Bootable Floppy Image Works On CD But Not On DVD

[dencorso]

Recreate your DVD just as you did last time, but include also Joliet. It may solve the Win 95 issue.

[jaclaz]

Hey peeps, have you actually read cdob's post?

Windows 95 lacks UDF support.

Being UDF a filesystem, it means that a filesystem driver is missing, which not necessarily is connected to CDFS.VXD (which is the CDFS filesystem driver) .

Astonishingly , the MS guys have actually given a sensible name to UDF.VXD, which is in Win98_48.cab:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/188436/en-us

Whether it is possible to add it to VMM32 in Windows 95, it's another thing, of course.

jaclaz

[cdob]

CDFS.VXD (which is the CDFS filesystem driver)

CDFS does support file systems ISO9660 and Joliet.

A bridge with ISO9660 and Joliet is readable at Win95.

I consider UDF and Joliet a waste of space. And prefer ISO9660 names only.

[LoneCrusader]

Recreate your DVD just as you did last time, but include also Joliet. It may solve the Win 95 issue.

CDFS does support file systems ISO9660 and Joliet.

A bridge with ISO9660 and Joliet is readable at Win95.

I consider UDF and Joliet a waste of space. And prefer ISO9660 names only.

I plan to recreate the DVD eventually anyhow, as I left out some files to make it <4GB before I knew ImgBurn could split ISO's into multiple files. I will see if I can get Joliet included, last time it chose ISO9660 and UDF 1.02 on its own. I don't think I will be going back and renaming >4GB worth of files with 8.3 filenames though.

Windows 95 lacks UDF support.

...

Whether it is possible to add it to VMM32 in Windows 95, it's another thing, of course.

jaclaz

I find this particularly interesting. How would one do this, theoretically?

EDIT: @dencorso

I originally posted this thread here because of the DVD boot issue, but since the issues and discussion have dealt only with DOS & Win9X, it might fit better in the Win9X forum. If you agree, please move it for me. Thanks

Edited March 1, 2010 by LoneCrusader

[jaclaz]

I find this particularly interesting. How would one do this, theoretically?

Theoretically, provided that it is an actual IFS driver, it should be installed on the system, but also a File System Recognizer with provisions for UDF should also installed, which I presume would be IFSMGR.VXD

I fear that practically, with all the dependencies and what not you will have a hybrid system, a couple of completely unrelated, but not that much keyb articles:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/273017/en-us

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256015/en-us

which should mean that the rabbit hole may be deeper than what you may think....

These may be actually useful:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751120.aspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768198.aspx

http://www.buildorbuy.org/pdf/win95bootstrap.pdf

Since there is not enough mess yet in this thread, I'll throw these on the table, without comments:

http://www.freeweb.hu/doscdroast/index.html

http://www.freeweb.hu/doscdroast/dvd4dos.htm

http://www.binarymagics.com/site/magic_udf_vcl.html

http://www.backupcritic.com/faq/what-is-udf-reader.html

http://www.backupcritic.com/data-recovery/udf-reader/index.html

http://www.backupcritic.com/data-recovery/udf-reader/history.html

http://www.backupcritic.com/data-recovery/udf-reader/need-udf-reader.html

http://download.cnet.com/Adaptec-UDF-Reader-Driver/3000-2100_4-10021086.html

http://www.nodevice.com/driver/company/Panasonic/page7.html

jaclaz

[cdob]

I don't think I will be going back and renaming >4GB worth of files with 8.3 filenames though.

Uppercase required files, there are applications to do this.

There is no need to rename a long name to 8.3 name.

[dencorso]

I simply cannot right now follow all the links provide by jaclaz, but will do so asap.

I'm positive the .VxDs in %windir%\system\vmm32 (or those packed into VMM32.VxD) cannot be moved across windows versions with success, while those in %windir%\system\iosubsys often can be moved successfully. This means that the chances of success of moving either UDF.VxD or IFSMGR.VxD across versions are next to zero. However, you could try to use the CDFS.VxD, CDVSD.VxD and CDTSD.VxD (and even DiskVSD.VxD and DiskTSD.VxD) from this package with Win 95 C, to benefit from all the fixes they incorporate. But the fact is that 95 C doesn't support UDF, so 95 C is getting the filenames from the ISO9660 (=CDFS) directory, and those are truncated. The others must be taking the filenames from the UDF directory. But all Windows versions, including 95, support Joliet, and will use it if present. So I bet adding Joliet will solve the issue, and changing VxDs won't. That's how I see it at the moment.

[LoneCrusader]

Theoretically, provided that it is an actual IFS driver, it should be installed on the system, but also a File System Recognizer with provisions for UDF should also installed, which I presume would be IFSMGR.VXD

I fear that practically, with all the dependencies and what not you will have a hybrid system....

http://download.cnet.com/Adaptec-UDF-Reader-Driver/3000-2100_4-10021086.html

http://www.nodevice.com/driver/company/Panasonic/page7.html

jaclaz

I'm positive the .VxDs in %windir%\system\vmm32 (or those packed into VMM32.VxD) cannot be moved across windows versions with success, while those in %windir%\system\iosubsys often can be moved successfully. This means that the chances of success of moving either UDF.VxD or IFSMGR.VxD across versions are next to zero.

For the heck of it, I tried adding UDF.VXD 4.10.1998 from the 98 FE cabs to the VMM32 folder, and added it to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\services\VxD to see if it would load on startup. I got an error saying that UDF.VXD was damaged. I wonder if there are any earlier versions of UDF.VXD to be found, maybe from some of the 98 Betas?

I turned up the UDF reader link in a search I did the other day, and also read something about DirectCD enabling the use of UDF. I have never used DirectCD, as I read a long time ago that it causes a lot of problems, but I do remember once having it installed on a 95 machine. I wonder, does DirectCD install a standalone UDF driver that might somehow be extracted from it, or is it just the same as the UDF reader?

[submix8c]

I'm confused...

If you burn (Nero) as "DVD-ROM Bootable" (1.44 Image, Floppy Emulation, 7C0, 4), "ISO-9660 Only", "Max 31-Char Lvl2", ASCII, only "Do Not Add Version" ticked (no Joliet, no UDF), DVD-5... does this not display properly? Mounted this in my Test Win95 (7/11/95 Upgrade ISO) and the folders look good (even those "badly named" ones you mentioned). Even the extra folder (I repeated FunStuff->NewName to make it go into "DVD area")!

These are the same Options I provided for CDImage/OSCDImg. They both will create an Image (or DVD) with a strictly original index structure readable by pre-Joliet/Pre-UDF Windows 95 (dunno about 3.x; maybe, maybe not).

Ok... Just tested copying that extra folder to HDD... "Not Enough Free Space". This was a glitch in my test done in VPC; had HDD size at 512mb (really did run out) and the Free Space turned sour (a bug in this 95?). However, after re-defining HDD to 1024mb and cloning back the HDD image (had it backed up) and re-trying, all went well.

So... am I missing or have I missed something??? ASCII along with the rest is the key... ASCII ONLY plus 31-Char!!! Works here (at least on VPC)... (p.s. there's a difference between pure ASCII and "OEM", e.g. MS).

Why the hang-up on UDF and Joliet? Try it and let me know if my eyes deceive me...

[LoneCrusader]

I'm confused...

If you burn (Nero) as "DVD-ROM Bootable" (1.44 Image, Floppy Emulation, 7C0, 4), "ISO-9660 Only", "Max 31-Char Lvl2", ASCII, only "Do Not Add Version" ticked (no Joliet, no UDF), DVD-5... does this not display properly? Mounted this in my Test Win95 (7/11/95 Upgrade ISO) and the folders look good (even those "badly named" ones you mentioned). Even the extra folder (I repeated FunStuff->NewName to make it go into "DVD area")!

These are the same Options I provided for CDImage/OSCDImg. They both will create an Image (or DVD) with a strictly original index structure readable by pre-Joliet/Pre-UDF Windows 95 (dunno about 3.x; maybe, maybe not).

Ok... Just tested copying that extra folder to HDD... "Not Enough Free Space". This was a glitch in my test done in VPC; had HDD size at 512mb (really did run out) and the Free Space turned sour (a bug in this 95?). However, after re-defining HDD to 1024mb and cloning back the HDD image (had it backed up) and re-trying, all went well.

So... am I missing or have I missed something??? ASCII along with the rest is the key... ASCII ONLY plus 31-Char!!! Works here (at least on VPC)... (p.s. there's a difference between pure ASCII and "OEM", e.g. MS).

Why the hang-up on UDF and Joliet? Try it and let me know if my eyes deceive me...

I created the ISO and DVD with ImgBurn as suggested by jaclaz. ImgBurn chose ISO9660 and UDF on its own, I did not choose them. I assume UDF was required because some of my files or folders did not conform to ISO9660.

I plan to recreate the DVD eventually, but as of right now I am only working with the existing one. These are just experiments, I am checking to see if everything works before creating a final product.

As I said, I have found 2 problems:

1. VPC 5 will not capture the ISO, or the DVD itself. No idea on this one.

2. 95 does not properly read some of the file/folder names on the DVD, even though it previously read a CD with the same file and folder names.

Logically this must be due to a lack of UDF support in 95.

(CD probably had Joliet, not UDF)

Solution: Include Joliet on the final version of the DVD. I plan to do this.

In the meantime however, I am simply exploring the possibility of adding a UDF driver to 95.

[submix8c]

I repeat... NO JOLIET, NO UDF! Dude, look at the original CD; these structures don't exist! And it's possible to do the same when creating a DVD. And, in case you didn't look close enough, ImgBurn has the exact same options!!!! Please try again!!!!! Also, note that the Image will probably have to be DVD-R (DVD+R is "newer"/different) (EDIT! probably applies only when burning to particular media).

The only thing that happens with non-conforming names (as seen below) is that DOS won't read them. They are not used during Install, but during/after install. This would apply to any other file/folder you might put on the DVD.

Bet this will (might) clear up some problems. BTW, You're using VPC5... maybe this is the problem, as I'm using MS-VPC(?).

Sheesh!!!

P.S. standard DVD Speeds is ~2.4(?). If you're burning above that, more than likely you'll get errors as the data is now "closer together"(?). Don't burn above 4-speed... Dig in to CD/DVD Formats/Structures...

I did state that as long as burned properly, the CD/DVD would be readable (waaaay back)...

edit (test was done using RTM Upgrade CD):

- Companion CD (95B, lacks Setup pgm) has ISO+Joliet

- OEM (95B) is same as depicted (think I got this from "elsewhere")

- Both of above do not have "funny folder/file names"

- OEM (95C) ISO+Joliet+NoFunnyNames

I guess I could check as to when Joliet Support came along, but I suspect it was added after RTM.

edit2 - I must stipulate that I didn't try it with a "full" DVD...

Original File Structures/Names (wanna see the CD scan?):

Edited March 5, 2010 by submix8c

[LoneCrusader]

I repeat... NO JOLIET, NO UDF! Dude, look at the original CD; these structures don't exist! And it's possible to do the same when creating a DVD. And, in case you didn't look close enough, ImgBurn has the exact same options!!!! Please try again!!!!! Also, note that the Image will probably have to be DVD-R (DVD+R is "newer"/different) (EDIT! probably applies only when burning to particular media).

The only thing that happens with non-conforming names (as seen below) is that DOS won't read them. They are not used during Install, but during/after install. This would apply to any other file/folder you might put on the DVD.

Bet this will (might) clear up some problems. BTW, You're using VPC5... maybe this is the problem, as I'm using MS-VPC(?).

Sheesh!!!

P.S. standard DVD Speeds is ~2.4(?). If you're burning above that, more than likely you'll get errors as the data is now "closer together"(?). Don't burn above 4-speed... Dig in to CD/DVD Formats/Structures...

I did state that as long as burned properly, the CD/DVD would be readable (waaaay back)...

edit (test was done using RTM Upgrade CD):

- Companion CD (95B, lacks Setup pgm) has ISO+Joliet

- OEM (95B) is same as depicted (think I got this from "elsewhere")

- Both of above do not have "funny folder/file names"

- OEM (95C) ISO+Joliet+NoFunnyNames

I guess I could check as to when Joliet Support came along, but I suspect it was added after RTM.

edit2 - I must stipulate that I didn't try it with a "full" DVD...

Original File Structures/Names (wanna see the CD scan?):

:wacko:

I repeat, my DVD WILL REQUIRE JOLIET OR UDF unless I go back an manually rename a bunch of files and folders!

There are OTHER files and folders on this DVD besides just files from the 9X install CD's!

Drivers, Software, Tools, etc etc. Some of them have long folder or file names. Some of them are more than 8 folder levels deep. You didn't think I got over 4GB of data just from 3 9X install discs did you?

This has nothing to do with Windows setup/installation. I have had no problems with Windows installation from this disc, only reading the disc IN Windows 95 AFTER installation.

I am using VPC5 because M$ disabled 9X support in their versions.

You are trying to over-simplify this.

If I had just copied the 9X install CD's, then the DVD would probably conform to ISO9660 and there would be no problem, But that is not the case.

Edited March 5, 2010 by LoneCrusader

[dencorso]

With all due respect to you, submix8c, I have to disagree with various parts of your latest post:

Also, note that the Image will probably have to be DVD-R (DVD+R is "newer"/different) (EDIT! probably applies only when burning to particular media).

Yes (to your edit). DVD+R is functionally equivalent to DVD-R, for all purposes, once burnt.

P.S. standard DVD Speeds is ~2.4(?). If you're burning above that, more than likely you'll get errors as the data is now "closer together"(?). Don't burn above 4-speed...

No. The track positions are predefined in the blanks already, so changing the speed won't make them closer or more wide apart. 2.4x is a good advice solely for DVD±R DL, while, for plain DVD±R (SL) one can go up to 8x, at least, and still get good results. This is much more dependent on the user's machine actual bus speed than on any other factor, except for el-cheapo media (which can turn even the best hardware into a coaster factory).

I guess I could check as to when Joliet Support came along, but I suspect it was added after RTM.

If you did so, you'd find out that:

(i)The original CDFS (a.k.a. ECMA-119 [link] or ISO 9660:1988) is from 1987;

(ii)The Joliet Specification [link] is of 1995;

(iii)According to the Wikipedia [link]:

Joliet is the name of an extension to the ISO 9660 file system. It has been specified and endorsed by Microsoft and has been supported by all versions of its Windows OS since Windows 95 and Windows NT. Its primary focus is the relaxation of the filename restrictions inherent with full ISO 9660 compliance.[...]

This implies that even Win 95 supports Joliet from RTM (a.k.a Win 95A).

And, in any case, LoneCrusader did all his testing with Win 95C, for which there can be no doubt about it supporting Joliet.

So LoneCrusader is right! For the reasons he stated, he does need either Joliet or UDF.

[rloew]

I tested both Windows 95 and Windows 95C using a DVD I burned with my own burner. It contained ISO9660 and Joliet Filesystems.

The Long and Short Filenames worked fine.

[submix8c]

ASCII Table

I wasn't saying Joliet didn't work. I was saying the File Index (Folders/Files Directory under DOS) will only be able to access ASCII. Once Windows is up-and-running, the Joliet Indexing is utilized unless Joliet is not used during ISO creation in which case ASCII Folder/Filnames is used instead.

AFAICT, the ASCII table indicated includes any/all of the Character Set (including Joliet). The Restrictions apply to pure ISO9660 (as you say).

ASCII/Joliet Restrictions+Difference

Joliet (Wiki)

(1st link implies "Some" Mastering Software will violate this)

There's a way to allow - 1: More than 8 Directories / 2: More than 255 Characters in Path

FileName="CLOUDS~abcdefghij.BMP".Screenshot#1 indicates that Upper/Lower case is not affected, nor is the filename length (Nero using additional options). It was taken within the Raw Image (IsoBuster). Screenshot#2 was taken within Win95.

So, if what I understand you to say, you have Folder/Filenames/FilenameContents that require -

1 - UniCode support

2 - FilenameLength>31

3 - PathDepth>8

4 - PathChars>255

If so, then YES, a rename would be required. Otherwise Joliet is necessary but not UDF.

My point is, you appear to have a need for Joliet and UDF...

Please re-read your own posts/problems and explain exactly what you're having problems with that the above won't "cure" (the reason I psoted in the first place). I'm not trying to argue, but I'm still confused... please enlighten me ("funny character translation", etc.). I am obliged to inform you that if you use ISO-9660 instead of ASCII the Mastering software will "convert" to force the Standard, whereas ASCII will not (one of those "violate" things). Also note that I stated that DOS (the Bootable Floppy) will be unable to read anything but the Conforming names properly (the nature of DOS). This should present absolutely no problem unless you're trying to install/accese something other than the Windows installation (e.g. Win95\Setup.exe). (note - using ISO-9660 Only as FileSystem in example)

(btw, 95A is not = 4.00.950)

Final note - Perhaps my confusion lies in your explanation of what you see as "how things work", re: Correctly Readable vs Incorrectly Readable under Which Conditions.

2. 95 does not properly read some of the file/folder names on the DVD, even though it previously read a CD with the same file and folder names.

Logically this must be due to a lack of UDF support in 95.

(CD probably had Joliet, not UDF)

@dencorso - I guess you missed where I wrapped some phrases/words in "quotes" (implying... what?).

... guess I'm stoopid . Been there, done that, UBCD98SE was where I got all of what (little) I know. If anyone remembers, I participated in that and AP-98SE...

edit - forgot to add... not sure if you're using Grub4DOS or not, but using a custom AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS and several freeware programs (as jaclaz said, and used in the 98SE projects), I have booted and installed Win95 from a DVD-ISO (the original topic). It's therefore only necessary to use Grub4DOS if you have need for multi-install/boot, as selections can be made in AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS to run other BAT scripts/programs directly from the CD/DVD after boot. AND... silly me, JO.SYS can be precluded because it doesn't do that much for you ("pick HD or CD") when you can build a variety of choices into the Scripts (including Grub4dos) in conjunction with the "custom" scripts. Attached ZIP is the AUTOEXEC.BAT (with freeware names and commented)/CONFIG.SYS.

respect to/for all in this thread...

!FORMSFN.zip

Edited March 6, 2010 by submix8c