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 ananda6359

  • Birthday 01/01/2006

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. thanks so much for all the help i've never had to do this before, and put myself in for quite a headache seems most motherboards don't support 98se ... the ones that do don't support my new processor ... and the ones that do support it are micro-atx ... and the only one actually available that matches all my checklist is ... ... the ASRock 775i65G, (micro atx, but i have no choice, and one of the missing pci slots is somewhat made up for by the inclusion of an onboard NIC, and the three remaining slots will hold my soundcard and modem with room to spare if i ever need it) it'll take a little jousting to get it into my case lining up properly (this is the motherboard i over-hastily RMAd back just yesterday morning), but my computers are never showpieces anyway, they have personality in s***loads and this one will be just the same a little disheartening to wait a week and put out 25 extra dollars (12 in shipping, 6½ in restock, and another 6 in reshipping) to use the same motherboard i was trying in my case just yesterday morning, but that's my own fault entirely thanks very, very much for the help you all are great, and long live msfn9x ta me
  2. ... hmm ... thanks ... ... i'm hoping to be able to find a normal atx motherboard only because of its 5 pci slots vs the micro-atx' 3 (or if lucky 4) ... but if i have to i will use a micro and glad to have the option though it sucks 'cause i just before posting today shipped back a micro ('accidentally' ordered it not knowing it was a micro) thinking i couldn't use it, may have to order it right back again any hope for a normal atx meeting the rest of my wish list? just checking ... ... and thanks very, very much for the help ta me
  3. thanks ... but those are micro-atx form factor, not normal atx, and will only fit in mini computer cases, not normal ones thanks though
  4. i'm sorry, i know almost nothing about hardware ... i am upgrading my five-year-old (98se) system and having problems finding a motherboard for it i need a socket 775 motherboard ... ... with a normal atx form factor ... that will run 98se ... that has an agp slot ... that will let me use a Intel Pentium 4 641 Cedar Mill 3.2GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T processor ... that will let me use WINTEC AMPO 512MB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR 400 (PC 3200) ram ... that is available online in the u.s. ... that has an okay fsb speed as long as it meets these qualifications i don't care if it's brand new or not, sata would be nice but not necessary if i can keep my system running what can i get? i'm lost here and i have no clue what to do i can't find anything helpful from asrock, all the motherboards that fit this description only sell out-of-country anymore or are micro-atx is gigabyte better? or somewhere else? i have never bought a motherboard before sorry for the hassle i guess it's only going to get harder and harder to find hardware from now on thanks for rescuing me ...
  5. the intel motherboards mentioned so far seem to be of micro-atx form factor ... are there any standard atx form factor motherboards still supporting 98se+agp+p4 available in north america? asrock seems good about this, but their boards are hard to find in the u.s. (for me, at least): + ConRoe865PE this one has (for 98se) unnecessary (4) ram slots + 775i48 this one seems perfect but i can't find it to buy (even online) in the u.s., anyone have better luck searching than me? + 775Dual-880Pro found this one at NewEgg, does it look okay (only $26 for some reason, makes me leery)? i'll get it if it does -- btw, need to use this cpu, will it work? + 775V88+ again, 4 ram slots + 775i65PE 4 ram slots + 775V88 4 ram slots
  6. GeoDisk and 137GB barrier?

    i'm using msfn's version of esdi_506.pdr and it's fixed my 137gb barrier hdd problem, but i notice that people say not to use the ms defrag and scandisk, (or scandskw, not sure?) in thorough mode. does this fixed-137-gb-barrier prohibition extend to the updated winme defrag, scandisk, scandskw, &c? more to my current interest, does it extend to third-party defragmenters like geodisk? are there any scandisk-like freeware utilities that don't have issues with even the fixed 137gb barrier? thanks
  7. Not that there was much question about this ... but my new HDD arrived today and is experiencing none of the aforementioned problems. Now to see if it continues to run four months from now ...
  8. Mmm ... looks like the problem is solved. The media descriptor got corrupted again without having had it (immediately before) in an XP machine and in such a way that the HDD reported at ~4GB instead of 320GB; and when I tried to boot into 98SE it announced a missing VMM32.VXD. I manually search \system\ and found it to indeed be nonexistent (as not before). Put the HDD back into XP to get at an old, RAR-ed VMM32 and "reset" the media descriptor, and got to watch before my eyes the HDD in its death throes. File- and directory-names corrupted as I watched and became in accessible, so I crashed the machine and thought about it (then put it back in briefly a few moments ago and successfully rescued the few files I had updated since getting the 98SE machine to "work" again). Apparently the "bad media descriptor" was the result of the overall deterioration of the HDD. The XP machine caught the errors and tried to compensate for them, and the 98SE couldn't understand the rewrite XP was forced to do in order to get the HDD working on the XP machine. The HDD is still under warranty and in fact I already have an advance return order active on it. They're already shipping the replacement, and I have thirty days to get this one back. Give me eight hours for a 3BAN and off it goes (and good riddance)! Since I copied (not cut) files from XP to 98SE until making sure everything was legit (and was allowed to recover the few updated/new files from the 98SE machine), not a thing is lost. It is odd that a four-month old HDD went bad so quickly ... I've never had problems with Western Digital before and trust this is an isolated incident ... Again, I thank God ... this could have been so very much worse. Here's to HDDs that don't crash! *clinks mug* ta (and relieved to know why, me [oh god ... edit for embarrassing misspelling]
  9. That's interesting (although SP2 is actually running on the XP machine). Why is that?
  10. Okay ... guess I may never know, then: but thanks for all the help nevertheless. ta, me
  11. Oh my f***ing ... It's fixed. I ran TestDisk (from a MS-DOS boot CD) from my slave HDD and it reported lots of errors (as in misinformation - not physical errors) re: my master HDD. Specifically, it reported a "bad media descriptor" (sounds like what I want). I selected the master HDD (which it did recognize as the correct size) and chose the "Analyse" option, and then it ran through all the ~38,000 cylinders on the master HDD. It then reported (due to the same f***ing buggy 48-bit LBA-handling code) that the last two partitions (the ones partially or entirely located above 128GB on the master HDD) couldn't be recovered (in the partition table; but my problem thankfully wasn't the partition table). After it analyzed the HDD, I quit TestDisk and rebooted into my MS-DOS boot CD - and it recognized all six partitions. I rebooted and let it try to load Windows, and it did - in fact it's running right now with no problems at all. I think the problem is my HDD - because I don't have any other HDDs raped by XP in the same way. But if the HDD is otherwise alright (which it seems in every way to be, running flawlessly in 98SE and XP so long as the OS boots), I'll keep it. Apparently TestDisk automatically fixes the "bad media descriptor" in order to be able to analyze the HDD; and the media descriptor was my only problem. Thank God. *heaves sigh of relief* [edit: but I'm curious - how does a "media descriptor" become bad in the first place?] [further edit: okay, tried it again - slaved HDD into XP machine, wouldn't then boot in 98SE machine or talk to MS-DOS, ran "Analyse" in TestDisk (from MS-DOS), restarted and 98SE boots fine: it looks like this is a genuine fix for the "bad media descriptor" f***-up; note that "Analyse" (in my experience) needs to be let entirely run lest an odd (read a wrong) HDD size be reported (i/s, putting the drive back into XP "fixes" it so that TestDisk can again recognize the HDD as its proper size and really fix it); and don't change anything - just "Analyse" the disk and {Return} through (if I remember) all the prompts]
  12. Not yet, but it only doesn't work on this cable after I've put it in the XP machine. Not sure ... all mine says is 'primary hard disk installed' or somesuch. Thanks ... this looks good. I'll keep it ready in case things have no other solution but a wipe and reformat. Hmm ... I reset all connections (again, actually - I did the same thing I don't know how many times over the past couple days after this happened a couple days ago) but no joy. I did just find out that although Western Digital's Data Lifeguard CD doesn't see the correct drive label, it does recognize all the partitions on the HDD, with their labels - except for the last partition (which, furthermore, unlike the first three (that is, until past the 128GB/137GiB limit), is described as a FAT16 (instead of FAT32) partition - although it actually is a FAT32 drive). This is exactly the problem (down to which drives and labels recognized) I got (although within 98SE - *sigh*) before applying the 48-bit LBA patch to my 98SE installation. Did XP undo the 48-bit LBA patch? If so, why would this keep the system from booting? Or, does WD's Data Lifeguard simply fall prey to the non-48-bit LBA limitations? [ ... ] Well : just checked in an MS-DOS boot CD, and only the partitions that fall entirely under the 128GB limit are visible. The two partitions on my slave and the 2GB/106GB on my master are available - but not the last two 106GB partitions on my master. This was not the case after DBANing and formatting two days ago. After a clean partition and format, MS-DOS (and 98SE safe mode) can see all six partitions correctly; only 98SE cannot due to the buggy 48-bit LBA handling. Now, after booting as a slave to XP, the HDD acts in MS-DOS as it used not to act in MS-DOS but in 98SE. Now what the hell? [ ... ] Huh ... checking out http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk. I'll let you know ... [ ... ] Well, s***. MS-DOS handles every X: request on the master HDD (but not on the slave - works fine there) with "Invalid media type reading drive X". Yet the HDD works fine on XP and at least the partitions that fall under the 128GB limit can be seen by WD's Data Lifeguard. [ ... ] Okay ... got TestDisk running from my 98SE slave drive (which I had to slave to the XP system in order to get TestDisk on the 98SE slave; no problems there!), and it looks promising. TestDisk detects the proper size of my master HDD and reports a lot of errors about a bad partition table, &c. I think TestDisk claims to be able to fix this, so we'll se ...
  13. Any ideas why? Something I don't know? I just got a brand-new install of 98SE working perfectly, tweaked to (near) perfection, and slaved its (partitioned, four-month-new) master Western Digital 320GB HDD into a nearby XP machine in order to move 250GB+ (back) onto the 98SE HDD. I moved part of the load, but since the XP machine was needed for awhile I mastered the 98SE boot HDD back into the 98SE machine over the 98SE slave HDD and now the master HDD won't boot. Western Digital's Data Lifeguard boot CD sees the HDD as blank (with a new label filled with carets that bears no resemblance to the actual internal label "WDC WD320 ... &c") and asks me if I want to set it up for my system. If I don't boot to CD, the machine just hangs after POST. Can XP 'dispose' a HDD to fit to XP's way of thinking of the world? The HDD works fine in XP and all data is accessible. Did the XP boot process do something to the MBR on the 98SE HDD's primary, active partition? I have (very recent - current, in fact) backups of my 98SE installation, so if needed I can reïnstall 98SE on this HDD to reset the MBR and then partition-copy an old installation into the partition to get 98SE running again with not (too) much hassle, but I'm not sure if that's the only problem I'm encountering. Why the whole HDD (and not just the MBR) unrecognizable by DOS, so that even the internal HDD label is inaccessible to the WD Data Lifeguard boot CD and even more accessible (in a manner of speaking) to the machine itself (XP reads the label fine - just did, in fact)? Like I said, I haven't lost anything - even the 98SE installation that took me days to set up to my liking -; but I really don't wish (if possible) to DBAN, repartition, and reformat the HDD before I can revert to my backup 98SE installation. Somehow, I need to get 250GB+ to my 98SE machine from an XP machine. Somehow, it seems to me I've done this before without any problem. Thanks ... and wish me luck. P.S.: This issue first cropped up a few days ago, immediately after I installed a good many (but not the Internet-related, since this computer will never be online) of the updates listed on "The complete list of hotfixes & updates for Windows 98se" which unfortunately trashed my system. Two DBANs later, WD Data Lifeguard was able to recognize the original "WDC WD320 ..." internal HDD label, so I reïnstalled 98SE and the updates (which did not trash my system, because I did it more thoughtfully the second time 'round) and got to this point. Is this a sign of a bad HDD? It's fairly new but that doesn't necessarily mean anything; and I think my 98SE slave Western Digital HDD handles 98SE-to-XP-slaving-to-98SE just fine. Why the f***ing HDD label? That's what gets me. p***ed (in general, not at anyone, or even anything), me [edits to undo special characters]