Jump to content

Can an acer aspire one aoa150 run windows Me


Flasche

Recommended Posts

Please note that my comment/links indicate an entirely different problem (with associated warnings by rloew, myself, jaclaz, dencorso, et al). As long as you don't have such conditions you should be safe.

As far as the netbook's requirements, I can't remember if the Aspire One KAV60-AOD250 (undoubtedly similar) I worked on at one time allowed for the BIOS to be changed to "PATA" mode (it had a SATA drive as well). Indeed, it had Windows XP Home on it (stock OEM with Recovery Partition and all). Whether that's useful or not, I don't know. Still, the Patch would be well worth it. ;)

Good, for the only issue I have are the ones I described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Interesting News. When I reinstalled and did the setup / p i . I was able to boot into windows Me with no issue :w00t: .

EDIT: what should I do about drivers though.

Edited by Flasche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still need LLXX's ESDI_506.PDR, with RLoew's SATA patch on top of it, to avoid data loss.And you need to add a [vcache] section to both system.ini and system.cb with a MaxFileCache=393216 directive in both. Then you need to hunt for drivers, but probably VBEMP or SNAP are about all that you'll get as far as graphics go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still need LLXX's ESDI_506.PDR, with RLoew's SATA patch on top of it, to avoid data loss.And you need to add a [vcache] section to both system.ini and system.cb with a MaxFileCache=393216 directive in both. Then you need to hunt for drivers, but probably VBEMP or SNAP are about all that you'll get as far as graphics go.

I know I still need the patch, but I didnt know I had to add a vcahe section to system.ini and .cb. May I ask how I do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you may. System.ini and system.cb are just text files, so that can be done with notepad, wordpad or using edit in a DOS box. There's sysedit.exe but it does not edit system.cb, so it's no use for this. Look inside the system.ini and you'll get the feeling of how the sections are organized. My own has this in the [vcache] section. What follows the colon is a comment.

[vcache]MaxFileCache=393216     ; 384M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which tools? FORMAT. SCANDISK and the Ranish Partition Manager all work OK up to about 1TiB (where DOS itself has a subtle bug). Hence up to 1TB (not 1 TiB), those three tools, at least should be safe to use. Norton/Symantec Ghost from 2003 to 11.5.1 are also safe to use in those conditions.

Mmmh, I was under the strong impression that it had been established that scandisk/defrag choked on partitions bigger than 120GB but I am probably wrong then.

Windows 98 SCANDISK/DEFRAG is limited to 128GB Partitions. Use Windows ME SCANDISK/DEFRAG for larger Partitions.

===

The limit for SCANDSKW.EXE (4.90.0.3000) is somewhere between 26.4 and 26.6 million clusters, or somewhere between 206.1 and 207.7 thousand sectors per FAT. It crashed with Marius '95 1 TB raid single partition (link), although 98-Guy has reported it works up to 31.2 million clusters (follow the links inside this post).

SCANDISK.EXE from Win ME works, at least, up to 1 TB, according to Marius '95, and to 31.2 million clusters, according to 98-Guy (both these limits are about the same, for a 1 TB partition, using 32 kiB clusters, has about 31 million clusters).

I've just finished conducting a further test of SCANDISK.EXE (the true DOS version, from Windows ME): I have used it to scan (including, of course, the surface scan) of a 931.50 GiB FAT-32 formatted (30.5 million 32 KiB clusters) logical partition inside an extended partition, located on the higher-addresses part of a 2 TB WDC WD2002FAEX-007BA0 SATA 300 conventional HDD, and it "did not find any problems", but took 43 h 50 min to finish! So I'm positive it works OK, up to that size, thus further confirming the previous reports. And, just for everyone to be sure what SCANDISK.EXE I'm talking about, it is 245,324 bytes long and has CRC32: 9C3B4DCE; MD5: 05F2832DF02C45D0A5129540B06AC95D and SHA-1: DBF42D66630FD3BE9986697295B7E0EC47A5846C.

NDD.EXE for DOS (2002 ..10E) also is reported by the same users as having the same limits as those of SCANDISK.EXE, but that's now doubtful, because it crashes for wsxedcrfv with 22.9 million clusters. In any case, Marius '95, for whom it worked, said it was very slow, so maybe he just didn't wait enough time for it to crash...

I've just finished conducting a further test of NDD.EXE (the true DOS version 10E, from Norton Utilities 2002), which is 650,208 bytes long and has MD5: EBFCC3C6643E0880EA43F7F70DC8DEED; SHA-1: A26DED4AD5C6D4AC0C9867EA4A83B1009DDC7D00 and CRC32: 58DF6E44, using the same HDD as above, and no errors encountered in the Surface Test, nor in any other test performed, but it finished flawlesly just 2 h 50 min after it had started, being thus 15.5 times faster than the ME DOS Scandisk, despite what Marius '95 and wsxedcrfv had reported !!! In my hands it worked OK with a 931.50 GiB FAT-32 formatted partition (= 30.5 million 32 KiB clusters) and did it real fast! :yes:

N. B.: the DOS NDD tries to estimate how long it'll take to perform the surface test, but the estimate algorithm goes bananas with the size of the partition, resulting in totally absurd estimates... but that is just a cosmetic bug, nothing more. Moreover, it's really slower than the ME DOS Scandisk during the logic FAT tests... but it's so much faster during the surface test that the initial slowness is not really important, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Bump

 

Update: I've applied rloew's patch to My aoa150. I also applied the 128 gib patch for safe measures. I've installed the unofficial service pack for windows me (did not forget to move the files that the installer failed ;) ). Then kernel Ex. After kernel Ex installed though I now get an error with update kb891711. The update gives an error message saying that it caused in error in MMSYSTEM.dll and will now close. I'm also struggling to install my WUSB54G since I cant find a suitable driver for the built in one. When ever I use the xcopy command to try to bring over the files with my bootable emergency 98 start up disk. It wont copy the files unless I break up the folder and remove the other folders inside the directory. Its weird since I did not do anything different from when I copied the ME files onto the empty hard-drive for installation and it had no trouble coping the files over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try again: reinstall but do not add the unofficial SP, then install KernelEx.

Does all then work OK, or do you end up having the same problems?

Sorry, but the only way to find out what went wrong is to factor the instalation process into smaller parts, or omit one of them per retrial, just as I'm suggesting you do, as you surely know. :}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! Yes, I think RLoew's just hit jackpot! So, let me change my previous suggestion of what to do, at this point: if the 128 GiB patch used is LLXX's, and the uSP, The_Guy's, then I think you should install on PATA with SATA disabled, the uSP, then install LLXX's 128 GiB, and install last RLoew's SATA patch. After all that is done, enable SATA, and, having confirmed all is working OK, create a full backup. Then add KernelEx (and maybe KeX extensions). This should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...