partition will therefore always give a file of the same size, regardless of whether the files on that partition occupy 80 KB or 80 GB, making it straightforward to identify which sectors are used by the FAT. In practice this is fairly unimportant, as SRCFAT.COM determines the sector values for itself and does not need any user input to save the FAT (and/or the backup FAT) successfully.
  7. The solution to this problem is probably to go to START > RUN and type: regsvr32 /i shell32.dll