Comos
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comos
-
-
(Info added July, 2019): This solution also works for 10TB WD EasyStore external USB disks.
(Info added in Oct, 2018): Problem solved by (who else?) @Comos, of course!!!
The newer GPT formatted WD My Book and My Passport external USB disks can be reformatted by using the WD Quick Formatter, http://download.wdc.com/misc/WD_Quick_Formatter_Win_1_2_0_10.zip.
Then they become visible to XP (and report 4KiB sectors, too)!!!Hi everyone,
as I started a discussion about an issue when running a 3TB HDD on WinXP 32bit in a USB 3.5" drive enclousure, link:
today ,I can confirm, that a external USB HDD from WD, currently 3TB My Book Essential does have full capacity support on Win XP 32bit. (maybe in Win Y2K also)
Today I have bought it and have 3TB in full armor
Seems that the additional WD HW logic takes care of the rest and the related links were speaking the truth:
http://community.wdc.com/t5/External-Drives-for-PC/Exceeding-2Tb-limit-questions/td-p/234694
message to @dencorso:
The light has been kindled !
0 -
WIN95 RTM
WIN95 OSR1
WIN95 OSR2
WIN95 OSR2.1
WIN95 OSR2.5
I have no clue and no desire to spend time loading all the different versions to find out as this would be an exercise in futility. Besides, the issue not the "missing functions which are irrelevant to the OS in question based on WinAMP code that obviously check for the OS in question and acts accordingly".But don't CreateEventA or GlobalUnlock exist also on Win95?Function Dependencies ONLY MATTER when a given Not-OS Program is installed and "fails". Check out KernelEX project, OK? There is ALWAYS a "limit" to what an OS can do for a Program that is normally NOT supported by the OS, even for the KernelEX Project!
Im aware about the KernelEX Project, great work !
0 -
submix8c, thanks for DDO link. I'm not comfortable with the idea of DDOs. Maybe if there were a generic one that could be loaded from AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS, rather than MBR. But even then it's somewhat worrying.
More specifics on the mobo and HDD: mobo rev 1.10. But the differences are likely in things CPU voltage support, etc., rather than anything pertinent here. HDD-wise, the only extra info there is is the non-documented suffix of the model (stuff like -00JJD0), which I could check if you're interested.
128GB/137GB is the BIOS limit.Appears that a 32/64GB limit exists (maybe 120gb)?
I used the external HDD. It's not used for booting, and it's on a controller card.Have you actually used the External HDD on it? IOW, does it HAVE a "controller" in the enclosure (which BYPASSES the BIOS)?But rloew brought up a good point. Some write actions can be done before Windows booting completes, and those might use BIOS functions. Even if the OS partition fits within the BIOS detected size, I actually do have an additional software partition that doesn't. If only the BIOS treated the HDD as 128GB, or even 10-20GB, that'd be enough, but 8GB is very borderline.
Too bad there's no 128GB clamp jumper on the drive. I might solve the problem by doing more HDD rotations than I anticipated. :-/
For a boot drive?!Then I disabled the detection on that IDE channel completely and windows during bootup detect the drive (<137GB) and I was able to use it.Nope, not for a boot drive.
0 -
Listing for Winamp?
Some programs "detect" what OS and call functions for that OS only. IOW, the SAME Program will run on multiple OS. Just because a "function" is missing doesn't mean that it will be used. You need only check when a Program actually FAILS to determine what's "missing".
"Seems to work fine"... right? Then you have no problem...
Yes it does work.I was only curious why , when example the same program have on Win98SE all functions okay, where is the huge difference.
0 -
Hi everyone,
for some time I used a Total Commander plugin called File Info for checking the DLL's if they are missing or what is wrong.
When I check also the system DLL's I have a warning,that there are some functions missing of not succesfully loaded although that program or OS WIN95OSR2 seems to work fine.
Any idea how to peek why it is not loaded or where's the problem exactly?
0 -
In the past when I was running Siemens-Nixdorf i486/100 & Win95OSR2 I had similar issue with the BIOS HDD size limitation.Then I disabled the detection on that IDE channel completely and windows during bootup detect the drive (<137GB) and I was able to use it.
0 -
Ouch!
According to Rev.3.0 MoBo manual that's the best you'll get - Voltage 2.1v / 6x75mhz=450mhz.
Sad... I dumped 2 Tyan S1590's recently for recycle. If I'd still had them, I would have gladly given you one (gratis).
The official MoBo manual doesn't tell all the secrets.I tested all combinations and the lowest volatge I can get is 2.0V.
To get 450Mhz is fine for me,but not with less CPU power that I had before,which disappoints me.
I have a revision v2.3, the board I have fixed with newer and stronger FET's to handle newer CPU's.Interesting is, that there are other types like TX97-E which supports also 83Mhz FSB, look similar like T97-X but on T97-X that FSB combination doesn't work.
Dunno why Asus didn't impletent it to the T97-X which seemed was the last in their series with Triton II chipset.
0 -
Did you visit Jan Steunebrink's Getting the AMD K6-2+ / K6-III+ to work on your Super Socket 7 board page?
Sure, I had a long chat with Jan about the patching and had a last custom patch installed.
0 -
Hi everyone,
for a longer time I run a GF4 MX440 PCI on my Win95OSR2 with drivers 41.09.I would like to upgrade, but which driver version to choose?
I red somewhere, that in some later versions were bugs.
Anyone have experience with these?
0 -
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6-III/index.html
Have you tried clocking at 5.5x (the lower)?
Hmmm. according to the above, you might have a K6-IIIE+ (different FSB) @4x100. And you didn't mention whether the K6-III was 66 or 100 FSB.
Bus speed matters. IMHO it's better to go a higher FSB than a higher multiplier (which depends on the CPU and the MoBo abilities). IOW, choosing a "slower" CPU that uses a higher FSB MIGHT run faster - or even an "equivalent" speed (as you might have).
I have tried once only to test if the mobo will bootup with K6-III+, then I set it to 6.0x.The previous K6-III was AMD-K6-III/400AFR.Now the AMD K6-IIIE+ 400 - K6-III+/400ATZ.
Seems you are right about the FSB as I checked both CPU's.On both the 75Mhz remained in my setup.
0 -
One way to reverse the execution order without deleting anything would be like this. Assume this exists ...
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"1"="Calc.exe"
"2"="Notepad.exe"
... and then we run ...
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"1"="Notepad.exe"
"2"="Calc.exe"
We have reversed the order of execution of the programs even though all we really did was rewrite the values within "1" and "2". Those two slots still lie in the same position within the registry, "1" is before "2", but only what is in those fields is what was changed.
A better illustration. Assume the RUN key is empty and we just reserve several sequential locations ...
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"This will run 1st"=""
"This will run 2nd"=""
"This will run 3rd"=""
"This will run 4th"=""
Even though the data fields are empty (value not set), these sequential slots exist and will be enumerated and executed in order (but nothing will happen). Now we just place whatever we like in them ...
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"This will run 1st"="Calc.exe"
"This will run 2nd"="Notepad.exe"
"This will run 3rd"="Mspaint.exe"
"This will run 4th"="Wordpad.exe"
All we did was punch-in some data into the reserved (empty) locations without changing the structure. And we can 're-arrange' the values at anytime, again without actually tampering with the order of the physical 'slots' in the registry structures ...
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run]
"This will run 1st"="Mspaint.exe"
"This will run 2nd"="Wordpad.exe"
"This will run 3rd"="Notepad.exe"
"This will run 4th"="Calc.exe"
Although we are just playing with mere bytes in size here, on a larger scale this can be very advantageous because deleting things in the registry will inevitably cause 'holes' to be created necessitating a quasi-defrag later. The holes can add up and (potentially be a problem on Win9x because of the limitations of large registries in certain circumstances. On Win9x I always used RegCompact and there is NTRegOpt available for NT systems (although it's need is certainly debatable ).
EDIT: typo
I had also the idea to just empty the key and correct the order, but that would be a mess when searching for something.Since I can't rename the values I rather delete it all and then modify it like your example 1,2,3,4 and so on.
0 -
Hi everyone,
this thread is a little bit retro, but I can't figure out where is the problem.
I recently run my older PC with ASUS TX-97-X which has patched BIOS to support AMD K6 CPU's.
Most of the time I run a K6-III 400 clocked @ 412Mhz (5.5x75).Somehow this one didn't run stable at 450.Half year ago I got a few AMD K6-III+ 400.
When I install this CPU, I clocked it to 450 (6x75), runs stable, but when tested quickly in MPXPLAY, the CPU load is about 2-3% higher then I had with K6-III which was clocked even lower !
The tools that runs under DOS to get max from this CPU I run all the time, but what could be the problem? The stepping of the CPU or the PowerNow! feature is throttling the performance?
0 -
That OOLAUNCHER look nice but only for XP.So for my Win9x I'll do the execution order the oldschool way then, export, delete entry, modify order in the reg file and import again.
Thanks for the help guys !
0 -
Thanks for the tip, very usefull info ! It is as I expected, exucuted in alphabetic order.
0 -
Hi everyone,
just one to ask, what is the execution order in registry setting HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run ?
Is it exactly as it is listed in registry , that means alphabeticly sorted? I was dealing with curious thing that my QuickLaunch 95 tool under Win95OSR2 causes the Explorer.exe to crash after bootup.
I created in the registry new text variable and moved QuickLaunch95 execution at the end of the list and it worked fine now.
Mateus
0 -
4 kiB sectors! That makes sense! Then again, if that works for WD, there should be a way of getting it to work for any HDD, whatever the manufacturer. You've just kindled a light of hope!
In this case the limitation should be max 16T HDD. Gotta buy that stuff from WD and test it
0 -
Only exeption is to WD Mybook Essential,which has logic to trick the OS about the real drive's geometry.
Elaborate, please. I went to WD's site and couldn't find anything about it (then again, it can be just a trivial case of bad Google-Fu, of course).
Hi Den,
sure I will elaborate
I need to solve this bul*****, that I didn't expect with WinXP 32bit, because Im outta space for my stuff I haven't tested it on a good old Win9x yet how it is recognized.
Here are some links,that I was digging into:
http://community.wdc.com/t5/External-Drives-for-PC/Exceeding-2Tb-limit-questions/td-p/234694
0 -
Only exeption is to WD Mybook Essential,which has logic to trick the OS about the real drive's geometry.
Elaborate, please. I went to WD's site and couldn't find anything about it (then again, it can be just a trivial case of bad Google-Fu, of course).
Hi Den,
sure I will elaborate
I need to solve this bul*****, that I didn't expect with WinXP 32bit, because Im outta space for my stuff I haven't tested it on a good old Win9x yet how it is recognized.
0 -
Well partly solved.
One thing is,that there is a jumper in the enclousure for the limitation to 2TB and the second thing is,that WinXP 32bit can handle only 2TB over USB... **** !
Only exeption is to WD Mybook Essential,which has logic to trick the OS about the real drive's geometry.
0 -
OS is WinXP 32bit, that's why used Paragon's GPT Loader.
Drive enclousure is SK-3501 Super-S3 from Akitio
http://www.akitio.com/professional-storage/sk-3501-super-s3
Another solution is,that the enclousure doesn't handle the size what they claim.
Response from Paragon was,that is for the drives which are attached directly to the MB.But if the USB converter handles it,it should work also.
Funny this is,that my cheap USB/SATA/IDE converter reports the drive as 16TB :-))) So there is definitely somekind a problem with the translation in the enclousure.
0 -
Hi everyone,
does anybody have experience when running a 3TB 3.5" in a enclousure over USB on WinXP?
I tried to combine a Paragon GPT Loader and a drive enclousure from Akitio, which they claim that it supports drives from 80GB-3TB, but even now it's reported by GPT Loader,that the disk is only in 2TB in size.
Before I had an enclousure from I-tec and the result was same,but as I beleived,it was caused by it's only 2TB drive support.
Any idea?
Greets
Comos
0 -
The file size is the same as Russian version, so I have fixed it and I'll test it tomorrow.Also I dunno what causes that the explorer.exe sometimes crashes when using the Quick Launch 95 utility in startup....
I've never used it, so I don't know.
BenoitRen might know more about it, I believe I've seen him mention that utility before...
Okay, I'll try to ask him.Today I have tested the patched explorer and it is working
0 -
Looks like these are the correct offsets. Checked and they are listed as being the same offsets despite different file sizes in 3 different language versions at Dr. Hoiby's website.
name : explorer.exe
size : 204288
version : 4.0.0.950
//------------
Offset 0x0C496 :
01 -> 11
Offset 0x0E6CF :
01 -> 11
Offset 0x1E86F :
01 -> 11If you are uncertain, you could take a look at the English version and compare some of the surrounding bytes at those offsets to see if they are the same.
English version and others downloadable from Dr. Hoiby at the link above.
The file size is the same as Russian version, so I have fixed it and I'll test it tomorrow.Also I dunno what causes that the explorer.exe sometimes crashes when using the Quick Launch 95 utility in startup....
0 -
What version of EXPLORER.EXE are you using? The 95-Shell version (4.00.95x) or the version installed by the Desktop Update (4.72.3612.17xx)?
The links to the text file instructions at Dr Hoiby's website are a bit deranged and unclear.
(For example, the link supposedly for 95A instructions goes to instructions for 98FE EXPLORER v4.72.3110.1)If you tell us what version you're using, we can sort it out. I started a text file containing specific instructions for each version during my slipstream project but I'm not sure where it is at the moment.
The windows itself is updated to 4.00.950B (USB support included).The Explorer.exe is also 4.00.950B as I remember,but I will take a look again for a case.
Checked, it's 4.00.950 version
0
(For example, the link supposedly for 95A instructions goes to instructions for 98FE EXPLORER v4.72.3110.1)
>2TiB external USB drive and WinXP? Of course!
in Pinned Topics regarding Windows XP
Posted
One partition, NTFS