Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

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. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
emarkay

Unofficial update - new version - crashed system!

Recommended Posts

Hi, could this have to do with it? Check the 'ASPI Layer'.

Rudolf

Hi Gape,

When my HD got broke, I bought myself a new big one (200G) and decided to implement the win98 SE SP. Install win98se from my original CD cd first and the SP afterwards.

I followed your implementation plan and got in trouble very soon. Long before the steps 7 and 8 on your list (installation order) every time the new HD was full of corrupted files in all 3 partitions. I didn't get a well working 'basic' installation. During file copying every time I ruined lots of files and I can't tell you how many times I have seen MS Scandisk processing.

My search on internet to the cause of this took very much time. Searching Maxtor's KB, I found 2 items to check in relation to 'big' HD's: 1) ver. of Fdisk (MS KB263044) and 2) ver. of Esdi_506.PDR (MS KB243450). These were ok, probably because of the 'slipstreaming' trick? I digged some more in Maxtor's KB and found a hint that the ASPI layer should not be older than ver. 4.60 (1021). There could be conflicts between the Aspi driver(s) and the IDE driver(s). This link brings you to the KB article at the Maxtor site: KB article Maxtor

After installing a new Aspi Layer (from Adaptic's site) my trouble finally ended after 10 days and now I can get on with the next step(s) of the implementation.

I propose to implement a fresh ASPI Layer in your Win98 SE SP or (at least) indicate to fresh up the ASPI Layer yourself. The one on the win98se CD is way too old.

I hope this contribution, in some way, may benefit you all. :)

Bye, have a nice day.

Rudolf.

maybe not.

It is an Intel 810 chipset, but I have partitioned the drive to a 60, a 60 and a 40 GB volume so the 137 GB limitation is not a factor, correct?

No, this is not correct.

The 137GB limit relates tho the physical disk size, not to partition size.

The problem is with physical disk addressing, the ESDI_506.PDR uses 28-bit addressing of sectors (512 bytes each), so the maximum addressable sector number is 2^28-1 = 268435455 . If you try to address sector number 268435456, you will read or write sector 0 instead.

Maximum partition size in Windows 98 SE is 2048GiB (2,2TB), just Windows Scandisk and Defrag will not work with partition size bigger than 137 GB because of the memory allocation problem.

Petr

since your system uses intel 810 chipsets, emarkay, try installing the Intel Application Accelerator v2.3 [iAA] driver from Intel download site:

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df...18&submit=Go%21

The IAA driver can read 137 Gb and bigger hard drives under Win98se/ME and is compatible with intel 810 chipsets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this URL:

http://www2.acc.chula.ac.th/~montree/msdos.html

is only an older copy of my MSDOS.SYS Guide:

http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm

which used to be located here [my old web site on AOL has been disabled for over 3 years]:

http://members.aol.com/axcel216/msdos.htm

This page on AOL only redirects to my current one:

http://www.mdgx.com/msdos.htm

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who is the complete id*** that said to not backup registries with the SystemReg command?

See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/183603/EN-US/

DID YOU READ THAT TOO???

I recommended to add "SystemReg=0", *not* to add "Backup=0"...

This registry problem rarely occurs on the some systems because of the new IO.SYS file (WINBOOT.SYS / Q311561). This update has a problem which is not fixed by Microsoft. A workaround is to add "SystemReg=0" into the MSDOS.SYS.

Are you sure that's the right entry? Because that one may be telling it to not load the registry at all, which means you're stuck at the command prompt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backup= does not exist as MSDOS.SYS setting.

You can add/modify it/whatever, but it won't do anything. ;)

SystemReg= only *scans* for certain errors the registry files upon every Windows startup, does not tell Windows to not load the registry.

Therefore it is perfectly safe to use.

I use SystemReg= in my MSDOS.SYS [and WINBOOT.INI] for over 8 years, without any problems, with Win95, 98 and ME [all editions].

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or use ntfs

Unfortunately, it is more difficult to perform data recovery on a corrupt ntfs partition.

Data recovery is easier under FAT32.

Well it's moot for a few reasons - I have reinstalled Win98SE, WILL NOT use this SP ever again, and well, it's been a long 2 days.

Don't bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. I recommend that you research the 137 GB problem before you trash your HD again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the IAA installed already.

I have been looking at a few things, and decided it may be the 137GB issue on the ascii charactrers. I still don't know what caused the 98SE SP2 probs, but:

I need to do a clean install anyway.

Will low level format and limit to 125GB (I really don't ned those "extra" gigs anyway) and will test the latest sesp21a (from here)

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=61749

now before I reload - if it is OK here and now, then I will install it tomorrow with the new Win reload.

Will see if i crash and burn or go on merryling along like an ostritch...

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=65745&st=10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on the laptop now. Yup, your win98se sp2 trashed my PC again.

I had some screen captures, but I can't network in safe mode...

First I noticed that not only processor data was gone, but also user information in SYSTEM/PROPERTIES - as well as the handy DEVICE MANAGER!.

Your Adaptec ASPI replacements are not up to date! Well, let's see what else can I remember...

Who cares, I get the endless loop of CHECKING REGISTRY BSOD and restart - AND I AM NOT CRIPPLING MY DAILY REGISTRY SCAN AND BACKUP with your "fix"..

If someone wants to look into this further, fine, I'll give you as much data on my system as I can.

But I consider this a FLAWED and DANGEROUS program, and will continue to say so unless proven otherwise.

Thanks - for nothing...

MRK

Well, on the laptop now. Yup, your win98se sp2 trashed my PC again.

I had some screen captures, but I can't network in safe mode...

First I noticed that not only processor data was gone, but also user information in SYSTEM/PROPERTIES - as well as the handy DEVICE MANAGER!.

Your Adaptec ASPI replacements are not up to date! Well, let's see what else can I remember...

Who cares, I get the endless loop of CHECKING REGISTRY BSOD and restart - AND I AM NOT CRIPPLING MY DAILY REGISTRY SCAN AND BACKUP with your "fix"..

If someone wants to look into this further, fine, I'll give you as much data on my system as I can.

But I consider this a FLAWED and DANGEROUS program, and will continue to say so unless proven otherwise.

Thanks - for nothing...

MRK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to realize - This pack is unofficial for a reason, and it may not work for everybody. This is true for most unofficial patching projects. Saying "Thanks - for nothing" is just pointless - it is entirely your fault, your curiosity, that your system is screwed up. If it didn't work the first time, and you had your drivers installed (IAA), and you still had issues, it's probable that your system will not work with the unofficial patch. The fact that Petr & erpdude8 took time out of their day for you, and all you can say is thanks for nothing, well, you have a lot to learn about this community, and how hard it is to patch things that Microsoft left for dead.

It isn't a guaranteed fix, and isn't waranteed under any warantee. You cannot expect an unofficial patch to fix your problems. If anything, you can expect anything unofficial to screw something up - it wasn't made by the original proprietor, and thus, might have problems with some hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, have not had any problems on it, and have installed it on several virtual pc's, and Pentium 133-through Celeron 2.0GHz machines. I have yet to have any problems like emarkay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, well it's NEVER safe to use an unofficial program, fix, or service pack...what ever it might be never use anything that's NOT official, it only causes bad problems :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not NEVER... I think that the majority of people that try this out either has good results, or disasters like this. Unofficial doesn't mean bad... it just means non-production quality, and possibly also alpha-quality bugs... It's a luck of the draw, I guess. (Although it seems that most people DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with the pack).

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×