Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Are the SSD disks Windows 2000 compatible?


Recommended Posts

I am encountering situations where corrupted files are seen with unintelligible names. I do not know if it is due to the hardware encryption of the SSD hard drive or by another reason.
I am testing Kingston A400 on a new computer.
It is my first SSD. Is hardware encryption automatically enabled?
To install the system I connect the new disk as an external USB on my old Windows 2000 computer.
I divide the new disk into four FAT32 primary MBR partitions and paste images.
Partition 2: Windows 2000 (image pasted)
Partition 3: Windows XP (image pasted)
Partition 4: Drivers and programs.
Now I connect the disk as internal to the new computer with unconfigured drivers, an Acer X3900.
(Core I3-530 chipset H57 RAM 4GiB)
I start Windows XP and configure the drivers. Everything works perfectly.
I start Windows 2000 perfectly but when I go to the programs partition some long routes seem not to be read, they appear empty.
Since XP I download new drivers in a folder with short path to try to install them in Windows 2000.
But in Windows 2000 these new downloads all appear corrupt, with unintelligible file names.
When I restart XP the system does automatic chkdsk as if there had been an error. Once started I can see the files perfectly in XP.
what is the problem? How does the hardware encryption SSD work?

I continue doing tests, I start from a live CD with Windows XP and I see perfectly this folder with drivers so I think that they are not encrypted
From this live CD I copy the drivers back to another folder, when I start Windows 2000 again some are now correctly visible and others appear with strange symbols, regardless how long path.
Finally I burn the drivers to a CD-ROM, the only place where Windows 2000 reads these new files downloaded with XP in Kingston SSD.

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you report does not seem in any way connected to encryption.

It looks more like a filesystem or disk driver issue (of unknown origin).

The SSD is SATA, right?

Are you using it in IDE compatibility mode or do you have a SATA driver?

How are partitions aligned?

jaclaz

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the first time that I configure an SSD.
At the moment I am using IDE mode in BIOS with SATA.
I think I have read that the A400 had hardware encryption and that it was done automatically by entering the Windows username and password. If they don't have it much better.
How is encryption performed in those that have it?
Is it automatic or does it require previous configuration?
I had also read that the physical size of the sectors is 4096 bytes on all SSDs and that the first sector starts at 64 and not at 63.
Still I don't think this will cause the partitions to be misaligned by pasting Windows images with R-Drive inside the already created partitions.
(I never install Windows, I paste images already configured on all computers)
The case is that I have run Disk Alignment Test and I see that I have the data partitions unaligned, not the Windows ones.
So I have tried to paste data into Windows partitions and voila, they can be read in Windows 2000.
I will try to alienate the non-aligned partitions to see what happens.
How could I have made this mistake?
On the mechanical disks I divide the partitions with the same sizes and I have no problems.
Disk Alignment Test says that the first sector of Kingston SSD A400 is also 63 and not 64. It also says that the physical size sector is 512 bytes and not 4096.
The partitions I have formatted with 4096 cluster size.
If the problem is in the alignment, I cannot understand why the data pasted into this SSD working as an external USB drive with Windows 2000 can be read without problems and the data saved as an internal drive with Windows XP cannot be read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a complex matter.

SSD's usually have a Physical sector size of 4096 bytes, a page size that can be anything between 4096, 8192, 16384 bytes or more and normally expose 512 bytes logical size sectors (otherwise they wouldn't be bootable in a number of OS with BIOS/MBR).

In theory having a non-aligned to 4096 bytes partiton should make no difference (if not an unnoticeable slower access, particularly on write operations) but it is usually used a larger number of unused sectors, typically 2048, and many tools call this "MB alignment" or similar as 2048*512=1.048576 bytes or 1 MB, this has also the advantage to be surely a multiple of the page size, even if it is huge (and this tends - together with the correct alignment - to reduce the wear on the device, besides allowing faster operations).

In practice there may be issues with oldish Operating Systems or their drivers.

The first sector of any device is ALWAYS LBA0.

The first sector of the partitioned space is (was) normally 63 up to XP and - since Vista - normally 2048 is used.

The 64 offset is a rare case that was used on some hard disks by the manufacturer tools, there were even hard disks that had a physical switch to make sector 63 bneing actually mapped to sector 64 for compatibility reasons with XP and earlier.

There are tools by the manufacturer for SSD's that offer encryption that allow it to be activated, I don't know of any commercial, user level SSD that is encrypted in factory.

The 4096 bytes cluster size is fine, particularly on NTFS, where the volume contents offset is 0 with respect to the partition (in NTFS *everything* is a file).

WIth FAT16/32/exFAT, it is preferrable - though not *needed* to make special attention with the filesystem, making it so that - besides the partition - the actual volume contents (past reserved sectors and FAT's) is actually also aligned, on SSD like on any other flash/chip based storage device.

 jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem has been fixed by aligning the partition destined for data. Thank you.
It seems that the problem appeared when almost partition size fills up. At this time, multiple crosslinks were created in FAT32 that could not be corrected with CHKDSK, as there was no disk space left. I have seen this by running chkdsk /f /r manually. So then I have removed 16 GiB of data so that chkdsk can fix the cross links.
Once the cross links have been corrected I have aligned the partition with Mini Tool Partition Wizard 12.
Still, it is strange that previously Windows XP worked properly but Windows 2000 saw corrupt programs.
It calls my attention that when initializing the SSD to create the partitions with the Windows 2000 disk manager, two messages were issued:
On Kingston A400 / 240 Gb "it is necessary to create a signature on the disk to start it"
And on another SSD smaller than I have bought a different message:
Kingston A400 / 120Gb "is a dynamic disk, click here to convert it"
@jaclaz what you say about sector 2048 in Windows Vista (or Seven), is by the system partition boot or is Windows Vista the one that starts in 2048?

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first partition starts (normally) at 2048.

Actually there are a set of Registry entries for that (in Vista and later):

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\vds\Alignment]

@="Alignment Settings in Bytes"

"Between4_8GB"=dword:00100000

"Between8_32GB"=dword:00100000

"GreaterThan32GB"=dword:00100000

"LessThan4GB"=dword:00010000

Where 100000 means 1,048.576. i.e. 1,048.576/512=2048 sectors , the "exception" is made for less than 4 GB sized media where 10000 means 65,536 and 65.536/512=128 sectors.

 

When the partition is aligned to MB, DO NOT EVER use Disk manager from NT. 2K or XP to change ANYTHING on the disk, DO READ this thread

http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/

jaclaz

 

Edited by jaclaz
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jaclaz said:

The first partition starts (normally) at 2048.

Actually there are a set of Registry entries for that (in Vista and later):

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\vds\Alignment]

@="Alignment Settings in Bytes"

"Between4_8GB"=dword:00100000

"Between8_32GB"=dword:00100000

"GreaterThan32GB"=dword:00100000

"LessThan4GB"=dword:00010000

Where 100000 means 1,048.576. i.e. 1,048.576/512=2048 sectors , the "exception" is made for less than 4 GB sized media where 10000 means 65,536 and 65.536/512=128 sectors.

 

When the partition is aligned to MB, DO NOT EVER use Disk manager from NT. 2K or XP to change ANYTHING on the disk, DO READ this thread

http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/

jaclaz

 

I understand that this problem when using Windows NT 5.x disk manager is only if you use Windows NT 6.x or higher with NTFS.
My question about the boot sector is just curious.
I try never to use NT 6 and 10 while also avoiding using NTFS.
Thanks in any case.
It is striking to me that Mini Tool Partition Wizard 8.5 said that the partitions were alienated so I could not correct them.
I have needed to upgrade to Mini Tool Partition Wizard 12

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cixert said:

On Kingston A400 / 240 Gb 

Do you use 48 bit LBA at Windows 2000?

https://msfn.org/board/topic/75713-48-bit-lba-on-win2k-setup/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cixert said:

I understand that this problem when using Windows NT 5.x disk manager is only if you use Windows NT 6.x or higher with NTFS.

No.

The problem in the given thread is with Extended Partitons and Logical Volumes inside them, no matter the filesystem used.

jaclaz

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cdob said:

Do you use 48 bit LBA at Windows 2000?

https://msfn.org/board/topic/75713-48-bit-lba-on-win2k-setup/

I always paste on all computers the same Windows 2000 SP3 image with generic chipset drivers so that it boots on different hardware.
I work perfectly with 8Tb USB external mechanical drives without any problem. Doesn't that mean I have LBA 48 activated? I have read that it is activated from SP3.
In any case I will look at it better, I have a computer with 500 Gb system hard drive and it does not start the Windows 2000 image (blue screen) until I reinstall Windows 2000 SP3 with a CD.

Is this LBA 48 activation for system disks above 200 Gb or for all hard drives, like USB?
Does it depend on the size partition where Windows 2000 is installed or does it depend on the size hard disk?
I paste the Windows 2000 image on a 15 GB partition and now, after alignment, it is working fine with all partitions of 240 Gb SSD

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cixert said:

Is this LBA 48 activation for system disks above 200 Gb or for all hard drives, like USB?
Does it depend on the size partition where Windows 2000 is installed or does it depend on the size hard disk?

It depends on used storage controller driver.
It's a setting to atapi.sys, part of the default IDE driver stack. USBstor.sys is another case.
A default Win 2000 SP4 access first 128 GiB at atapi.sys only.  Yes the parition size, in addition the location does matter too.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100128222202/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

EU Kingston Technical has answered the following:
Dear xxxxxxx,
First of all, we need to point out once more that the SA400 does not feature any kind of hardware encryption.

That means that, whether you want to use hardware encryption or not, the SA400 does not have this feature as part of its design.

Next, both the Windows 2000 and XP operating systems are no longer supported by Microsoft and are therefore considered legacy.

Indeed Windows 2000 was never supported for use with SSD as Microsoft did not create the drivers necessary for its operating system to work with SSD hard drives.

Back in the day there was limited support with regards to the use of Windows XP with SSDs as well, where drivers had to downloaded separately and then injected manually into the installation process of the operating system.

Also, in order for either of these to work on an SSD, the SATA mode needs to be set to AHCI in the BIOS.

Further, the ACER x3900 was released over 10 years ago, so updating the BIOS would be the necessary first step.

Now, as far as we understand, you have manually created and copied the operating system file loads onto the various partitions using various tools at your disposal.

While it is unclear what you mean by the partitions being “out of alignment” and indeed how this can occur simply by creating multiple partitions, it may again be due to the lack of support for SSDs from the Windows 2000 OS.

This is because SSDs are not the same as HDDs, file storage and partitions are managed differently.

With regards to your query about sectors, this cannot be answered simply as it can vary between one build of SSD and another.

Not only does the SA400 use over-provisioning with regards to the way it manages the amount of available storage space.

A further factor is that as a product line, the SA400 is built with more than one brand of SSD controller, therefore there will be variations in terms of the amount and location of over-provisioned space on different SA400 builds.

If you have installed a single, currently supported, operating system like Windows 10 on the SSD(s) and this works and the issues appear only when you attempt a multi-OS set up using no longer supported software, then unfortunately, there is not much we can do to assist you in a case like this.

Have you considered following the standard installation procedure for all the various operating systems, thereby creating a multi-boot system, on one of the 120G SSDs and then using a clone software like Ease US ToDo Back Up Free Edition to make an identical copy of the set up to the other 120GB SSD and the 240GB SSD?

By following the standard installation route, the sectors should automatically be aligned and a correct multi-boot set up enabled, though as stated above, Windows 2000 is not supported and XP will require additional drivers to work with an SSD or any brand.

Kind regards
xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The problem has occurred again and
now with the hard drive aligned.
So it was not a alignment problem. And now CHKDSK /f /r on Windows XP doesn't find any problem on the data partition.

401822450_alineacionsinserie.jpg.512bb7175d141fa6a59f8fdfc31fa37d.jpg

1-When filling the partition dedicated to data space, the Windows XP last job folder for Windows 2000 is completely corrupt, unintelligible. Showing more files than reality and reporting a wrong size (55.1 GB instead of 116 MB).
1691843490_ininteligibledesdew2000dos.jpg.ed5028d2acc0f606b8f6ad873ce3318a.jpg
I have learned that if I do not try to open these files, they will not spoil to continue seeing them on Windows XP.
The problem is in a folder with a long path. So I have tried to copy this folder from Windows XP to another partition. So I see this perfectly on Windows 2000.
Then I have freed up space on the partition where it looks corrupt and copied it to this one with an even longer name but "now it looks perfect". Although the old one is still seen corrupt.
887378080_perfectoenw2000copiaenmismaparticion.jpg.b302ec96525f794109072c205dba0616.jpg

 

Edited by Cixert
Link to post
Share on other sites

2-Installing drivers on Windows 2000 when restarting produces a blue screen, not before!
OXza4tO.jpg

At that moment I think about drivers problem but then from Windows XP I see that the Windows 2000 partition files are corrupt.

Now since Windows XP I see corrupted almost all the windows 2000 partition folders. Many corrupt folders were not opened since Windows 2000, they were only in the system partition.
5QXQRbd.jpg
In the past several users reported having no problems using SSD with Windows 2000
https://msfn.org/board/topic/170798-win2k-ssds/
Do you know any current SSD model working without problems on Windows 2000 & XP with FAT32?

Edit:
You're right @cdob
It has been definitively solved
Regedit
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\atapi\Parameters
New=>Value DWORD=>EnableBigLba=1
Thanks to all for the help @jaclaz.
I had been confused because on the 500 Gb disks Windows 2000 does not start without EnableBigLba = 1
Kingston's support did not help, as they said that Windows 2000 was not compatible and that it did not work on IDE mode.
Now it works perfectly for me on Windows 2000 with EnableBigLba = 1
The bad thing is that this key cannot be edited remotely with regedit. It does not appear.
Any tricks to edit SYSTEM \ CurrentControlSet \ Services \ atapi \ Parameters from another operating system installed on the same computer?

Edited by Cixert
Solved
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/11/2020 at 12:56 PM, Cixert said:

Now it works perfectly for me on Windows 2000 with EnableBigLba = 1
The bad thing is that this key cannot be edited remotely with regedit. It does not appear.
Any tricks to edit SYSTEM \ CurrentControlSet \ Services \ atapi \ Parameters from another operating system installed on the same computer?

Boot XP. Run regedit.
Load the 2000 registry file  <windows_2000>\system32\config\system to loaded_hive
Navigate to <loaded_hive>\SYSTEM\Select. Read the Current value.
If the value reads one, goto <loaded_hive>\ControlSet001
If the value reads two, goto <loaded_hive>\ControlSet002
If the value reads three, goto <loaded_hive>\ControlSet003
And so on.
Add the BigLBA setting.
Unload the hive  loaded_hive.


Without 48bit LBA :
There was data corruption attempting to write after 128 GiB address location.
Writings occured below 128 GiB instead, this resulted to the data corruption.

Link to post
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...