Cixert

I have a pretty old computer saved many years in the closet that I had to take out to perform some tests. It has the I440BX chip (20th century) and Windows XP. The last time I tried to update the BIOS I looked for an updated version based on the motherboard name, but when trying to flash it I gave me the error "The program files part number does not match with your system". Desperate I flash it equally the surprise is that this works, but when restarting the message "NTLDR is missing press key to continue" appears to me. So I returned to the previous BIOS version and the problem disappeared. Now, in 2024 I have learned that the BIOS updated version is not sought by the motherboard name. This must be sought by the motherboard identification name that give programs such as Aida64, since I do not download a BIOS version for a motherboard review that is not admitted. So I have installed the BIOS correct version. The surprise is that the message also appears to me "NTLDR is missing press key to continue". And if I return to the previous version of the BIOS it works correctly. Any idea what reason is it? The strange thing is that the message appears in Spanish, when the BIOS is in English. How is it possible? Is it in any way detecting that Windows XP is in Spanish? I have tried other hard drives and they do work, the problem only happens with the installed hard drive. Motherboard Model: DTK PRM-0080I E1 ID motherboard: i440BX-w977-2A69KD1DC-00 BIOS download https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/dtk-prm-0080i-e1#bios BIOS right 80e1-308.bin (v. 3.08) BIOS bad: 80e1-314.bin (v. 3.14) It is for 2A69KD1KC (rev RC or newer )

The forum is not letting me put some links, fortunately write yes I can. Nor does it let me edit if I add new links. It was good to correct it.

This version is older than "Paragon HFS for Win v.10.5.0.95", the MAC system reader, also installs GPT on Windows XP with drivers updated to version 10.5.0.95 and seems to fix many issues from the previous version. I didn't know about this one, thanks. What version is build based?

I will tell you a little about the experience that I have had in recent months with this MBR data disk connected by USB. The partitions on the 5TB hard drive have remained unchanged: 1- Primary NTFS --> 1.31 TiB --> Cluster 8 KiB 2- Primary exFAT ---> 1.17 TiB ---> Cluster 8 KiB 3- Primary FAT32 --> 91.2 GiB ---> Cluster 8 KiB 4- Extended FAT32 ---> 683 GiB ---> Cluster 16 KiB 5- Extended FAT32 ---> 289 GiB ---> Cluster 32 KiB 6- Extended FAT32 ---> 937 GiB ---> Cluster 32 KiB I have worked with 4 operating systems, Windows 2000-XP-Seven-10 For the first month I was continually copying and pasting files into the exFAT partition and unzipping and compressing ZIP files. I mainly used Windows XP and Windows Seven, but more Windows Seven. The problems in this exFAT partition were continuous, the errors that I had read in an article that criticized this file system were reproduced. Suddenly files and folders were missing for no reason, changing the exFAT partition to read-only mode and I had to recover the files with CHKDSK. On more than one occasion, Windows Seven and 10's CHKDSK were unable to repair the file system, issuing an error that said something like "unable to repair." Surprisingly, the solution was to use Windows XP's CHKDSK, then everything worked again. Without being so serious, file system errors also frequently happened to me on the NTFS partition. Furthermore, the exFAT partition suddenly disappeared several times, and the only method to recover it, without a copy of the partition table, was the DiskGenius program. Undoubtedly at that moment I was thinking about converting the exFAT partition to FAT32 and saving myself from problems. I also doubted whether it had been a good idea to format the NTFS partition with an 8 KiB cluster, since I could not find an explanation for the errors. Subsequently, I spent a couple of months experimenting with all the disk defragmentation programs, testing all the partitions with them. The file disappearance errors continued when copying and pasting files, but not in the defragmentation process. I left the defragmenters theme and started working on other themes. Weeks and months passed and then I realized that I have not problems again, neither with the NTFS partition nor with the exFAT partition, I continue copying and pasting files, but not in such quantity as at the beginning. I did not have any problems with FAT32 partitions, of course. I have read a solution to have these files larger than 4 GiB. I don't know if I'll dare to try it. I see that there are more systems than I thought, FAT32+, FAT32x...

Years ago I found that Windows Seven was not capable of reading MBR disks larger than 2 TB, while Windows 2000-XP and Linux distributions from 2009 onwards were capable. I don't remember which Windows Seven version I installed, whether it came with Service Pack 1 or not. I think that this one did not have it and that the problem was solved with Service Pack 1 . Windows 10 reads +2TB MBR hard drives without problems. Regarding the GPT +2TB disks, I have not experimented with them again, in my last comments I reported problems such as that the 6 TB disk was not read by USB adapters if it was formatted with SATA and it was not read by SATA if it was formatted with USB. Furthermore, the partitions on the 6 TB GPT hard drive were not read by XP if these were formatted with the Windows 10 disk manager, but these were read by XP if these were defragmented in Windows 10 with third-party tools. https://msfn.org/board/topic/181911-read-gpt-hard-disk-on-windows-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1251210 And here the culprit that will not dedicate my time to anything else, the different disk defragmentation utilities have so many differences from each other that researching them took me several months. Then I got involved with something else, of course... The fact is that during this time I have worked with MBR on a 5 TB hard drive so as not to have problems, although it also has a specific post about problems. Regarding the sector and cluste size, here we have the @jaclaz's final statements https://msfn.org/board/topic/184904-problems-with-mbr-hard-disk-5-tb/ So I have not experimented with GPT again and I seem to read that the conclusion you reached is that GPT in XP cannot work with partitions larger than 2 TiB. Is this so? Can you confirm it or is it pending further verification? What file system do you format the partitions? @Dave-H FAT32 PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard) Cluster 4 KiB = 0.29 TiB / 300.99 GiB / 308213.76 MiB Cluster 8 KiB = 0.58 TiB / 600.99 GiB / 615413.76 MiB Cluster 16 KiB = 1.17 TiB / 1203.99 GiB / 1232885.76 MiB Cluster 32 KiB = 2.35 TiB / 2407.99 GiB / 2465781.76 MiB Cluster 64 KiB = 4.70 TiB / 4815.99 GiB / 4931573.76 MiB Cluster 128 KiB = 9.40 TiB / 9631,99 GiB / 9863157,76 MiB Cluster 256 KiB = 18.81 TiB / 19263,99 GiB / 19726325,76 MiB *Just I exceeds only 3.4 GiB the limit for cluster 16 KiB and problems arose. *Values from cluster 64 kib are not given by MiniTool, these have been calculated by the previous amounts and I have not verified their correct operation. *You have to take into account the limits punctured by @jaclaz for the maximum partition size of 16 TiB with sectors of 4096 bytes and 2 TiB for 512 bytes sectors. (real calculation 15,9999999962747097015380859375 TiB & 1,9999999995343387126922607421875 TiB) exFAT PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard) Cluster 4 KiB = 1.00 TiB / 1025.00 GiB / 1049610.24 MiB Cluster 8 KiB = 2.00 TiB / 2049.00 GiB / 2098176.00 MiB Cluster 16 KiB = 4.00 TiB / 4097.00 GiB / 4195328.00 MiB Cluster 32 KiB = 8.00 TiB / 8193.00 GiB / 8390656.00 MiB Cluster 64 KiB = 16.00 TiB / 16385.00 GiB / 16779264.00 MiB Cluster 128 KiB = 32.00 TiB / 32769.00 GiB / 33556480.00 MiB Cluster 256 KiB = 64.00 TiB / 65537.00 GiB / 67110912.00 MiB ...and so on to cluster 32768 KiB (32 MiB) = 8192 TiB *Values from cluster 32 KiB are not given by MiniTool, these have been calculated by the previous amounts and I have not verified their correct operation.

Hello, I have a group of collaborators in Telegram to whom I have proposed a Google form as a method to collect the personal data of each one, without greater technical claim. I think it is easy to manage and free of charge is the best option. However, among non -expert people I have found the opposition to use the tool because it is from Google. It seems that there is a fear that Google can take the data and sell them. I am not in favor of using Google tools that give problems such as Play Store or Google Services, but in this case I value that it is the best option and that the data is protected by law. I even think there is less possibility that the data is stolen from Google than to other online forms. Do you see it in the same way? Would you recommend another online form, simple, free and easy to manage? They are asking if there are forms on free web pages made with open source. I believe that this does not exist and if it exists it would be totally insecure, but just in case I ask. I don't want to make a website and create my own database. Thank you.

Windows Seven updates list to install offline: In this post I list the latest updates for the Windows 7 operating system (NT 6.1) in its final versions. If there was any mistake, please comment. Internet Explorer and .net Core is not included. There are 2 types of general updates. Free updates that are facilitated until January 2020, except for small exceptions, and ESU updates (Extended Security Updates) that are facilitated to the business environment in cumulative packages, prior economic payment until at least 2024 year. The following updates requested by Windows Update have been removed from the list because these are not necessary or cause problems: KB971033 (Update for Windows Activation Verification Technologies) KB2952664 (System compatibility update for migration to Windows 10) The list is shown in recommended installation order, although there are people who say it is better to leave the Cumulative Update Packages 2016 for the end. FREE UPDATES -Service Stack (SSU) SHA-2 compatible (KB4490628) (2019-03) -Service Pack SP1 (KB976932) -SHA-2 signature code (KB4474419) -Windows Update supports SHA-2 (KB3138612) -Platform update for SP1 (Direct 2D-3D, etc.) (2013-02-26) (KB2670838+KB2834140) -Cumulative Update Package 2016-05-17 (KB3125574) aka SP2 -Cumulative Update Package 2016-08-16 (KB3179573) -Mothly Rollup 2020-01-14 (KB4534310) (latest non-ESU) -Mothly Rollup 2020-01-31 (KB4539601) (complements 2020-01-14) Windows Journal, choose between: -Update Windows Journal vulnerability (KB3155178) (2016-05) -Remove components from Windows Journal KB3161102-v2 (2016-09) Windows Management Framework 3.0 (if installed) (PowerShell 3.0,WMI,WinRM,Management OData IIS Extension & Server Manager CIM Provider) -KB2823180 (2013-04) WMF 3.0 Update List shows Windows Update after installing all update packages: KB973688 (2011-07) Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0 SP2 KB2667402 (2012-07) Vulnerabilities in Remote Desktop KB2676562 (2012-05) Combined Security Update for Microsoft Office, Windows, .NET Framework, and Silverlight KB2698365 (2012-08) Windows Data Access Components Vulnerability KB2813347 (2014-09) Vulnerability in Remote Desktop Client KB2862330 (2014-01) Security for USB drivers KB2900986 (2013-11) Security for ActiveX killbits KB2984972 (2014-02) Remote Desktop Connection 7.1 Update KB3004375 (2015-02) Improve command line auditing (tmb included in KB3031432) KB3046269 (2015-04) Task Scheduler Vulnerability KB3059317 (2016-06) Microsoft Common Controls Vulnerability KB3156016 (2016-06) Microsoft graphics component security KB3159398 (2016-06) Security for Group Policy KB3161949 (2016-06) Security for WPAD Recommended List does not show Windows Update: KB917607 Install Winhelp32.exe (Help not supported error) KB2574819 (2013-09) DTLS protocol compatibility KB2592687 (2013-09) Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) 8.0 Update KB2603229 (2011-10) Two 32-bit register values are incorrect in 64-bit version KB2667402 (2012-08) Terminal Server denial of service vulnerability KB2685811 (2012-11) Kernel-mode driver framework update version 1.11 KB2685813 (2012-11) Update User-Mode Driver Framework version 1.11 KB2729094 (2012-10) Segoe UI symbol font update KB2732059 (2012-09) Error cannot open an .oxps file KB2750841 (2012-11) IPv6 Preparation Update KB2761217 (2012-11) Add Calibri Light and Calibri Light Italic fonts KB2773072 (2014-09) Changes Windows 7 game rating systems KB2818604 (2013-04) Microcode update for AMD processors KB2835174 (2013-05) Incorrect disclaimer Product activation assistant in v. Polish KB2919469 (2014-02) Incorrect Canada country code KB2970228 (2014-10) New symbol of the Russian Ruble KB3006137 (2015-02) Change Lithuania currency symbol from Lithuanian litas (Lt) to euro (€) KB3064209 (2015-06) Intel CPU microcode update KB3102429-v2 (2016-03) Currency symbols Azeri Manat and Georgian Lari KB3184143 (2016-10) Remove ads from free Windows 10 For non-ESU customers only: KB3123479 (2015-05) Deprecated SHA-1 hash algorithm in root certificates KB3156019 (2016-05) Microsoft graphics component security ESU (EXTENDED SECURITY UPDATE) Servicing Stack Updates (SSU) Before proceeding update to the latest SSU stack version available. SSU 2022-09 (KB5017397) is required at least in 2023. For ESU customers only, choose between: -ESU MAK licensor (individual online) (KB4575903) -VANT-ESU licensor (multiple online-offline by volume) More info: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/windows-7-eos-faq/windows-7-extended-security-updates-faq https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000184542/windows-7-extended-security-updates Latest ESU rollup package (published at least until 2024) Offline installation is compatible with all systems until last update in 2024: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/windows-7-sp1-and-windows-server-2008-r2-sp1-update-history-720c2590-fd58-26ba-16cc-6d8f3b547599 .NET FRAMEWORK RUNTIME Free updates: -2014-09 NET Security Update 3.5.1 (KB2894844) -.NET Framework 4.8 (ndp48-kb4503575) -2020-01 Update cumulative package quality and safety for .NET Framework for Windows 7 (latest free) ESU customers only: Search the Microsoft Update Catalog for the latest version, at least until 2024. https://catalog.update.microsoft.com/Home.aspx For example: 2023-11 Net Framework for Windows 7 (replace the date with the estimated one)

Thanks, but when I open NAPS2, select the TWAIN scanner type and proceed to scan, this program opens the interface installed with the driver. NAPS2 does not have its own interface to perform the scan.

I would like to know if there is any program that has its own interface to call the scanner drivers and scan documents or photographs with a scanner. Until now I know that it is possible with the particular interface provided along with the drivers by the scanner manufacturer. -But what happens if, for example, we have a scanner installed with the drivers correctly but the original interface does not work. There is also the VueScan program that has its own drivers and interface compatible with hundreds of scanners. But is it possible to install a scanner with the original or VueScan drivers and perform the scan with another program? I have tried with PDF file digitizer programs but all of these call the scanner driver interface itself.

I have checked C:\Windows\Logs\CBS\CBS.log to see the error cause "the update is not applicable to the equipment" when trying to install "Monthly Rollup update." CBS.log says "superseded" I see that every time a "Monthly Rollup update" is installed, the previous "Monthly Rollup update" disappears from the updates list performed in Windows 7. The same does not happen with "security only" updates, which continue to appear in the list of updates even if new versions are installed.

Thanks, I thought I had read on a website that it was the other way around. That link leads to the v3 download, I don't see that there is a v4 download for Windows Seven https://catalog.update.microsoft.com/search.aspx?q=kb4474419 Thank you. Do you know if the KB4539601 (2020-01-31) package is cumulative and replaces the KB4534310 (2020-01-14) package or if both packages must be installed? I do not remember if I have installed KB4534310 (2020-01-14), if I try to install this now says "the update is not applicable to the equipment"

Edit, the solution is here: Original post: Is there a post that tells the order to install update packages in Windows Seven Ultimate SP1? I install the packages in this order but Windows Update says that I have pending updates. What offline packages do I have to install to avoid pending updates? 1- Cumulative Update Package 2016 (KB3125574) aka SP2 2- SHA-2 (KB4474419-v3) 3- SSU with SHA-2 signing code (KB4490628) (SSU 2019-03) 4- SSU KB5017397 (SSU 2022-09). 5- Monthly Cumulative Update (not ESU) 2020-01-14 (KB4534310) (quality only) (latest non-ESU) 2020-01-14 (KB4534314) (security only) (latest non-ESU) Do I have to install both packages? Right now Windows Update says that I have 24 pending updates. All dated before 2018. What seems strangest to me is that an update is called SP1 (kb976932), although it is only 9.1 MiB

It is USB 3 and it is connected in USB 2 with external power supply. The problem usually happens when I delete a lot of small files. With medium sizes I have not seen a problem. It is as if this did not have time to write in the FAT or the MFT. I don't quite understand the Y cable. which Y wire? so that? Thanks.

Heh heh, I knew you would find the exception that proves the rule. Sorry to be so categorical, I want to make incremental copies, so after 4 TB I wanted 5 TB. In Spain I did not find any 5TB 3.5" disk. Even the large external drives I've seen have a 2.5" hard drive inside. I think that these days I have tried all the defragmentation programs and unfortunately I do not like any of them. I don't want to optimize the files on my hard drive, I just want to defragment and compact the free space like the Windows tool does. But all programs seem to insist on doing special things or just defrag or compact with fragmentation. It seems that none defragment and compact in less than 1 day. Maybe Deflagger but in 12 h. goes for 3% IObit Smart Defrag says to do it and fast, but then I check that it doesn't do what it says.

I'll try to do the comparison with Gdisk in a few days. Now I'm running other tests. "Paragon GPT Loader 10.5.0.95" actually installs the 8.0.1.0 drivers, the same as the original Paragon GPT Loader 8.0.1.0. However, I confirm that "Paragon HFS for Win v.10.5.0.95", the MAC system reader, also installs GPT on Windows XP with drivers updated to version 10.5.0.95 and seems to fix many issues from the previous version. The problem with the blue screen with Paragon GPT 8.0.1.0 on Windows XP SATA (no problem on USB hard disk) I have solved it by installing "Paragon HFS for Win v.10.5.0.95". Then, since I use FAT32 on the Windows XP partition, I have modified the registry HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\gpt_loader Changing the ImagePath value: system32\DRIVERS\gpt_loader.sys by system32\DRIVERS\GPT_LO~1.SYS So I have rebooted and Windows XP has read the GPT HDD installed on the SATA port. I am writing and correcting the advances to work with GPT disks from Windows XP in this post and the next one: https://msfn.org/board/topic/181911-read-gpt-hard-disk-on-windows-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1249360 However, of course, I have a problem. The 6 TiB hard drive has 6 exFAT partitions but on Windows XP it is only able to read data from the first 2 partitions, which have more than 280,000 files. This happens with both, the Paragon GPT driver and the Windows 2003 driver. The only difference between these partitions, is that the ones Windows XP recognizes, have been defragmented with various programs since Windows Seven. On the other hand, I comment that when starting Windows XP "autochk" verifies the partitions that it later reads correctly and says that the ones it does not read are RAW. I also point out that CHKDSK from Windows XP does not work with exFAT partitions. And that no Windows operating system defrags exFAT partitions, so I have to use third-party programs. Regarding your comments about the limits, I say that there are no 5 TiB hard drives with 3.5", they are all 2.5". And that the limits on Logilink adapters are imposed by the firmware. From what I have been able to verify, Logilink is a brand located in Germany that does not really manufacture these adapters. The old adapters are made by a different manufacturer than the new adapters, although externally they appear the same.

In MBR I have not any problem with these programs working with drives larger than 2 TiB -Windows Disk Manager (although it possibly leaves the partitions misaligned) -Acronis Disk Director (although it possibly leaves the partitions misaligned) -EaseUS Partition Master. -Eassos DiskGenius -Macrorit Disk Partition Expert -MiniTool Partition Wizard up to 10.3 I suppose that DBR refers to Disk Boot Record, I have not found technical information about it, it could be synonymous with MBR. The problem partition has fixed the errors after defrag or after CHKDSK (I'm not sure). In another partition that shows the same error it was not corrected with the above methods so I have corrected this automatically with Eassos Disk Genius. Then I have formatted the NTFS partition with exFAT, restored my files and started working. In less than 48 hours the same data loss error as in NTFS has occurred 2 times. When I am deleting an empty subfolder and the USB partitions are randomly unmounted from Windows (now I have tried Seven, before in XP), possibly due to a power failure, so when the partitions are remounted I see that all the main folder contents is gone, all files and all subfolders. The content is quickly recovered with the Windows tool "check for errors on this drive and fix it automatically". I gave this exFAT partition a cluster size of 8 KiB. I have also formatted another partition to exFAT with 1.4 TiB and set it to a 4 KiB cluster size. After filling it with data CHKDSK says no problems found. The size occupied by the partition has been reduced by 1-4 GiB using exFAT as opposed to using NTFS. exFAT seems to work faster than NTFS. The problem has been that again I have an accidental data loss in a few hours due to the USB port sudden disconnection. I have USB drive caching disabled.

I am experimenting with a new 6TB hard drive with GPT and all are problems in all operating systems (XP-Seven-10) 1- My four new Logilink USB adapters are limited with GPT partitions to 5TB (in MBR to 4TB). I have to use a single unit older than I have. 2- I initialize the GPT disk in XP with Acronis Disk Director 12.5 Lite and create 6 partitions (oh I want to try exFAT format and it doesn't have the option to format exFAT). Other programs do not support GPT on XP. 3- After several problems I format the USB hard drive with exFAT from MiniTool Partition Wizard 10.3 in Windows 10. Surprise, Windows 10 does not recognize the format. Ok, I format from Eassos DiskGenius and there is no problem. Windows 10 recognizes partitions. 4- I start Windows XP and it perfectly recognizes the USB hard drive partitions. 5- I disconnect the hard drive from USB and I connect it as SATA. So I boot XP and get blue screen on GPT_LO~1.SYS (ok, I'll check this later, I have Paragon Loader and Windows 2003 drivers installed at the same time). 6- So I boot Windows 10 and surprise, the hard drive system and partitions are not recognized by SATA Windows 10 a few minutes after recognizing it by USB. It looks like an MBR disk with a 2TB partition called GPT and a second RAW partition. I test on Windows 7 and neither, it looks like a raw disk without partitions. 7-Then I recreate the GPT hard disk by USB from the Windows 10 Disk Manager and format the 6 partitions from it. Then I reinsert it as SATA and the result is the same. WINDOWS SATA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE GPT HARD DRIVES that have been initialized and partitioned via USB. When I'm thinking, s***, this is amazing. So I initialize the GPT hard drive from SATA and partition it from SATA. Then I connect the hard drive via USB and surprise, more crap, Windows does not recognize the hard drive created from SATA via USB. This is a summary of many other problems that I have encountered and have taken away sleep hours. The most amazing thing is that GPT hard drives created by USB are not read by SATA and those created by SATA are not read by USB in both Windows 7 and Windows 10. So, will it be recognized, if I create it via USB and then change the brand of adapter,? What if I create by SATA and change the computer hard drive will it be recognized? Surely everything has a logical explanation, but the problem has not been one, but many. And most of the GPT applications have not worked well on Windows 10. Is there a dark hand that doesn't want us to use big hard drives to prevent us from having a lot of content? Other various problems that I had is that when a GPT partition worked with a program that does not work well in XP or Windows 10 was damaged, the files contained in the other partitions were affected until I corrected the defective partitions from Windows 10. Test on Eassos Disk Manager on Windows 10

So, what is the key where some USB adapters do not read MBR + 2 TB? What is the difference between one that reads it and another that does not? I have proven that it is not something physical in my adapter, it depends on the firmware version. New firmware = does not read MBR +2TB Old Firmware = OK And the 4 TB limit that I am experiencing in new adapters?

Thank you, it is very valuable information for me, I will experiment with it. At the moment what I have done is to convert the partition FAT32 with cluster 32 KiB to NTFS partition and then I have changed the cluster to 8 KiB. Unfortunately it has not been a good idea. Just 24 hours working with the NTFS partition and a subfolder with 554 subfolders and 3113 files has suddenly disappeared. It is the folder in which I keep my Internet browsers collection. Directory: Program / Web / Browsers with 554 subfolders and 3113 files. It happens that in this partition I have files of multiple sizes. I have downloaded websites, stored without compressing that I gradually compress in Zip. When I have compressed a downloaded website then I have erased the files and the USB hard drive has suddenly disconnected from Windows XP. It is something that has already happened to me previously in FAT32, when I handle multiple small files suddenly the USB 2.0 unit loses the connection with Windows XP disappearing the partitions of My PC, a few seconds later Windows XP re-loads the partitions. However, when this unknown error happens in FAT32 I have not problem, but in NTFS this great folder has disappeared. I have tried to recover it without success with: R-Tools R-Studio Wise Data Recovery Easeus Data Recovery Eassos Recovery Amazing Dr. Recovery Then I have made a chkdsk /f /r and then yes, chkdsk has found huerphan files and folders that have recovered perfectly. I have been lucky, but I might not have realized this disappearance and have overwhelmed the folder. I am sure that I don't want NTFS. But I will try to discover the cause of the problem. Why is USB unit suddenly disconnected in certain situations? I don't know, but it's something that happens in all computers and hard drives. Examining the album with Eassos DiskGenius (menu Tools + Check Partition Menu Table Error) this tells me the following errors in the new hard drive copy, these are not in the old hard drive copy. "Warn: The Number of Sectors in DBR Less Than Current Value" This same error appears in the other NTFS partition with cluster 8 KiB on the new hard drive. I don't know if this seems that it has happened after changing the cluster size 4 KiB to 8 KiB, I do not know if it is a critical error that can be related to the disappearance of the folder.

I have been working for a few days with this primary partition of 1.17 TiB in FAT32 with cluster 32 KiB without problems. It is a partition in which I copy and paste many files. Here I have saved programs of different sizes. And easily I use ZIP compression and decompression with many files. I would like to try exFAT but I read bad criticisms of a FAT32 fan, who also does not want NTFS. He says that suddenly in exFAT strange things happen with files that disappear and that he then prefers NTFS to store +4GiB files. The only problem I see in continuing to use FAT32 is that the size of Cluster is not appropriate for the files that I have. In NTFS I could use an 8 KiB cluster. My question is if exFAT works well with cluster 8 KiB or necessarily requires cluster 128 KiB. So there is lower exFAT file system overload? I ask why I read otherwise. In FAT32 with a 32 KiB cluster I am losing 6 GiB for 1 TiB. With an 8 KiB cluster I would lose less than 1 GiB. I have another primary partition, this yes in NTFS, I keep operating systems and backups of these. It is a partition in which I do not move as many files as I can do in the partition in which I have programs and so far I have not had problems although it has many more files. In other partitions that I have music and videos with a 32 KiB cluster I lose less than 1 GiB per 1 TiB. In the NTFS partition I also lose 4 GIB per 1 TiB due to the NTFS file system with $MFT type files, etc. At the moment I have no problems with extended partitions. The problem of using more partitions to divide the data is that the English alphabet has 26 letters. So, how in GPT can I have more than 26 accessible partitions from My PC? 2 data discs with 5 partitions = 10 letters 1 system disc with 4 partitions = 4 letters 2 DVD units = 2 letters 4 units pendrive = 4 letters 1 disquette = 1 letter Total = 21 letters I already have busy. I will also review that the restoration of 1,17 TiB USB 2.0 FAT32 backup image made with R-Drive Image took 2 days with Windows 2000 and more than 4 days with Windows XP. (It is a problem already known, although we do not know the cause)

The tests that I have pointed out on the maximum sizes FAT32 cluster have been performed with empty partitions in Windows XP. I am afraid that there is some other limit in the number of files by partition. I do not know if it is related to the size of the cluster. I suppose it is unreasonable to think that problems may be related to a alignment of disk in the first partition greater than sector 63, especially because I have the problems in the second partition. I comment that because again I have formatted the 1208 GiB partition with a 16 KiB cluster size. And that is, when I have proven that there are no problems with this cluster size if there aren't files. That is, when the partition is empty, without files, Windows 2000 when performing the boot hasn't encountered problems and has started perfectly. Again I have formatted the partition with cluster 32 KiB and I am right now filling the partition with files. I will report if there are problems. I use Fat32 because the rest of the file systems do not like me. With NTFS I had problems with several Seagate 40 Gb hard drives. These contained Windows XP in the years 2001-2002-2003. NTFS overwrites the file system in the same physical area of the hard drive and this caused hard drives to fail in less than a year several times. With Fat32 a hard drive has never spoiled to me. Besides, I am afraid that someone encrypts my files with NTFS, so I consider better FAT32, I don't care that someone remotely see my hard drive, but I do care that someone encrypts it. I am studying the possibility of using exFAT but I read many negative things related to the file system overload. That is to say, the same problem commented with NTFS would occur but more increased. I am reading on the Internet that exFAT uses a 128 KiB cluster size by default, because if it uses smaller collapse the file system inputs, thus spoiling the SD cards of mobile phones. These are the sizes of cluster exFAT with which Minitool Partition Wizard allows formatting. exFAT PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard) Cluster 4 KiB = 1.00 TiB / 1025.00 GiB / 1049610.24 MiB Cluster 8 KiB = 2.00 TiB / 2049.00 GiB / 2098176.00 MiB Cluster 16 KiB = 4.00 TiB / 4097.00 GiB / 4195328.00 MiB Cluster 32 KiB = 8.00 TiB Cluster 64 KiB = 16.00 TiB Cluster 128 KiB = 32.00 TiB Cluster 256 KiB = 64.00 TiB ...and so on to cluster 32768 KiB (32 MiB) = 8192 TiB Comparing both tables, if this is possible, I will try to use FAT32 until reaching partitions of 4.7 TiB What format do large databases use and with what criteria divide hard drives?

More or less a loss of 2 GiB is observed when passing from cluster 8 KiB to cluster 16 KiB, in this partition that has mixed size content. Keep in mind that when restoring an image the new partition is defragmented. By the way, that I have analyzed the same units with the Windows hard driver defragment and it informs that there are more files and folders than Windows XP indicated above. Both reports of both partitions match the quantity = 271,606 files in 29,557 folders According to the confession of the ex-engineer Microsoft, David Plummer, the limit of 32 GiB format on FAT32 was "because I say it" without any technical reason https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/04/windows_format_fat32/ I have been remembering the limits that I had checked in 2016 for Fat32. Finally I have remembered that the old partition of 760 GiB I put a cluster size of 8 KiB "because I say it" , although MiniTool Partiion Wizard did not allow me to format a Fat32 partition of this size with this cluster size, so I format this with Fat32 Format (guiformat.exe) that is not limited in any way. The result has been that during these 7 years I have not had any problem with this unit that I have used daily. I have tried enough special tools and I have not had problems (I think I have tried almost all those that exist), also on several occasions I have used chkdsk and check of Windows 2000/XP units have been executed tens of times when starting the system by bad session closures or light cuts. I have not used Windows 9.x or MS-DOS tools. Although I have tried, the MS-DOS system does not recognize such large units. The only problem I had now, when in tried the backup with a 16 KiB cluster size in the new unit, when the old unit should have already had the size of cluster 16 KiB. I have performed some tests with the maximum values that allow MiniTool Partition Wizard 10.3 and all have been satisfactory. So in the absence of an official documentation that indicates otherwise I will use the maximum values indicated by MiniTool. Pointing out that on the Internet there are information that says that a cluster size greater than 32 KiB is not compatible with Windows 95 or previous. And that other information say that the maximum number of files per folder in Fat32 is 65534 files. I think I remember that I had a problem in the past for this reason. FAT32 PARTITION LIMITS (format with MiniTool Partition Wizard) Cluster 4 KiB = 0.29 TiB / 300.99 GiB / 308213.76 MiB Cluster 8 KiB = 0.58 TiB / 600.99 GiB / 615413.76 MiB Cluster 16 KiB = 1.17 TiB / 1203.99 GiB / 1232885.76 MiB Cluster 32 KiB = 2.35 TiB / 2407.99 GiB / 2465781.76 MiB Cluster 64 KiB = 4.70 TiB / 4815.99 GiB / 4931573.76 MiB Cluster 128 KiB = 9.40 TiB / 9631.99 GiB / 9863157.76 MiB Cluster 256 KiB = 18.81 TiB / 19263.99 GiB / 19726325.76 MiB *Just I exceeds only 3.4 GiB the limit for cluster 16 KiB and problems arose. *Values from 64 kib are not given by MiniTool, these have been calculated by the previous amounts and I have not verified their correct operation. *You have to take into account the limits punctured by @jaclaz for the maximum partition size of 16 TiB with sectors of 4096 bytes and 2 TiB for 512 bytes sectors. (real calculation 15,9999999962747097015380859375 TiB & 1,9999999995343387126922607421875 TiB) Now I only have to know why in the new computers that I am using with large external USB hard drives, Windows XP does not perform the disc verification when starting the system.

The real size of the sector can be checked on W2000 & on XP with Eassos Disk Genius. All my hard drives +2TB have a phisical size 4096 bytes sector. I have also verified this from Windows 10 with Fsutil Fsinfo Ntfsinfo X: When in the past I did backup copies on a hard drive 3 TB and on a 4TB hard drive I studied the limits of Fat32 partitions. Unfortunately I "do not" remember that and I do not find real information on the Internet right now. What are the limits of FAT32 partitions? There is a limit, that's true. But, I don't know if this is a limit on the cluster number or in the number of files. I think I remember that cluster size must be increased as partition size increases. My current situation is the following with the problematic partition, copying 759 GiB of the old Fat 32 cluster 8 kib partition to a new partition with 1208 GiB. I copy with R-Drive Image an image in another partition. I restore the image data in the problematic partition formatting this way: -NTFS 4 kib: No problem. -FAT32 8KiB: Windows reports an incorrect partition size and many files are not accessible. -FAT32 16 KIB: The data is correctly restored in appearance but these are the problems: 1-Windows 2000 correctly informs the size of the partition on my PC but gives an incorrect size in the number of files and folders on properties after selecting all folders. This happens both in the old partition (cluster 8 KiB) and in the new partition (cluster 16 KiB). Windows XP does report the number of files and folders correctly 2-Windows 2000 It is blocked after executing the Chkdsk order without parameters. In the new partition. When I restart the Windows 2000 system, it is not able to check if the file system is correct, in the new partition (16 kib) and Windows 2000 does not start. The old partition (8kib) is correctly proven. But both partitions cannot be proven in verifying errors on tools of My PC. In Windows XP the system starts without problems, but on this new computer and another that I have tried Windows XP does not check the USB hard drives file system when starting the system. On the old computer that I had before the old hard drive the partitions were checked when the Windows XP system started. Why are they now not checked on new computer? Windows XP is also not able to check partition errors with the tool that is on my PC. In summary, after copying 758 GiB of a FAT32 partition with cluster 8 KiB in a 1208 GiB partition with 16 KiB cluster there are problems, less than if the new partition had cluster 8 KiB but exist. What is the origin of the problems? What are the real limits of FAT32 partitions? According to Wikipedia, FAT32 partions have a 2 TB limit with a 32 kib cluster size. If this is true, then what is the limit of a 1 TB partition? In addition, Wikipedia says that the maximum number of files in a FAT32 partition is 268,173,300 files with cluster 32 kib. I have 278,275 files in old partition of 759 Gib with cluster 8 Kib, working so far without problems. But with the same files in the new partition of 1208 GiB with cluster size 16 kib there are problems. Old partition 759 GiB on Disk Genius New partition 1208 GiB on Disk Genius . . .

What brand is the USB box? You should keep in mind that some modern boxes like the ones from Seagate are not compatible with Windows XP when the drives are larger than 2TB even if you use GPT. Also, most external boxes are limited to 2TB using MBR since these do not have LBA48 support. You would have to remove the hard drive from the original box and connect it with a compatible USB adapter. https//msfn.org/board/topic/183934-seagate-external-hard-drive-is-xp-incompatible/

When can there be a problem when using the Windows NT6 Disk Manager or higher if the partitions are created from Windows XP Disk Manager? Thanks