jaclaz

@cc333 That post you quoted is a leftover from the split that was made. At a given point 98SE and RLoew started talking here of Ramdisk related stuff for Windows 98 and the topic was split, keeping here the XP (or NT 5.x if you prefer) and 2TB MBR limit stuff, moving all the rest to this new topic: Everything is cool and dandy, now. jaclaz

@98SE With all due respect , but really, you DO NOT *need* a swapfile (at all) and surely you DO NOT *want* such a large swapfile (having ramdisk for your loading of an iso "as is" or similar may have some merits, but NOT a swapfile, which is nothing but an extension to available memory that you won't need[1]), I am all for "thought experiments" but maybe here you are taking it to the realm of pure speculation, just for the sake of it. Why don't you put together a suitable machine and try? Very likely, even if each and every theory expressed here is valid, you will find in real testing a number of roadblocks (be it BIOS, hardware, software, whatever) that may (please read as "will") likely prevent you from actually achieving what in theory is possible with a sufficient stability and you'll have to settle for "lower standards". jaclaz [1] In the real world at the time when Windows 98 was fully supported (and programs were actually written for it), a "typical" machine would have had 64 Mb, sometimes 128 Mb, exceptionally 256 Mb of RAM and respectively 128 Mb, 256Mb and 512 Mb swapfile at the very most. In other words, no machine at the time ever had more than 256+512=768 Mb of "virtual" RAM (i.e. physical RAM+swapfile) available. Still they worked fine. Now, with some tricks, you can have 1 Gb or more of "real" RAM available, that will be more than enough to run *each and every* program written for 98 (+1), unless (and until) some programmer will write an actually useful/working piece of modern bloatware that will need more RAM.

Is this to be intended as a road-map or preliminary timetable for the project? jaclaz

Ironically? Try guessing WHO EXACTLY asked the Wayback Machine to archive it? Maybe you meant "thankfully" , and now you also know who to thank for it . jaclaz

You are welcome I am sure , let us know how it goes. jaclaz

Ok, I have to ask. Is there any reason why on Windows 9x/Me it makes more sense to have a swapfile on ramdisk (when compared with NT and later)? Some past references, just in case: http://www.overclock.net/t/1193401/why-it-is-bad-to-store-the-page-file-on-a-ram-disk http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156944-delete-not-clear-pagefile-at-shutdown/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174002-windows-7-possible-advisable-to-disable-the-page-file/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174520-optimal-page-file-setting/ jaclaz

Yep , but as said before, if you can access the terminal without insulating anything you are not in either BSY or LBA0 situation (which are the ONLY ones for which we have some experience) you are in any of the n possible other failure conditions, and as such your drive is outside the scope of this thread and (much) beyond our (limited) level of competence . Try finding some support on: http://malthus.mooo.com/viewforum.php?f=2 if spildit or fzabkar (to name a couple of the most friendly and knowledgeable members over there) have some advice for you (provided that no special equipment such a PC-3000 is needed) you still have some chances. jaclaz

But it (SP2 Finlandese) can still be found here: http://stuff.onse.fi/winupdates/ Check the hashes from here just n case: https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/request-info-windows-xp-service-packs-all-languages-for-collectors.59199/ jaclaz

You mean like doskey.com, only better? Here: http://paulhoule.com/doskey/ Or you may want to try the Win2K Cmd.exe version for Windows 95 with or without consize: http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/consize/ and*or check here for more: https://www.4dos.info/dtools.htm (and also migrating to 4DOS wouldn't be a bad idea), the frereware and opensource versions can be found here: https://www.4dos.info/v4dos.htm jaclaz

Try the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20061210032325/http://download.microsoft.com/download/WIN98/UPDATE/23433/W98/EN-US/314147USA8.EXE https://web.archive.org/web/20060620064109/http://www.prowebsitemanagement.com/downloads/coolkill.zip https://web.archive.org/web/20061115015110/http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/2/AD231714-F290-4E58-B9E1-49D675DEA759/W95snmpzp.exe jaclaz

AFAICR the issue with firewalls accepting domain names (or not) revolves around the possibility (or not) of DNS hijacking. jaclaz

I see. Still - with all due respect of course - unless your MBR extension is really-really transparent (and even if it is so) I would personally find more useful a "better than Paragon's" implementation of GPT as this would allow a total interchangeability of the disks (or of their images) on later OS's ( a man can dream ). Also, I believe that little by little the hard disk manufacturers are going to shift largely to 4Kb sectored disks, I doubt that "next generation of >4 Tb disks will be AF, it is more likely that they will be "Native 4k". jaclaz

But I am missing why they should be patched (not for 4Kb sectored drives in themselves, as said the MS VSS driver works fine with (virtual) 4Kb sectored disks under XP and BOTH FAT and NTFS), maybe for larger than 2.2Tb disks which expose a 512 byte sector size? But then the MBR objective sector number limit would come into play again and you would need GPT. (which BTW can be normally accessed using the existing Paragon loader/driver): https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/gpt-loader/ which is not free or freeware but all in all - if really needed - is only 20 bucks, and anyway doesn't seem to include any patched (or new) FASTFAT.SYS or NTFS.SYS. If you want to test the VSS driver, see here: http://reboot.pro/topic/6492-virtual-storage-driver/ And still noone with an actual >2.2 Tb disk (i.e. the potential users of this) has actually tested the idea in this post: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/176480-2-tib-limit-size-in-mbr-hard-drives/?do=findComment&comment=1135913 jaclaz

Allow me to doubt that the Board Supervisor can lay off. Maybe you (and the bunch of people) could make a petition for assigning to Dybia a special license allowing him to post whatever he see fit wherever on the MSFN board, but usually the Mods (and the Supervisor) have this queer attitude about having members post on topic. You know how these old people tend to think along traditional schemes ... jaclaz

JFYI, you can do anyway a clean 98 install by installing from hard disk (actually this is the way most experienced people usually install it as it much faster than from CD and has the advantage of having the files available in case): http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/software/windows/upgrade/inst98.htm see if you can use the CD in real mode: https://web.archive.org/web/20060210090803/http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;189526 https://web.archive.org/web/20060209003934/http://support.microsoft.com:80/kb/190303/EN-US/ Then as always you will need to try some different drivers, but how is the CD-ROM connected? (I seem to remember issues on that Intel Controller connected to primary/secondary and master/slave settings ) jaclaz

No, he isn't. You should use PM's if you want to contact another member directly, the function is there for some reasons (among them avoiding using the board for this kind of activity), a board is not (and should not become IMNSHO) Twitter or Yo. jaclaz

Wait a minute. Which exact model (and which exact firmware version) is it? With the drive fully assembled (i.e. with both the head and motor heads NOT insulated) you can access terminal? Then you are not in a "locked terminal" situation as the BSY issue would cause. If you prefer, insulating either the heads or motor contacts is only a trick to allow CTRL+Z to allow access to the terminal, and your drive is not suffering from the illness that supposedly the N1 command should workround to allow the user format fix (but from something else ). Conversely, in the half-@§§ed translation I can make via Google of Yura's page (in Polish Lithuanian) it seems that the LED:000000CC FAddr:xxxxxxxxx error when issuing the N1 command means that the SMART is already cleared and that the format command should be issued right after power on: http://yura.puslapiai.lt/files/seagate/720011_ES2.html Maybe it is time that you post a complete report here: http://malthus.mooo.com/index.php? http://malthus.mooo.com/viewforum.php?f=2 asking for support/help. jaclaz

Yep . As said, try using the CarterinCanada's guide, EXACTLY (and BTW that one uses - if I recall correctly - the motor contacts). More or less the rule of the thumb is "try using a set of contacts, and if it doesn't work, try again using the other set of contacts", then there are lots of reports of people failing at their first few attempts and later at the nth re-try succeed (but we have no idea about WHY the first tries were unsuccessful). I am asking you to use the mentioned CarterinCanada's guide as it is the most detailed available, and has proved to work in most (really almost all) cases, so IF it doesn't work for you we may start to introduce variations , but ONLY on the same (known to be usually working) base. jaclaz

Hmmm. Have you actually tested it? Or actually READ what the actual authors wrote? http://www.easeus.com/data-recovery/recover-decrypt-wannacrypt-encrypted-files.html And later: In plain English: Easeus software DOES NOT DECRYPT ANYTHING. IF (and only IF) the original files, deleted after a new corresponding encrypted file was created by the malware, were NOT OVERWRITTEN, then MAYBE the software (just like ANY other deleted files recovery software) can recover the original file. Obviously on a filled to the brim filesystem chances of this recovery are 0% or very near to 0%, while on an almost empty filesystem they may reach something relevant (my guess would be something like 15%, maybe 25% I doubt more than that), and clearly if you have (like it is normally on windows 7) an automatic/scheduled defrag and it has run in the meantime your chances are again tending to very low (unless - maybe - all the files were contiguous before the encryption and you can use direct carving with success, but losing paths and filenames). jaclaz

Wait a minute. Did you power off the drive and waited some 60 seconds at the right step in the procedure? Just in case, FORGET about anything you have read anywhere else and ONLY try re-doing from start, following EXACTLY this guide, WITHOUT introducing any changes to it: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/133387-debricking-the-seagate-drives/ http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=38656 Which contacts where you insulating (heads or motor)? jaclaz

Nahh, I would find this more appropriate : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes?item=qt0471984 Now, seriously (and ironically ), on XP (IF the Wannacry thingy actually encrypted the files) you still have a teeny-tiny possibility to unencrypt them, something that there is NO chance you can do on Windows 10 (again IF the Wannacry thingy ran on it) thanks to the betterings the good MS guys implemented: https://github.com/aguinet/wannakey ..and on 7, at least 32-bit version: https://github.com/gentilkiwi/wanakiwi https://blog.comae.io/wannacry-decrypting-files-with-wanakiwi-demo-86bafb81112d jaclaz

Yes, SATA cables/connectors (being "new" and "smart" and "clever" and ...) have (unlike the "old", "clumsy", "outdated" and ...) ATA/IDE/SCSI connectors a known ability to disconnect themselves by their own will (actually for unknown reasons, as you pointed out most probably because of some vibrations). You clearly don't move often your desktop (not that you should ) but when/if you do, you will probably find out after a move, let's say 200 Km on a light truck. when you re-power up the PC SATA disks (and/or CD/DVD drives) won't be found and after inspection you will find out that the connectors are loose or downright came off. The new ones with the locking the metal insert are much better than common ones (but not all receptacles allow the use of locking cables), the ones with a 90° bend on disk side are somehow better than "dtraight" ones usually, probably because the weight of the cable is not pulling in the same direction as the insertion axis, but the real trick I learned when inspecting a brand new "assembled" desktop, there was a small blob of hot glue on each connector (device side), I talked to the OEM and he told me how since they had so many reports about sent (via mail/courier) desktops arriving DOA they started (lightly) gluing the connectors, as a matter of fact it works nicely and it is not that a problem if you actually have to remove the connector (and I have seen other assembled PC's with a thick elastic band around the HD keeping the connectors in place). This said, good to know (yours must be an "edge" case) that in some conditions they may appear in BIOS but not in the OS. It's queer, maybe (just maybe) the BIOS needs a manual re-dection of devices otherwise it "keeps" old ones in memory? jaclaz

If you are US based, Walmart has it: https://www.walmart.com/ip/StarTech-SATAPOWADPL-4-Pin-Molex-to-Left-Angle-SATA-Power-Cable-Adapter-6-Universal/22952972 About the USB to TTL adapter, it is not entirely unheard of that the thingy is DOA (Dead On Arrival), these thingies are actually sold for a handful of bucks (more or less the same as the Walmart price for the mentioned - passive only - power adapter, that proportionally is one of the most expensive things in the world, bar Apple products ) and then are (I don't know how much you paid for the one you got) often re-badged "the solution for 7200.11 troubles and re-sold for as much as several tens of doillars, still their "value" is 3 or 4 bucks. jaclaz

@dencorso @RLoew Yes , we are all saying the same things , only slightly differently. As mentioned in the given thread, the Microsoft VSS drivers (on XP) allow the creation (and mounting and formatting, etc.) of 4 Kb sectored (virtual) disks, this plainly means that the filesystems (at least FAT and NTFS) and related files can work just fine with this sector size, even in the XP implementation. With "real" disks the issues are in the actual drivers (and the MBR and possibly PBR ) code ASSUMING the 512 bytes size. I would say that fixing the MBR (and if needed the PBR) code should be if not trivial rather "easy" (and possible) and as well it shouldn't be that much difficult to modify/patch (if needed, haven't really checked) the UNIATA drivers (that do already support the SCSI READ(16)/WRITE(16) commands BTW) . jaclaz

I don't get it , there is no issue with "native" 4kb devices (apart from booting) they are just fine as data disks, at least virtually, the whole point revolves around the 32 bit field in the MBR, the LBA is expressed in sectors, the OS recognizes 4kb sectors and (2^32-1)*4096=17592186040320 bytes. jaclaz