Flaky cable ? Replace.
Flaky connector on the controller ? Switch to a different port.
Noisy power supply ? Replace.
Have another drive port ? Then switch.
Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ?
Bad Karma ?
Ok, As most of you know, I had a partition go bad on one of my drives
and I lost much of the data on it, because I did not have a current
backup. I got rid of that hard drive, even after a re-format showed it
to be usable and not have bad sectors.
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001. which originally came
with Windows 2000. I've upgraded this machine many times and have used
it for years. I do have Win2000 dual bootable on it, but 95% of the time
I boot and use Win98se. (I have this crossposted to the XP group because
of the lack of activity on the Win98 group).
Anyhow, after that partition got damaged, I unplugged that second hard
drive (Slave drive) and just used the first drive (bootable one). The
first drive is a 120gb with four partitions. The second drive was also a 120gb with three partitions. The partition that went bad, was the G: partition (first partition on second HDD).
I have not had any problems with the first HDD at all.
After removing that defective second HDD, I put it aside hoping to
recover data from it, and I plugged a 160gb HDD into the second IDE
connector and partitioned it. It did not take long for that second drive
to give me error messsages showing data corruption. I did not have much
on that drive, so I just copied it to space on the first HDD. I did
however, suspect that was because I know that Win98 does not allow
drives larger than 120gb (actually 132gb).
I bought another 120gb drive, and just recently installed it. I had not
yet put my original data back on it, nor my rebuilt data from G: (which
I all have on en external USB drive).
This new drive was partitioned into three partitions again. (G: H: I:).
The G: pattition was still empty. The H: partition I was using for downloading, and contained about 25 downloads, mostly just small .JPG
files and a few .PDF files.
The I: partition contained a copy of my Agent newsreader which I copied there, as a backup, while I was changing some of Agent's settings.
Yesterday I was defragging the first drive's partitions, when I decided
to defrag the H: partition, since I had moved around some of the
downloaded files. DEFRAG told me this partition had errors and I needed
to run Scandisk. Scandisk reported crosslinked files between the
DOWNLOAD folder and the RECYCLED folder. (Note, I DO NOT use the
Recycled folder, I have it set to immediately delete files.
I ran NORTON DISK DOCTOR (rather than Scandisk) to fix this, and it did
fix it, but then said that the RECYCLED folder existed but had no space
on the HDD. I could not delete the Recycled folder. Since I had already copied all my downloads to another place (as a backup), I just
reformatted that H: partition.
For the heck of it, I ran DEFRAG on the I: partition (which only
contained a backup of my AGENT folder. -Once again, I got a notice to
run Scandisk, which showed duplicates of ALL these files in the RECYCLED folder. And said it contained crosslinked files. Since I did not need
that backup of Agent anymore, I just reformatted that partition too.
Why is this second HDD getting all corrupted? This is a new drive, and I
also replaced the IDE cable with a new one (with 80 wires, rather than
the old one that had 40 wires).
I'm starting to wonder if the motherboard itself is failing (or at least
the built in IDE board portion of it).
I do have the drive jumpers set properly, to MASTER on the first HDD and
to SLAVE on the second drive.
I have run two HDDs on this computer for years with no problems. Now it
seems I can not run a second SLAVE drive.
Any ideas what might be causing this?
Ok, As most of you know, I had a partition go bad on one of my drives
and I lost much of the data on it, because I did not have a current
backup. I got rid of that hard drive, even after a re-format showed it
to be usable and not have bad sectors.
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001. which originally came
with Windows 2000. I've upgraded this machine many times and have used
it for years. I do have Win2000 dual bootable on it, but 95% of the time
I boot and use Win98se. (I have this crossposted to the XP group because
of the lack of activity on the Win98 group).
Anyhow, after that partition got damaged, I unplugged that second hard
drive (Slave drive) and just used the first drive (bootable one). The
first drive is a 120gb with four partitions. The second drive was also a 120gb with three partitions. The partition that went bad, was the G: partition (first partition on second HDD).
I have not had any problems with the first HDD at all.
After removing that defective second HDD, I put it aside hoping to
recover data from it, and I plugged a 160gb HDD into the second IDE
connector and partitioned it. It did not take long for that second drive
to give me error messsages showing data corruption. I did not have much
on that drive, so I just copied it to space on the first HDD. I did
however, suspect that was because I know that Win98 does not allow
drives larger than 120gb (actually 132gb).
I bought another 120gb drive, and just recently installed it. I had not
yet put my original data back on it, nor my rebuilt data from G: (which
I all have on en external USB drive).
This new drive was partitioned into three partitions again. (G: H: I:).
The G: pattition was still empty. The H: partition I was using for downloading, and contained about 25 downloads, mostly just small .JPG
files and a few .PDF files.
The I: partition contained a copy of my Agent newsreader which I copied there, as a backup, while I was changing some of Agent's settings.
Yesterday I was defragging the first drive's partitions, when I decided
to defrag the H: partition, since I had moved around some of the
downloaded files. DEFRAG told me this partition had errors and I needed
to run Scandisk. Scandisk reported crosslinked files between the
DOWNLOAD folder and the RECYCLED folder. (Note, I DO NOT use the
Recycled folder, I have it set to immediately delete files.
I ran NORTON DISK DOCTOR (rather than Scandisk) to fix this, and it did
fix it, but then said that the RECYCLED folder existed but had no space
on the HDD. I could not delete the Recycled folder. Since I had already copied all my downloads to another place (as a backup), I just
reformatted that H: partition.
For the heck of it, I ran DEFRAG on the I: partition (which only
contained a backup of my AGENT folder. -Once again, I got a notice to
run Scandisk, which showed duplicates of ALL these files in the RECYCLED folder. And said it contained crosslinked files. Since I did not need
that backup of Agent anymore, I just reformatted that partition too.
Why is this second HDD getting all corrupted? This is a new drive, and I
also replaced the IDE cable with a new one (with 80 wires, rather than
the old one that had 40 wires).
I'm starting to wonder if the motherboard itself is failing (or at least
the built in IDE board portion of it).
I do have the drive jumpers set properly, to MASTER on the first HDD and
to SLAVE on the second drive.
I have run two HDDs on this computer for years with no problems. Now it
seems I can not run a second SLAVE drive.
Any ideas what might be causing this?
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:50:51 -0800, FreeMan <Freeman@FreeMan.com> wrote:[]
Noisy power supply ? Replace.?????
Have another drive port ? Then switch.
That is where the CD drive is plugged in.
Drive is not even in the case, it's outside of it
Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ?
Bad Karma ?
I dont believe in this sort of thing.
One thing I did notice. The jumper on the First drive is set to CS
(cable select), not to Master (Master uses NO jumper). I'm wondering if
the second drive should also be set to CS, instead of SLAVE.
Or maybe I should use the actual Master and Slave jumpers???
I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older >drives never had that setting. Maybe it's just anoither way to fuck
things up... It kind of seems senseless anyhow. I know the second drive
comes first on the cable, but the plug itself is the same wiring. How
the hell can the computer KNOW which drive is which. The only difference
is about 5" more length to the wires.
In message <pceb3dpct8ph6hcus636bug2dguf7gf5fj@4ax.com>,
james@nospam.com writes:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:50:51 -0800, FreeMan <Freeman@FreeMan.com> wrote:[]
Noisy power supply ? Replace.?????
I think he meant electrically noisy. Some power supplies don't provide
as smooth a 5V and 12V as you might hope - spikes or dips. Can in theory
make drives (and anything else) malfunction. _Probably_ not your cause; >difficult to confirm without an oscilloscope. (If you have a known good
power supply of sufficient capacity, you can always try it.)
Have another drive port ? Then switch.
That is where the CD drive is plugged in.
Drive is not even in the case, it's outside of it
Overheating ? Fan not getting air over this drive ?
Does it run warm at all?
Bad Karma ?
I dont believe in this sort of thing.
One thing I did notice. The jumper on the First drive is set to CS
(cable select), not to Master (Master uses NO jumper). I'm wondering if
the second drive should also be set to CS, instead of SLAVE.
Or maybe I should use the actual Master and Slave jumpers???
Have you still got what used to be the other drive (IIRR it was a CD
drive that failed) to see how that is jumpered? Anyway, if your first
drive is set to CS, and you have a CS cable, then it sounds like the
second one should be too. Can you see any setting in the BIOS that
indicates which selection method it is using? I've personally never had
a machine that used other than master and slave jumpers.
Yep, floppy cables do have a twist, but not these IDE Hard drive cables.I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older >>drives never had that setting. Maybe it's just anoither way to fuckIf the cable truly has the same connections on all three connectors,
things up... It kind of seems senseless anyhow. I know the second drive >>comes first on the cable, but the plug itself is the same wiring. How
the hell can the computer KNOW which drive is which. The only difference
is about 5" more length to the wires.
then I can't see how it's selecting either. I know floppy drive cables
had a twist in the cable.
When you got the new 120GB drive (the one with G,H,I on it),
did you clean if off after connecting it ?
At least on WinXP, you have "diskpart" command. Which runs
from an Administrator group account. You can select a disk,
then issue a command of "clean all", which overwrites every sector.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:57:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
Yep, it looks like the old drive was set to SLAVE. However, I just
changed the new one to CS and copied a bunch of stuff to it from my
first drive. Then I deleted some stuff and copied a whole bunch of small >clipart pics to it, and then deleted some of them, and after that I
copied a huge ISO file to it, which is almost 1gb in size.
After all of that, I defragged that drive with no problem. It appears
that it needs to be set to CS. Maybe that was the whole problem. I'll
copy more stuff to it and delete other stuff and see if it keeps working >properly now. So far, so good!
I ma tempted to try the actual Master and Slave settings with the
jumpers and see if that works. I dont know if one way is better than the >other, or not? Does anyone know which jumper setting is the best?
[]I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older
If the cable truly has the same connections on all three connectors,Yep, floppy cables do have a twist, but not these IDE Hard drive cables.
then I can't see how it's selecting either. I know floppy drive cables
had a twist in the cable.
So how that CS works is beyond my comprehension. I do know that for
awhile I had the Master drive on the first connector and Slave on the
last connector. THAT IS WRONG, but it was that way for a year or more
and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but >according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first
drive (which seems backwards).
No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was
connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of
cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently
for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just
left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle connector).
What is the point of cleaning it? It should be blank, and if not, this
is not a secret government operation containing all the codes to launch
the nukes worldwide.... About the only controversial or secret stuff
might be a few pics of cows with their tits showing, and a pic of God
smoking some whacky weed....
Besides that, I've probably re-formatted every partition at least 4
times now, because of these problems. If that didn't clean the drives,
what will....
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
No, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was
connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of
cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently
for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just
left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle
connector).
I like to draw pictures for people.
For a single IDE drive, it *always* goes on the end, like this.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Master
Cable_Select (if 80 wire, CS is allowed)
When you add a second drive, it can be like this. Or,
you can run CS on both drives, if you are using an
80 wire cable (with that twist in it). I didn't want to junk
up the diagram, by adding CS to the table for both drives.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Slave Master
Master with Slave (some brands have a
distinction on the jumpers)
Do *not* do this, as the end of the cable constitutes a
stub and causes excess reflections and corrupted data.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Oopsy
ULooz
Even in the best of circumstances, the signals on that
cable look horrible. The signals look more horrible
in that last case.
One of the things that SATA does, is banish those bad
design ideas... to the pit. With point to point SATA,
there are no more simulation nightmares for engineers
to look at. Someone (of course) can still make a SATA
cable out-of-spec, but the field reports seem to be
pretty good. Almost as if most of the rolls of raw cables
come from one cable plant, and that helps keep the
process "honest".
You should not bend a SATA cable until it kinks, as
that causes unpredictable results to your data. You could
get away with it, or not. Don't crush the excess SATA
cable and tightly wrap duct tape around it. Bad. If you
have too much SATA cable, buy a shorter one from the
store and try again.
HTH,
Paul
In message <8kbc3d5v6j3g74osvooq4k3idfbt62mj99@4ax.com>,
james@nospam.com writes:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:57:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" >><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
Yep, it looks like the old drive was set to SLAVE. However, I just
changed the new one to CS and copied a bunch of stuff to it from my
first drive. Then I deleted some stuff and copied a whole bunch of small >>clipart pics to it, and then deleted some of them, and after that I
copied a huge ISO file to it, which is almost 1gb in size.
After all of that, I defragged that drive with no problem. It appears
that it needs to be set to CS. Maybe that was the whole problem. I'll
copy more stuff to it and delete other stuff and see if it keeps working >>properly now. So far, so good!
I hesitate to ask, but when you say "the old drive" above, do you mean
the CD drive that failed years ago, or do you mean the HD-that-was-G/H/I >whose failure started this whole saga? If the latter, I wonder if
setting that to CS might have cured the original problem )-:!
I ma tempted to try the actual Master and Slave settings with the
jumpers and see if that works. I dont know if one way is better than the >>other, or not? Does anyone know which jumper setting is the best?
Does anyone know whether using master/slave jumpering with a cable on
which CS works might cause problems?
[]
I never understood how that CS works, or why it's even an option. Older
If the cable truly has the same connections on all three connectors,Yep, floppy cables do have a twist, but not these IDE Hard drive cables.
then I can't see how it's selecting either. I know floppy drive cables >>>had a twist in the cable.
So how that CS works is beyond my comprehension. I do know that for
Maybe there's an internal break in one line - so the cable from the mobo
to the first connector is 80 way, but between them is 79 or 78 way? (I
take it there's nothing obvious like one of the connectors having one of
its holes blanked.)
Ah, I've just looked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Cable_select says it is done
using pin 28 - often just by omitting the contact from the middle
(slave, grey) connector, so you'd have to look extremely hard to see it!
It also says line 28 is only used so the drives know which they are, not
for control by the mobo, so if the drives are jumpered as master and
slave anyway, it is ignored (and that doesn't have to be master at the
end). So you can try it if you want. When the controller says "master
drive, please respond", both drives receive the command, but only one of
them responds - either because it is jumpered as master, or because both
are jumpered as CS and one of them knows it is master. (Apparently also >"drive 0" and "drive 1" - apparently "master" and "slave" don't actually >appear in the specification.) Which does suggest that having one drive
"hard jumpered" and the other as CS _could_ cause problems, depending on >position on the cable.
awhile I had the Master drive on the first connector and Slave on theNo, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was
last connector. THAT IS WRONG, but it was that way for a year or more
and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but >>according to several articles, the last connector goes to the first
drive (which seems backwards).
connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of
cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently
for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just
left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle >connector).
I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for
Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable
has so few wires compared to the IDE cables, and even more puzzling why
the power connectors have all those pins, when there is still only 5V
12V and a copule grounds needed (4 wires). Why do they have all them
pins? Why didnt they just use the common 4 pin connecters they have used
for years. All that did is make power supplies more complicated and the
need to buy adapters to use older power supplies.
james@nospam.com wrote:
What is the point of cleaning it? It should be blank, and if not, this
is not a secret government operation containing all the codes to launch
the nukes worldwide.... About the only controversial or secret stuff
might be a few pics of cows with their tits showing, and a pic of God
smoking some whacky weed....
Besides that, I've probably re-formatted every partition at least 4
times now, because of these problems. If that didn't clean the drives,
what will....
Keep an open mind.
This is a hardware test.
It tests that the drive is write-able from end to end
and is "data safe" when you put real data on it.
If the size reported by the run, does not conform to
your expectations, you figure out why.
If the test case never finishes, that suggests the
disk has bad patches or something.
You can also set the tests to do reads instead.
This test would stop early, when it encounters even
one CRC error. That would look like...
dd if=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 of=NUL bs=221184
What that command would do, is read to the end of Disk2.
And spit out a report of how many chunks it could read.
Multiplying the chunk count by the 221184 number, should
equal the drive size in bytes. On WinXP, you can run
"perfmon.msc" and add a "disk" "write bytes" counter
to the graph, and monitor the transfer rate as the
command runs. A lot of downward spikes indicates a
not very healthy "new" disk.
You can get much the same testing from the WDC or
Seagate test utilities. But I like the added bonus
of *proving* the disk works right up to the end of it.
The Windows "NUL" destination is the equivalent of
/dev/null on Linux and the data goes into the bit bucket.
So these are hardware-guy tests, to be done *before*
you use the disk for real data.
The amount of testing you do, is a function of how
the drive has been abused. Was it in a UPS box with
no Styrofoam peanuts ? Was the drive packaged in a
double plastic "SeaShell" packaging (I picked up
some retail drives from Best Buy packaged that way) ?
If the drive has accepted a rough ride on its way
to see you, then you test it.
The drives I get now, I pick up at the computer store.
They're held in a rack, with no soft packaging at all.
They come in an antistatic bag. There is no way to know
what kind of life they've had in that rack. The company
involved, knows nothing about handling hard drives :-)
Even the sales counter is rock-hard Formica, and they
don't even have a rubber pad to cushion product the sales
associates plunk onto the counter.
The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was
actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause
why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site
in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my
jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-)
It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart.
Paul
On 12/17/2017 12:47 PM, Paul wrote:
james@nospam.com wrote:
What is the point of cleaning it? It should be blank, and if not, this
is not a secret government operation containing all the codes to launch
the nukes worldwide.... About the only controversial or secret stuff
might be a few pics of cows with their tits showing, and a pic of God
smoking some whacky weed....
Besides that, I've probably re-formatted every partition at least 4
times now, because of these problems. If that didn't clean the drives,
what will....
Keep an open mind.
This is a hardware test.
It tests that the drive is write-able from end to end
and is "data safe" when you put real data on it.
If the size reported by the run, does not conform to
your expectations, you figure out why.
If the test case never finishes, that suggests the
disk has bad patches or something.
You can also set the tests to do reads instead.
This test would stop early, when it encounters even
one CRC error. That would look like...
dd if=\\?\Device\Harddisk2\Partition0 of=NUL bs=221184
What that command would do, is read to the end of Disk2.
And spit out a report of how many chunks it could read.
Multiplying the chunk count by the 221184 number, should
equal the drive size in bytes. On WinXP, you can run
"perfmon.msc" and add a "disk" "write bytes" counter
to the graph, and monitor the transfer rate as the
command runs. A lot of downward spikes indicates a
not very healthy "new" disk.
You can get much the same testing from the WDC or
Seagate test utilities. But I like the added bonus
of *proving* the disk works right up to the end of it.
The Windows "NUL" destination is the equivalent of
/dev/null on Linux and the data goes into the bit bucket.
So these are hardware-guy tests, to be done *before*
you use the disk for real data.
The amount of testing you do, is a function of how
the drive has been abused. Was it in a UPS box with
no Styrofoam peanuts ? Was the drive packaged in a
double plastic "SeaShell" packaging (I picked up
some retail drives from Best Buy packaged that way) ?
If the drive has accepted a rough ride on its way
to see you, then you test it.
The drives I get now, I pick up at the computer store.
They're held in a rack, with no soft packaging at all.
They come in an antistatic bag. There is no way to know
what kind of life they've had in that rack. The company
involved, knows nothing about handling hard drives :-)
Even the sales counter is rock-hard Formica, and they
don't even have a rubber pad to cushion product the sales
associates plunk onto the counter.
The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was
actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause
why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site
in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my
jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-)
It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart.
Paul
I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive
How do you test RAM?The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was
actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause
why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site
in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my
jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-)
It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart.
Paul
I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive
Any PC you pull from storage, should have some
basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying
that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days
ago... just in case.
Paul
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001
an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T
you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time
it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it
imho
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:15:58 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
How do you test RAM?Any PC you pull from storage, should have someThe reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was
actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause
why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site
in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my
jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-)
It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart.
Paul
I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive
basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying
that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days
ago... just in case.
Paul
Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux....
Il giorno Sat 16 Dec 2017 08:26:40p, ** ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio news:99sa3d5so7chqknmqekbhtqb09848i1u1j@4ax.com. Vediamo cosa ha scritto:
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001
an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T
you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time
it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it
imho
james@nospam.com wrote:
I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for
Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable
has so few wires compared to the IDE cables, and even more puzzling why
the power connectors have all those pins, when there is still only 5V
12V and a copule grounds needed (4 wires). Why do they have all them
pins? Why didnt they just use the common 4 pin connecters they have used
for years. All that did is make power supplies more complicated and the
need to buy adapters to use older power supplies.
The SATA 7 pin data uses TX+,TX-,RX+,RX-,
and those are differential serial connections.
The data travels serially, a bit at a time, like a modem.
So that's how they squeezed down the data cable, by going serial.[]
The 15 pin power is 5 groups of 3 pins each.
A pin carries 1 ampere of current. Three pins
carry 3 amps. And 3 amps is just enough for the
+12V source, to run the hard drive motor. At
one time, some hard drives would draw 3 amps for
the first ten seconds, until the spindle was up
to speed.
So the contact count for power, was made generous
enough to run existing hard drives.
How do you test RAM?
Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux....
I like to draw pictures for people.
For a single IDE drive, it *always* goes on the end, like this.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Master
Cable_Select (if 80 wire, CS is allowed)
When you add a second drive, it can be like this. Or,
you can run CS on both drives, if you are using an
80 wire cable (with that twist in it). I didn't want to junk
up the diagram, by adding CS to the table for both drives.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Slave Master
Master with Slave (some brands have a
distinction on the jumpers)
Do *not* do this, as the end of the cable constitutes a
stub and causes excess reflections and corrupted data.
Mobo
X --------------+--------+
| |
Oopsy
ULooz
Even in the best of circumstances, the signals on that
cable look horrible. The signals look more horrible
in that last case.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 13:01:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
I hesitate to ask, but when you say "the old drive" above, do you meanThere is no CD drive involved in any of this. In fact the CD drive in
the CD drive that failed years ago, or do you mean the HD-that-was-G/H/I >>whose failure started this whole saga? If the latter, I wonder if
setting that to CS might have cured the original problem )-:!
this computer died years ago. I really dont have any need for one on my
Anyhow, I was referring to my old 2nd drive / Slave (G: H: I:).[]
Does anyone know whether using master/slave jumpering with a cable on
which CS works might cause problems?
[]Ah, I've just looked: >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA#Cable_select says it is done >>using pin 28 - often just by omitting the contact from the middle
and worked fine. Maybe it dont much matter which cable comes first, but >>>according to several articles, the last connector goes to the firstNo, as the article explains, if you only have one drive, and it was >>connected to the middle connector, you'd have an unterminated stub of >>cable, which isn't good electrically (reflections and so on). Apparently >>for the 40 as opposed to 80 cables that _was_ the case, as they just
drive (which seems backwards).
left out line 28 to the second connector (i. e. master was on the middle >>connector).
I better understand this now. I know I have the cable right now, and
since I changed that jumper to CS, it looks like everything works fine
now. (At least so far). I have copied and deleted files and defragged
and scandisked, and ran Norton Dick Doctor. I even ran scandisk from
Dos. Everything checks out ok.
I sort of am wondering if the problem on my old slave drive may have
been caused by the jumpers being incorrectly set, but I had them drives
that way for at least 2 years. I'd think that would have shown up a lot >sooner.
I have a few 18 year old machines, still in mint condition.
No complaints. The installed OS still runs, just like it used to.
I was booting something just yesterday, and in the
boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk".
Then the next line said "this is a really big disk".
The main problem with old computers, is there's no
decent web browser to use on them. That's why the
machines sit in the Junk Room.
Paul--
Ammammata wrote:
Il giorno Sat 16 Dec 2017 08:26:40p, ** ha inviato su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio
news:99sa3d5so7chqknmqekbhtqb09848i1u1j@4ax.com. Vediamo cosa ha scritto:
This is an old IBM brand computer from about 2001
an almost seventeen-years-old computer is like a Ford Model T
you can't ask the hardware to be fully functional after so much time
it's your mistake to pretend to work safely with it
imho
I have a few 18 year old machines, still in mint condition.
No complaints. The installed OS still runs, just like it used to.
These machines use a lot of electricity though. One machine
I measured some time ago, it used 150W just sitting there
doing nothing. Like it was a V8 car with big fins on the back :-)
The machines back then, had hardly any power-saving features.
That's one reason they make poor choices if your
electricity is expensive.
*******
They won't boot off a DVD though, because when the machines
were invented, DVDs didn't exist, and nobody prepared
for the arrival of DVDs.
I even put a DVD drive in the machines to test this.
I was disappointed, but not surprised.
On earlier computers, some of the booting process
is done by "hard drive emulation". The BIOS converts
other device types to "look like" a hard drive. And
part of that methodology involves "fixed size disks".
So when the DVD came along, it was much larger than
anything the designers had anticipated. Amongst
other problems. I don't think the BIOS knows what
the DVD command set looks like either. It wasn't
an El Torito problem I was seeing, it was a physical
layer problem - the BIOS just didn't want to touch
the drive.
One other quirk someone else in the newsgroups tested
at the time, is they inserted a SATA PCI card into
the machine. And the BIOS just ignored it, and the
OS couldn't use it. So again, if you use hardware
cards the BIOS has never heard of, there will be
problems.
But these really aren't surprises. It's to be
expected things like this will happen.
I was booting something just yesterday, and in the
boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk".
Then the next line said "this is a really big disk".
No shit. So again, modern software is never prepared
for surprises, even if the software was written
in 2017. I don't know how the booting OS in that
case, had managed to query the disk drive, but
it got an absurdly large (wrong) size from it. No software
is really "prepared for infinity and beyond" :-)
The main problem with old computers, is there's no
decent web browser to use on them. That's why the
machines sit in the Junk Room.
Paul
I was booting something just yesterday, and in the
boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk".
Then the next line said "this is a really big disk".
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
You sound like one of todays spoiled rotten youth who cant stand to have anything more than 2 years old
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
In message <p184gu$v74$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
writes:
james@nospam.com wrote:
I have no problem with SATA drives. I dont think they would work for
Win98 though. One thing about them, I dont understand why the data cable
Some BIOS/MOBOs can make them "look like" an [E]IDE drive. I don't know
if that would make W98 be able to use them.
It seems an odd choice to me, to use small contacts, and then use a lot
of them. Fair enough, I suppose, if you're feeding power through an
existing multiway connector (though many connectors, e. g. DIN 41612,
manage fine with varying pin sizes - I suppose not really on if you're
using ribbon cable, though, as you'd need special ribbon), but in the
case of the SATA connector, it's a separate connector anyway, so why not
just use bigger pins! But it's settled now, so I suppose we're stuck
with it. But I share James's dissatisfaction with it - the power
connector being bigger than the data one, without it being obvious
that's the reason because it has bigger pins, feels odd.
[]
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:15:58 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
How do you test RAM?The reason I worry about this sort of stuff, is I was
actually sent on a plane trip from work, to root cause
why we had excessive disk failures at a certain site
in the US. When I saw what they were doing, my
jaw dropped :-) And I haven't been the same since :-)
It's not only the UPS driver who has evil in his heart.
Paul
I would absolutely run a RAM test, may be nothing to do with the drive
Any PC you pull from storage, should have some
basic health tests done on it. There's no harm in trying
that. I did that on my new machine only a couple days
ago... just in case.
Paul
Hopefully its a Windows program, not linux....
at the time, is they inserted a SATA PCI card into
the machine. And the BIOS just ignored it, and the
OS couldn't use it. So again, if you use hardware
cards the BIOS has never heard of, there will be
problems.
But these really aren't surprises. It's to be
expected things like this will happen.
I was booting something just yesterday, and in the
boot log on the screen it said "18493843248 GB disk".
Then the next line said "this is a really big disk".
No shit. So again, modern software is never prepared
for surprises, even if the software was written
in 2017. I don't know how the booting OS in that
case, had managed to query the disk drive, but
it got an absurdly large (wrong) size from it. No software
is really "prepared for infinity and beyond" :-)
The main problem with old computers, is there's no
decent web browser to use on them. That's why the
machines sit in the Junk Room.
Paul
Il giorno Tue 19 Dec 2017 12:12:01p, ** ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio news:k6sh3d9cks0lacpi4bagteq4rok8meh25d@4ax.com. Vediamo cosa ha
scritto:
You sound like one of todays spoiled rotten youth who cant stand to
have anything more than 2 years old
bullshit [cutting all the trash talk you wrote]
I'm 50yo, my home personal computer is a 10+ yo laptop where I put an
SSD to make it faster than light, and I'm saving money for my twins,
using free software (linux mint)
this doesn't mean that my opinion is what I wrote above: at work I
have an updated (4yo) computer just because my job requires such a
device; at home I make daily backups because I know that sooner or
later the hw will die
and to close this discussion, my 1993 486dx still runs windows nt4,
the 1996 double pentium-pro runs w2k and the [unknown] thinkpad
380ED, with MSDOS 6, allows me to play Duke Nukem 3D whenever I want.
r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr
qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn,
pbtyvbar
I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2
processor, and it screams. Even though it only can use one core
of the processor. So yes, you can run Win98 on at least some
modern hardware.
I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2
processor, and it screams.
Roughly when (year) did they stop making mobos and drivers for Win98 compatibility?
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:50:10 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
I managed to install Win98SE on an Asrock VIA board with a Core2
processor, and it screams. Even though it only can use one core
of the processor. So yes, you can run Win98 on at least some
modern hardware.
Roughly when (year) did they stop making mobos and drivers for Win98 compatibility? I've been thinking about getting a faster machine that I
can still run Win98 on. Often those old machines sell for little to
nothing on ebay and I'd kind of like to have a different tower case
anyhow, since I cant close mine due to the oversize power supply.
I'd most likely get another Lenovo (IBM) machine since they last
forever. It WONT be a Dell though....
I always wanted to see just how fast Win98 can run on newer hardware.
plus it would be nice to get a MOBO with USB 2 ports.
r cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr
qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn snppvn,
pbtyvbar
Close as I could translate...
naq sbe tbbq unaq, lbh tb shpx lbhefrys, orsber lbh gnyx onq nobhg
fbzrbar qbvat ng yrnfg cergraq gb xabj jub ur vf naq jung ur qbrf,
nffubyr.
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
Il giorno Wed 20 Dec 2017 02:44:53a, JT ha inviato su microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio news:p1cfal$19ei$1@gioia.aioe.org. Vediamo cosa ha scritto:
snppvn, >> pbtyvbarr cre ohban znab, irqv qv naqner nssnaphyb, r cevzn qv cneyner znyr
qv dhnyphab snv nyzrab svagn qv vasbeznegv fh puv fvn r pbfn
Close as I could translate...
naq sbe tbbq unaq, lbh tb shpx lbhefrys, orsber lbh gnyx onq nobhg
fbzrbar qbvat ng yrnfg cergraq gb xabj jub ur vf naq jung ur qbrf,
nffubyr.
well, my idea was to obfuscate bad words (there are children reading
the ng) and leave the final comment as "private"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:02:01 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,878 |