Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

July 23, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:uFS78WuyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>| A CORRECTION the segment which reads:

>|

>| A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig

>drive

>| would potentially have how many using that same test?

>|

>| SHOULD READ for clarification:

>|

>| A single partition on a 320 [or 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

>| would potentially have how many files and folders using that same test to

>| fill the drive?

>|

>| --

>| MEB

>| ________

>|

>

> ADDENDUM: so these issues need not be separately addressed in some other

>discussion or later here:

>

> It would also be poignant to your [Franc] usage, and the testing and or

>purported results, to have:

>

>A. the hardware/chipset and other information which purports to allow such

>usage. related to the intended use and/or to support the findings;

I'm using a USB hard drive. As a USB port talks to a HD in the same

way as it talks to a mouse, I would think that the motherboard chipset

would be irrelevant in this case. FWIW, the USB controller is an SiS

7001 / SiS 7002, and the motherboard chipset is SiS 746.

>B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

>

>1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user, browser

>dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

>history to the testing system(s).

I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

The IE version is 6.0.2800.1106

>2. Any registry tweaks or other like activities such as: shell replacements,

>explorer replacements, etc. which also may have an effect.

In method#1 I used the MKDIR command in QBasic. In method#2 I used

4dos.com and "counted FOR loops". There is also a Win98 batch method

involving reentrant CALL statements that I haven't yet tried.

>3. What was used in the fdisk and formatting process, and cluster size, etc.

>pursuant those activities.

I left it up to fdisk and format to decide, not third party utilities.

Fdisk was executed from within a Windows DOS box.

DOS Chkdsk reports the following:

312,492,320 kilobytes total disk space

310,234,080 kilobytes free

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit

9,765,385 total allocation units on disk

9,694,815 available allocation units on disk

>4. Tools/applications for routine disk maintenance of these large

>disks/partitions.

Win98SE's scandisk and defrag both report "not enough memory".

Win ME's scandisk also complains of "not enough memory".

Win ME's defrag runs OK.

Testing is extremely slow, as my USB 2.0 port appears to be operating

at 1.1 speeds. So far it has taken me just under an hour to create

~69000 directories and about 0.5 hour to create 65534 zero length

files. This is on my Athlon XP 2500+ box. I don't think I want to try

for 1 million folders. :-(

What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It took

me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

happens.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 24, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"wheely" <onmyboard@ramp.com> wrote in message

news:uBNidkSzHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

|

| > Look dude, I'd plonk your stupid stuff, but then you would have free

range

| > here...

| >

| > These are the EXACT questions you asked and were answered repeatedly in

| ALL

| > your discussions

|

| MEB, i've lurked and lurked, and among others i believe the both

| of you to be Excellent procurators of win98.

|

| buuuut, MEB, you have let me down by going for a humans throat

| instead of the 'ms supplied informations throat'.

You miss the point entirely. I am apparently one of the few here that WILL

address almost any issue, but ONLY if evidence is presented to support those

claims or reasonable argument is presented thereto.

This 98 Guy entity is repeatedly directed to supply the defining proof to

support the issues broached, yet none is ever produced which does not fail

due to: refusal to supply accurate and complete testing, or, via that to

which he has been directed.

Instead, we find reversion to the *Micr$shaft* attitude, which is

insufficient [and boring] when dealing with any issues not discussing that

aspect. Is it by design? Is there misleading information? Ah yeah,

sooooooo.....

REALITY:

Is there any group or individual who ACTUALLY expects to change Microsoft,

or the market, or public perception. Microsoft controls its segment, AND the

manufacturers in that segment. Even the government [under this present

administration] now LOVES Microsoft. It has NO problem issuing baseless

patents to Microsoft, and allowing Microsoft to destroy other's patents [see

the recent Microsoft - AT&T rulings, among others] or absorbing other

companies, which would have once been questioned as violations of the

anti-trust Laws and others.

But enough of that....

Here's an example: in 98 Guy's *Win98 can use SATA* rants, he fails to

fully address the issues of *DOS compatibility mode* which he had to use.

Moreover, it COMPLETELY ignores the full ramifications of such use... NOT

because others did not attempt to address these variables during those

discussions; they did, and attempted to fill these various discussions with

vast amounts of documents, test results, etc .. ; but because it was

obviously counter to what this 98 Guy entity WISHED to present, rather than

the cold reality of facts to support such.

Opinions or personal findings are great, we all have them, but evidence

provides pursuassion; lack of it provides nothing, or worse provides false

perception and potential damage.

WHEN 98 Guy then returns using that same information to which he was

directed, now waving it as if it some new found thing:

is it that the original presenters did not read the materials [duh, bet

they did];

is it that these issues were not tested [duh, bet they were];

is it anything new [duh, bet it can be found on hundreds of sites already];

is it a new tested area [duh, must not be],

and more importantly, did 98 Guy proof his presentation before addressing

it, with his own work?

Regretfully there is no DUH for that last one, the track record is plain,

and would have been the first aspect of any presentation were there

substantial or convincing proof FROM 98 Guy. And here's is the problem,

frankly I would NOT accept any now, it would be suspicious [and that, even

if I knew it true].

These issues were not un-addressed previously within this group. Search

Google within this discussion group and you WILL find such discussions:

from: USB issues; to adapters which WILL supply the ability to circumvent

SOME of the limitations of the 9X OS; to discussions of such OS limitations;

and, attempts to address or circumvent other of those limitations via file

replacements and otherwise [though these still have areas which need

addressed].

AND yes, even the MVPs {supposedly or openly so disliked by many who

question Microsoft and its motive and methods} have attempted to work

through these issues.

Yet are "blasted" when they point out their PERSONAL

findings, just because they point out that Microsoft DID produce some

documentation and their testing found such as true OR their OPINION is

otherwise counter to some posters ideals.

In fact, one can do historical search related to the PUBLIC posters and

MVPs in this group, and see other forums/sites [and at times here] where

they have openly attacked or tested some of those Microsoft limitations, or

exposed such, including, at times, questions concerning Microsoft methods

and motives.

Attacking the MVPs personally is ludicrous, they obtained the

classification because they CONSISTANTLY attempt to help users, WITHOUT pay,

providing the best information they have [which may at times be wrong, but

*let he who is without sin...*{and that presents NO religious aspect}] ; NOT

because they are in some LOVE AFFAIR with Microsoft [though some may be

;- ) ].

Heck, some use Linux and/or MAC and/or SUN [or other] in addition to

Microsoft products. BUT the topic on these servers and in these groups IS

Microsoft products. Will they question or trounce upon those who aren't

doing the *Microsoft Way* thing, at times; but if you can't protect your

position in some discussion in a civil fashion, then why shouldn't they

point that out, you are, after all, in a Microsoft product forum.

There are thousands of other forums, many which would embrace any

particular or like ideal. Should this group bow to the whims of a few, if

those few can not fend for themselves or defend their ideals? Why would it.

MOREOVER, If you truly have been lurking, then you must have noticed the

lengthy discussions on Fat16 and Fat32 [and NTFS as well] which have

occurred over the last three or so years [and of course before then].

WITHOUT QUESTION: The high QUALITY of the materials and issues presented

within this group, should be maintained regardless of personal feelings or

desires.

Rant and rave, attack others if you wish, but do so in the thousands of

other USENET news groups out there, its expected.

HERE we are or should be attempting to supply support to each other for a

dead OS with essentially dead manufacturer support,... that knowledge,

reality, and understanding should NEVER be left behind or lost, or ignored.

This is definitely a Microsoft product, but an entirely new world for users

of it. This is the same world that Linux users have been

in for years... however they at least, without the constraints that

9X/ME/2000 users face, the LEGAL aspects...

| 98Guy is as always on track,, this due to his demeanor of seeking

truth,

| i support him 100%.

Such is your right to think such, I will not attempt to dissuade you.

| MEB, you too are always on track,

I would NOT say that. There are times when I have taken the role of

antagonist or protagonist, just to present the other side, or to bring to

light areas of interest or understanding..

| so why not try to 'merge' with 98guy

| for a while and Co-produce the truths...... surely it has to be a

| worthy challenge? a grand challenge to both! who knows, you could

| both come out the other end as friends, and that is a Win situation in

| any wise mans language.

|

| I support you both, you both have qualities.

|

Well, I have previously tried, but I have no further intention of doing so,

nor of re-doing prior testing [unless it suit MY task at hand or whim], when

this 98 Guy entity fails in that part [his part] of the issue... None.. nor

will I tolerate presentations which place unsuspecting individuals at risk,

merely for argument's sake. I intend to uphold my part of the bargain in

here until I fade to black... there ARE other things that call

Prior flames were ignored; prior failures were ignored; but my limit has

been reached, I will no longer do so with the party at issue.

Call me, or think of me, however you wish, it matters not, life continues

til the day it ceases to exist.

Nuff said...... that wasted far more time and band width than it was likely

worth, I doubt its valve will be digested by the majority.

You, however, are more than welcome to discuss 98 Guy's issues with him....

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 24, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

Not much to add to your test yet, perhaps clarifications and thought:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:c6baa3d2dc9k983tkm72oo020mf1pj55kb@4ax.com...

| On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:57:43 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| >news:uFS78WuyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| >| A CORRECTION the segment which reads:

| >|

| >| A single partition on a 320 [or the 127 per the other discussion] gig

| >drive

| >| would potentially have how many using that same test?

| >|

| >| SHOULD READ for clarification:

| >|

| >| A single partition on a 320 [or 127 per the other discussion] gig drive

| >| would potentially have how many files and folders using that same test

to

| >| fill the drive?

| >|

| >| --

| >| MEB

| >| ________

| >|

| >

| > ADDENDUM: so these issues need not be separately addressed in some other

| >discussion or later here:

| >

| > It would also be poignant to your [Franc] usage, and the testing and or

| >purported results, to have:

| >

| >A. the hardware/chipset and other information which purports to allow

such

| >usage. related to the intended use and/or to support the findings;

|

| I'm using a USB hard drive. As a USB port talks to a HD in the same

| way as it talks to a mouse, I would think that the motherboard chipset

| would be irrelevant in this case. FWIW, the USB controller is an SiS

| 7001 / SiS 7002, and the motherboard chipset is SiS 746.

The USB controller you reference is in the USB enclosure?

The manufacturer?

Or are you referring to the on board USB?

|

| >B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

| >

| >1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user,

browser

| >dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

| >history to the testing system(s).

|

| I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

|

| FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

| FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

For reference, you chose this method instead of the manufacturer's tool(s)

for what reason; or were there none available or recommended?

|

| The IE version is 6.0.2800.1106

|

| >2. Any registry tweaks or other like activities such as: shell

replacements,

| >explorer replacements, etc. which also may have an effect.

|

| In method#1 I used the MKDIR command in QBasic. In method#2 I used

| 4dos.com and "counted FOR loops". There is also a Win98 batch method

| involving reentrant CALL statements that I haven't yet tried.

|

| >3. What was used in the fdisk and formatting process, and cluster size,

etc.

| >pursuant those activities.

|

| I left it up to fdisk and format to decide, not third party utilities.

| Fdisk was executed from within a Windows DOS box.

|

| DOS Chkdsk reports the following:

|

| 312,492,320 kilobytes total disk space

| 310,234,080 kilobytes free

|

| 32,768 bytes in each allocation unit

| 9,765,385 total allocation units on disk

| 9,694,815 available allocation units on disk

|

| >4. Tools/applications for routine disk maintenance of these large

| >disks/partitions.

|

| Win98SE's scandisk and defrag both report "not enough memory".

|

| Win ME's scandisk also complains of "not enough memory".

|

| Win ME's defrag runs OK.

|

| Testing is extremely slow, as my USB 2.0 port appears to be operating

| at 1.1 speeds. So far it has taken me just under an hour to create

| ~69000 directories and about 0.5 hour to create 65534 zero length

| files. This is on my Athlon XP 2500+ box. I don't think I want to try

| for 1 million folders. :-(

Doesn't sound like that million plus is feasible in this situation.

CLARIFICATION:

Are you using the in built support drivers for USB from 98SE, or are you

using something like the Maximus Decim drivers, and/or the manufacturer's

enclosure drivers (if any)?

Are there other USB devices attached which might be affecting the bandwidth

or power available [e.g., keyboard, printer, modem, etc., and device

positioning/assigment/settings; any additional hub involved]?

|

| What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

| while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

| corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

| leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It took

| me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

| happens.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Did you setup or run these batches with standard, or background, or

modified priority settings?

Did you setup or run these batches with automatic pause, or other

re-assignment, should the system and/or applications require more memory or

priority?

Did you setup or run these batches with exclusive, standard, or modified

memory settings?

Are you allowing or using or attempting any visual aspects within or

related to running these batches [e.g., DOS box, monitoring, or otherwise]?

A THOUGHT:

Explorer will attempt to PREPARE to show the drive [and its contents] when

running [visually evidenced by the drive name {the label if any} and

assignment]. If the drive is constantly changing during the attempt, there

will or may, be conflict. There are also *refresh cycles* involved and which

should be taken under consideration.

Perhaps someone can advise of how to temporarily exclude that drive from

Explorer access during the batch drive fill runs. Or if this would have the

desired effect, or any effect.

BTW Franc, thanks for doing the test in this forum. This is the *on-hands*,

*I watched this occur* activity which will hopefully verify the results and

clarify any issues. My hat is tipped to you ...

I see another test is also being presented in the group, perhaps two issues

may be resolved.

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 28, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:40 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Not much to add to your test yet, perhaps clarifications and thought:

>

>"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>news:c6baa3d2dc9k983tkm72oo020mf1pj55kb@4ax.com...

>| I'm using a USB hard drive. As a USB port talks to a HD in the same

>| way as it talks to a mouse, I would think that the motherboard chipset

>| would be irrelevant in this case. FWIW, the USB controller is an SiS

>| 7001 / SiS 7002, and the motherboard chipset is SiS 746.

>

> The USB controller you reference is in the USB enclosure?

> The manufacturer?

> Or are you referring to the on board USB?

The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached to

the SiS 7001. :-(

FWIW, I'm using the Orangeware driver. It installs OK, but maybe it is

not enabled for SiS controllers. ??? BTW, USB 2.0 is enabled in the

BIOS.

Anyway, despite my initial enthusiasm, it looks like any HD testing is

going to be unbearably slow. If it's going to take a whole day for

scandisk to run, then it's not worth pursuing this idea.

>| >B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

>| >

>| >1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user,

>browser

>| >dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

>| >history to the testing system(s).

>|

>| I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

>|

>| FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

>| FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

>

> For reference, you chose this method instead of the manufacturer's tool(s)

>for what reason; or were there none available or recommended?

I wanted to see whether standard procedures would suffice. In any case

all my files will be huge (the drive will be a video jukebox), so

large cluster sizes are not a problem for me.

>| Testing is extremely slow, as my USB 2.0 port appears to be operating

>| at 1.1 speeds. So far it has taken me just under an hour to create

>| ~69000 directories and about 0.5 hour to create 65534 zero length

>| files. This is on my Athlon XP 2500+ box. I don't think I want to try

>| for 1 million folders. :-(

>

> Doesn't sound like that million plus is feasible in this situation.

No, life is too short.

>CLARIFICATION:

>Are you using the in built support drivers for USB from 98SE, or are you

>using something like the Maximus Decim drivers, and/or the manufacturer's

>enclosure drivers (if any)?

I'm using the files provided with the Maximus Decim driver set.

Driver: USBNTMAP.SYS

File Size: 7136 (0x1BE0)

File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

File Version: 4.90.3000

Driver: USBSTOR.SYS

File Size: 21040 (0x5230)

File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

File Version: 4.90.3000.1

> Are there other USB devices attached which might be affecting the bandwidth

>or power available [e.g., keyboard, printer, modem, etc., and device

>positioning/assigment/settings; any additional hub involved]?

No, its purely a 1.1 versus 2.0 issue. I have a USB printer, but it's

turned off.

>| What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

>| while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

>| corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

>| leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It took

>| me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

>| happens.

>|

>| - Franc Zabkar

> Did you setup or run these batches with standard, or background, or

>modified priority settings?

> Did you setup or run these batches with automatic pause, or other

>re-assignment, should the system and/or applications require more memory or

>priority?

> Did you setup or run these batches with exclusive, standard, or modified

>memory settings?

> Are you allowing or using or attempting any visual aspects within or

>related to running these batches [e.g., DOS box, monitoring, or otherwise]?

I'm just running them in a Windows DOS box with nothing else running

in the background. No special settings.

FWIW, I have been corresponding with another fellow via email whose

execution times are much worse than mine.

>A THOUGHT:

> Explorer will attempt to PREPARE to show the drive [and its contents] when

>running [visually evidenced by the drive name {the label if any} and

>assignment]. If the drive is constantly changing during the attempt, there

>will or may, be conflict. There are also *refresh cycles* involved and which

>should be taken under consideration.

> Perhaps someone can advise of how to temporarily exclude that drive from

>Explorer access during the batch drive fill runs. Or if this would have the

>desired effect, or any effect.

All is OK if I don't open an Explorer window, or if I leave it alone

when I do.

>BTW Franc, thanks for doing the test in this forum. This is the *on-hands*,

>*I watched this occur* activity which will hopefully verify the results and

>clarify any issues. My hat is tipped to you ...

> I see another test is also being presented in the group, perhaps two issues

>may be resolved.

Sorry, but unless I can resolve this USB speed issue, then I'm not

going to get very far. I had no idea that execution times were going

to be so long, even via a high speed SATA or PATA interface.

Here is a thread at alt.msdos.batch where some people have provided

batch routines:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.msdos.batch/browse_thread/thread/1e152c2d69dd39bc/6f94e846928b0210?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#6f94e846928b0210

http://tinyurl.com/2s634r

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

July 29, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:dlina35gum3rkmnckk17hlbac0mh9nq5if@4ax.com...

| On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:40 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >Not much to add to your test yet, perhaps clarifications and thought:

| >

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:c6baa3d2dc9k983tkm72oo020mf1pj55kb@4ax.com...

|

| >| I'm using a USB hard drive. As a USB port talks to a HD in the same

| >| way as it talks to a mouse, I would think that the motherboard chipset

| >| would be irrelevant in this case. FWIW, the USB controller is an SiS

| >| 7001 / SiS 7002, and the motherboard chipset is SiS 746.

| >

| > The USB controller you reference is in the USB enclosure?

| > The manufacturer?

| > Or are you referring to the on board USB?

|

| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

|

| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached to

| the SiS 7001. :-(

Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

remove the 7001]? Or did you check to see what Device Manger shows [like its

not configured to use 1.1 compatibility or something]?

|

| FWIW, I'm using the Orangeware driver. It installs OK, but maybe it is

| not enabled for SiS controllers. ??? BTW, USB 2.0 is enabled in the

| BIOS.

Q: Can you tell me briefly about your driver?

The USB 2.0 software drivers give the user the ability to utilize USB 2.0

High Speed devices with their NEC, Intel and many more devices. These

software drivers are compatible with the Mac OS X, and with the Windows 98,

98SE, Me, 2000, XP and Server 2003.

The software driver is customized with the customer's unique subvendor and

subdevice ID numbers. The customization process requires that the USB 2.0

device have an EEPROM chip. The customer programs the EEPROM chip with its

unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination. OrangeWare engineers program

the ID combination directly into the software code preventing the software

driver from operating on any unlicensed hardware. The software driver must

detect the unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination in the EEPROM chip

and match it with one of the combinations programmed in the software code in

order for the driver to work.

http://www.orangeware.com/developers/faq_usb2.html

|

| Anyway, despite my initial enthusiasm, it looks like any HD testing is

| going to be unbearably slow. If it's going to take a whole day for

| scandisk to run, then it's not worth pursuing this idea.

Looks that way, particularly with your USB limited access.

If you noted, there is another offering on MGDX that supplies an

alternative using the old Helix Nuts & Bolts disk maintenance utilities

[which were a heck of a lot faster than default Microsoft tools]. Then

again, I have no indication [or test results] they would even work upon

disks as large as those being tested...

http://www.mdgx.com/files/diskmind.php

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

http://www.mdgx.com/files/DISKMIND.EXE

FROM THE INCLUDED DISKMIND.txt:

DMindr32 + DmDOS support FAT12, FAT16 + FAT32.

Both should *theoretically* support all (E)IDE/(U)DMA/(P)ATA/SATA hard

drives/partitions up to 2 TB (TeraBytes). More testing is needed. [?]

DMindr32 supports Long File Names (LFNs).

DmDOS does NOT support LFNs because native MS-DOS does NOT support LFNs

without a dedicated tool like DOSLFN (free open source):

http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/

loaded in memory (as TSR) from native MS-DOS command line [or autoexec.bat]

REFERENCED HERE:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581&view=findpost&p=323675

I do remember [back in the day] there was some trick involved, where you

could replace the default scandisk with these tools.. [but what, my memory

isn't that good /renaming to scandisk or something\]

|

| >| >B. IN ADDITION to information which may also have effect such as:

| >| >

| >| >1. Any.system file replacements, examples: shell32, kernel32, user,

| >browser

| >| >dlls, etc..; and whether IE is installed and what version, and update

| >| >history to the testing system(s).

| >|

| >| I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

| >|

| >| FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

| >| FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

| >

| > For reference, you chose this method instead of the manufacturer's

tool(s)

| >for what reason; or were there none available or recommended?

|

| I wanted to see whether standard procedures would suffice. In any case

| all my files will be huge (the drive will be a video jukebox), so

| large cluster sizes are not a problem for me.

Well a 32k cluster isn't going to kill anyone anyway.. particularly for

your intended use... perhaps your test is more in line with tools and large

file manipulation concerns anyway... [then again you still have fat and

other 98 OS aspects to consider for your 98 contact]

|

| >| Testing is extremely slow, as my USB 2.0 port appears to be operating

| >| at 1.1 speeds. So far it has taken me just under an hour to create

| >| ~69000 directories and about 0.5 hour to create 65534 zero length

| >| files. This is on my Athlon XP 2500+ box. I don't think I want to try

| >| for 1 million folders. :-(

| >

| > Doesn't sound like that million plus is feasible in this situation.

|

| No, life is too short.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAy too short.. [or too long depending upon your outlook]

|

| >CLARIFICATION:

| >Are you using the in built support drivers for USB from 98SE, or are you

| >using something like the Maximus Decim drivers, and/or the manufacturer's

| >enclosure drivers (if any)?

|

| I'm using the files provided with the Maximus Decim driver set.

|

| Driver: USBNTMAP.SYS

| File Size: 7136 (0x1BE0)

| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

| File Version: 4.90.3000

|

| Driver: USBSTOR.SYS

| File Size: 21040 (0x5230)

| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

| File Version: 4.90.3000.1

Hmm, that didn't help me, I show those in the 23E and the 31 version. Which

version did you use?

|

| > Are there other USB devices attached which might be affecting the

bandwidth

| >or power available [e.g., keyboard, printer, modem, etc., and device

| >positioning/assigment/settings; any additional hub involved]?

|

| No, its purely a 1.1 versus 2.0 issue. I have a USB printer, but it's

| turned off.

I think your correct, iron that out and you will at least have full

bandwidth..

|

| >| What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

| >| while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

| >| corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

| >| leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It took

| >| me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

| >| happens.

| >|

| >| - Franc Zabkar

|

| > Did you setup or run these batches with standard, or background, or

| >modified priority settings?

| > Did you setup or run these batches with automatic pause, or other

| >re-assignment, should the system and/or applications require more memory

or

| >priority?

| > Did you setup or run these batches with exclusive, standard, or modified

| >memory settings?

| > Are you allowing or using or attempting any visual aspects within or

| >related to running these batches [e.g., DOS box, monitoring, or

otherwise]?

|

| I'm just running them in a Windows DOS box with nothing else running

| in the background. No special settings.

Well I would attempt to setup something else, though that's likely hit or

miss... then again you're really only testing for your intended use > DivX

and 98, will they play well together with this large disk...

|

| FWIW, I have been corresponding with another fellow via email whose

| execution times are much worse than mine.

Yeah, this is a whole new world.... bigger disks = bigger headaches

Differring BIOS access schemes, differing SATA support, etc...

|

| >A THOUGHT:

| > Explorer will attempt to PREPARE to show the drive [and its contents]

when

| >running [visually evidenced by the drive name {the label if any} and

| >assignment]. If the drive is constantly changing during the attempt,

there

| >will or may, be conflict. There are also *refresh cycles* involved and

which

| >should be taken under consideration.

| > Perhaps someone can advise of how to temporarily exclude that drive from

| >Explorer access during the batch drive fill runs. Or if this would have

the

| >desired effect, or any effect.

|

| All is OK if I don't open an Explorer window, or if I leave it alone

| when I do.

|

| >BTW Franc, thanks for doing the test in this forum. This is the

*on-hands*,

| >*I watched this occur* activity which will hopefully verify the results

and

| >clarify any issues. My hat is tipped to you ...

| > I see another test is also being presented in the group, perhaps two

issues

| >may be resolved.

|

| Sorry, but unless I can resolve this USB speed issue, then I'm not

| going to get very far. I had no idea that execution times were going

| to be so long, even via a high speed SATA or PATA interface.

Well here's a good reason most keep their partitions small.. one big disk

and you really can't expect fast times, to much "real estate"... even with

new algorithms and disk access schemes... and supposed OSs to handle them

with dual or quad processors... so though it may seem blazingly fast just

how much time and effort was actually used....

|

| Here is a thread at alt.msdos.batch where some people have provided

| batch routines:

|

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.msdos.batch/browse_thread/thread/1e152c2d69dd39bc/6f94e846928b0210?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#6f94e846928b0210

|

| http://tinyurl.com/2s634r

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Well I guess I need to look over there...

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 30, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:O7t09Ja0HHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| news:dlina35gum3rkmnckk17hlbac0mh9nq5if@4ax.com...

| | On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:40 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| | >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| | >news:c6baa3d2dc9k983tkm72oo020mf1pj55kb@4ax.com...

|

| |

| | Here is a thread at alt.msdos.batch where some people have provided

| | batch routines:

| |

|

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.msdos.batch/browse_thread/thread/1e152c2d69dd39bc/6f94e846928b0210?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#6f94e846928b0210

| |

| | http://tinyurl.com/2s634r

| |

| | - Franc Zabkar

| | --

| | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

|

| Well I guess I need to look over there...

|

| --

| MEB

| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| ________

|

Perhaps your not really interested, but having looked at those

scripts/batches, I would tend to think that something in VB would much

better suit your needs. At least that gives 32bit virtual access with native

support in Win98. You should have at least one version's [5, 6] DLLs already

installed, perhaps both..

That would also negate the need to run in a dos box.. and allow pure

background activity and priority..

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 1, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

>| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

>|

>| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

>| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached to

>| the SiS 7001. :-(

>

> Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

>remove the 7001]?

The problem is that I don't know whether the chipset is switching

between USB controllers on its own, or whether the driver is doing it.

Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched it

a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were still

present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

>Or did you check to see what Device Manger shows [like its

>not configured to use 1.1 compatibility or something]?

I don't see anything like that.

>| FWIW, I'm using the Orangeware driver. It installs OK, but maybe it is

>| not enabled for SiS controllers. ??? BTW, USB 2.0 is enabled in the

>| BIOS.

>

>Q: Can you tell me briefly about your driver?

>The USB 2.0 software drivers give the user the ability to utilize USB 2.0

>High Speed devices with their NEC, Intel and many more devices. These

>software drivers are compatible with the Mac OS X, and with the Windows 98,

>98SE, Me, 2000, XP and Server 2003.

>

>The software driver is customized with the customer's unique subvendor and

>subdevice ID numbers. The customization process requires that the USB 2.0

>device have an EEPROM chip. The customer programs the EEPROM chip with its

>unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination. OrangeWare engineers program

>the ID combination directly into the software code preventing the software

>driver from operating on any unlicensed hardware. The software driver must

>detect the unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination in the EEPROM chip

>and match it with one of the combinations programmed in the software code in

>order for the driver to work.

>http://www.orangeware.com/developers/faq_usb2.html

Thanks for that. I had already noticed that and I can confirm that the

subvendor and subdevice IDs that appear in my registry are not

supported in OrangeWare's INF file. I had considered editing the INF

to include them, but after reading OrangeWare's FAQ I decided that it

would be pointless. I'll do it anyway, though, as I'm getting

desperate.

BTW, I looked around the southbridge chip for the EEPROM but found

only unpopulated IC locations. Maybe the southbridge is internally

programmed for ECS by SiS ???

FWIW, my M571 socket 7 board has the same SiS 7001 controller but its

sub IDs are zeroes.

>| Anyway, despite my initial enthusiasm, it looks like any HD testing is

>| going to be unbearably slow. If it's going to take a whole day for

>| scandisk to run, then it's not worth pursuing this idea.

>

> Looks that way, particularly with your USB limited access.

Well, USB 1.1 maxes out at 12 Mbit/s, so this would mean that it would

take about 2.5 days to fill the whole disc with data. :-(

> If you noted, there is another offering on MGDX that supplies an

>alternative using the old Helix Nuts & Bolts disk maintenance utilities

>[which were a heck of a lot faster than default Microsoft tools]. Then

>again, I have no indication [or test results] they would even work upon

>disks as large as those being tested...

>http://www.mdgx.com/files/diskmind.php

>http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm

>http://www.mdgx.com/files/DISKMIND.EXE

>FROM THE INCLUDED DISKMIND.txt:

>DMindr32 + DmDOS support FAT12, FAT16 + FAT32.

>Both should *theoretically* support all (E)IDE/(U)DMA/(P)ATA/SATA hard

>drives/partitions up to 2 TB (TeraBytes). More testing is needed. [?]

>DMindr32 supports Long File Names (LFNs).

>DmDOS does NOT support LFNs because native MS-DOS does NOT support LFNs

>without a dedicated tool like DOSLFN (free open source):

>http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/

>loaded in memory (as TSR) from native MS-DOS command line [or autoexec.bat]

>

>REFERENCED HERE:

>http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581&view=findpost&p=323675

>

> I do remember [back in the day] there was some trick involved, where you

>could replace the default scandisk with these tools.. [but what, my memory

>isn't that good /renaming to scandisk or something\]

I'll have to get to this later because at the moment I can't keep my

external HD or enclosure from hanging. Originally I thought it was an

Explorer issue, but now I have managed to make it hang while running

Xcopy in a DOS box on my socket 7 machine.

Tomorrow I intend to hook up the kit to my friend's XP / USB 2.0 PC.

That should help me narrow down the problem.

<snip>

>| I'm using the files provided with the Maximus Decim driver set.

>|

>| Driver: USBNTMAP.SYS

>| File Size: 7136 (0x1BE0)

>| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

>| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

>| File Version: 4.90.3000

>|

>| Driver: USBSTOR.SYS

>| File Size: 21040 (0x5230)

>| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

>| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

>| File Version: 4.90.3000.1

>

> Hmm, that didn't help me, I show those in the 23E and the 31 version. Which

>version did you use?

I can't remember, but my usbstor.inf file has this annotation:

;Maximus Decim modified - 06/14/2006, 01.02

>| > Are there other USB devices attached which might be affecting the

>bandwidth

>| >or power available [e.g., keyboard, printer, modem, etc., and device

>| >positioning/assigment/settings; any additional hub involved]?

>|

>| No, its purely a 1.1 versus 2.0 issue. I have a USB printer, but it's

>| turned off.

>

> I think your correct, iron that out and you will at least have full

>bandwidth..

There are two 1.1 root hubs with three ports each. The printer is on a

different hub.

>| >| What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

>| >| while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

>| >| corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

>| >| leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It took

>| >| me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

>| >| happens.

>| >|

>| >| - Franc Zabkar

>|

>| > Did you setup or run these batches with standard, or background, or

>| >modified priority settings?

>| > Did you setup or run these batches with automatic pause, or other

>| >re-assignment, should the system and/or applications require more memory

>or

>| >priority?

>| > Did you setup or run these batches with exclusive, standard, or modified

>| >memory settings?

>| > Are you allowing or using or attempting any visual aspects within or

>| >related to running these batches [e.g., DOS box, monitoring, or

>otherwise]?

>|

>| I'm just running them in a Windows DOS box with nothing else running

>| in the background. No special settings.

>

> Well I would attempt to setup something else, though that's likely hit or

>miss... then again you're really only testing for your intended use > DivX

>and 98, will they play well together with this large disk...

I've copied a bunch of test AVI files to the drive and had them

playing just fine via the USB 1.1 port on my $40 supermarket DVD

player.

My next step is to determine whether the DVD player will recognise

more than one partition, and whether it has any file limits, etc.

Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 1, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:lke0b3dtbgcrrgop072bls7fp0kvksfifa@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

| >| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

| >|

| >| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

| >| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached to

| >| the SiS 7001. :-(

| >

| > Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

| >remove the 7001]?

|

| The problem is that I don't know whether the chipset is switching

| between USB controllers on its own, or whether the driver is doing it.

Did you try something like filemon or regmon by sysinternals to observe

what was going on?

Potential registry settings?

|

| Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

| screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched it

| a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were still

| present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

| controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

So you were apparently using the 1.1 aspect, killed that, BSODed, restarted

the computer, and the 2.0 didn't kick in?

Did you do a *Find New Harware* to correct registry, VMM, and other

aspects?

|

| >Or did you check to see what Device Manger shows [like its

| >not configured to use 1.1 compatibility or something]?

|

| I don't see anything like that.

Opps, my error, sometimes I forget what I'm discussing...

|

| >| FWIW, I'm using the Orangeware driver. It installs OK, but maybe it is

| >| not enabled for SiS controllers. ??? BTW, USB 2.0 is enabled in the

| >| BIOS.

| >

| >Q: Can you tell me briefly about your driver?

|

| >The USB 2.0 software drivers give the user the ability to utilize USB 2.0

| >High Speed devices with their NEC, Intel and many more devices. These

| >software drivers are compatible with the Mac OS X, and with the Windows

98,

| >98SE, Me, 2000, XP and Server 2003.

| >

| >The software driver is customized with the customer's unique subvendor

and

| >subdevice ID numbers. The customization process requires that the USB 2.0

| >device have an EEPROM chip. The customer programs the EEPROM chip with

its

| >unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination. OrangeWare engineers

program

| >the ID combination directly into the software code preventing the

software

| >driver from operating on any unlicensed hardware. The software driver

must

| >detect the unique subvendor and subdevice ID combination in the EEPROM

chip

| >and match it with one of the combinations programmed in the software code

in

| >order for the driver to work.

|

| >http://www.orangeware.com/developers/faq_usb2.html

|

| Thanks for that. I had already noticed that and I can confirm that the

| subvendor and subdevice IDs that appear in my registry are not

| supported in OrangeWare's INF file. I had considered editing the INF

| to include them, but after reading OrangeWare's FAQ I decided that it

| would be pointless. I'll do it anyway, though, as I'm getting

| desperate.

|

| BTW, I looked around the southbridge chip for the EEPROM but found

| only unpopulated IC locations. Maybe the southbridge is internally

| programmed for ECS by SiS ???

|

| FWIW, my M571 socket 7 board has the same SiS 7001 controller but its

| sub IDs are zeroes.

|

| >| Anyway, despite my initial enthusiasm, it looks like any HD testing is

| >| going to be unbearably slow. If it's going to take a whole day for

| >| scandisk to run, then it's not worth pursuing this idea.

| >

| > Looks that way, particularly with your USB limited access.

|

| Well, USB 1.1 maxes out at 12 Mbit/s, so this would mean that it would

| take about 2.5 days to fill the whole disc with data. :-(

|

| > If you noted, there is another offering on MGDX that supplies an

| >alternative using the old Helix Nuts & Bolts disk maintenance utilities

| >[which were a heck of a lot faster than default Microsoft tools]. Then

| >again, I have no indication [or test results] they would even work upon

| >disks as large as those being tested...

| >http://www.mdgx.com/files/diskmind.php

| >http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm

| >http://www.mdgx.com/files/DISKMIND.EXE

| >FROM THE INCLUDED DISKMIND.txt:

| >DMindr32 + DmDOS support FAT12, FAT16 + FAT32.

| >Both should *theoretically* support all (E)IDE/(U)DMA/(P)ATA/SATA hard

| >drives/partitions up to 2 TB (TeraBytes). More testing is needed. [?]

| >DMindr32 supports Long File Names (LFNs).

| >DmDOS does NOT support LFNs because native MS-DOS does NOT support LFNs

| >without a dedicated tool like DOSLFN (free open source):

| >http://www.geocities.com/jadoxa/doslfn/

| >loaded in memory (as TSR) from native MS-DOS command line [or

autoexec.bat]

| >

| >REFERENCED HERE:

|

>http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581&view=findpost&p=323675

| >

| > I do remember [back in the day] there was some trick involved, where you

| >could replace the default scandisk with these tools.. [but what, my

memory

| >isn't that good /renaming to scandisk or something\]

|

| I'll have to get to this later because at the moment I can't keep my

| external HD or enclosure from hanging. Originally I thought it was an

| Explorer issue, but now I have managed to make it hang while running

| Xcopy in a DOS box on my socket 7 machine.

Ah, that code and EEPROM activity/identity is also related to the actual

device.......

|

| Tomorrow I intend to hook up the kit to my friend's XP / USB 2.0 PC.

| That should help me narrow down the problem.

Well don't forget that WILL at least add information to the first track of

the disk,,,, remember??

|

| <snip>

|

| >| I'm using the files provided with the Maximus Decim driver set.

| >|

| >| Driver: USBNTMAP.SYS

| >| File Size: 7136 (0x1BE0)

| >| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

| >| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

| >| File Version: 4.90.3000

| >|

| >| Driver: USBSTOR.SYS

| >| File Size: 21040 (0x5230)

| >| File Date: 2/17/2003 6:29 AM

| >| Company Name: Microsoft Corporation

| >| File Version: 4.90.3000.1

| >

| > Hmm, that didn't help me, I show those in the 23E and the 31 version.

Which

| >version did you use?

|

| I can't remember, but my usbstor.inf file has this annotation:

|

| ;Maximus Decim modified - 06/14/2006, 01.02

I only have the 23E, 24 update, and the 31 versions locally so I can't tell

you what the full 24 would have been, BUT within the two full versions

usbstor.inf:

23E -

;Maximus Decim modified - 06/14/2006, 01.02

31 -

;Maximus Decim modified - 06/14/2006, 01.02

;Maximus Decim modified - 08/31/2006, 01.03 add iPod, fix Sony Digital

Camera

;Maximus Decim modified - 09/02/2006, 01.04 add LayoutFile

;Maximus Decim modified - 25/01/2007, 01.05 add wdmstub, remove USB FDD,

add CnMemory

;Maximus Decim modified - 07/03/2007, 01.06 remove wdmstub,

There were warnings regarding the 31 that ALL USB drivers, hubs, etc.,

needed removed BEFORE installing, but looking within the zip and the

contained files and INFs, I think that was not only advisable, but for full

effect of what this version addressed. It was a MAJOR new driver

setup/generic support ... designed to address a number of issues observed

concerning the older versions, and difficulties *cross driving* [necessity

to use extra/other drivers] USB devices. I wish I could say I tested it, but

I have no present USB 2.0 devices.

|

| >| > Are there other USB devices attached which might be affecting the

| >bandwidth

| >| >or power available [e.g., keyboard, printer, modem, etc., and device

| >| >positioning/assigment/settings; any additional hub involved]?

| >|

| >| No, its purely a 1.1 versus 2.0 issue. I have a USB printer, but it's

| >| turned off.

| >

| > I think your correct, iron that out and you will at least have full

| >bandwidth..

|

| There are two 1.1 root hubs with three ports each. The printer is on a

| different hub.

|

| >| >| What's complicating things is that, if I play around with Explorer

| >| >| while the batch is running, the directory structure can become

| >| >| corrupted, and sometimes the machine, or HD, hangs. Otherwise, if I

| >| >| leave things alone, then the batch completes without incident. It

took

| >| >| me a while to figure this out, but I still don't understand why it

| >| >| happens.

| >| >|

| >| >| - Franc Zabkar

| >|

| >| > Did you setup or run these batches with standard, or background, or

| >| >modified priority settings?

| >| > Did you setup or run these batches with automatic pause, or other

| >| >re-assignment, should the system and/or applications require more

memory

| >or

| >| >priority?

| >| > Did you setup or run these batches with exclusive, standard, or

modified

| >| >memory settings?

| >| > Are you allowing or using or attempting any visual aspects within or

| >| >related to running these batches [e.g., DOS box, monitoring, or

| >otherwise]?

| >|

| >| I'm just running them in a Windows DOS box with nothing else running

| >| in the background. No special settings.

| >

| > Well I would attempt to setup something else, though that's likely hit

or

| >miss... then again you're really only testing for your intended use >

DivX

| >and 98, will they play well together with this large disk...

|

| I've copied a bunch of test AVI files to the drive and had them

| playing just fine via the USB 1.1 port on my $40 supermarket DVD

| player.

|

| My next step is to determine whether the DVD player will recognise

| more than one partition, and whether it has any file limits, etc.

|

| Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

| through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

I would think its more the attempts in these two hard drive discussions, to

use DOS... makes me question whether its a DOS test or Windows.... if it is

DOS, then your in an entirely OLD world ... really, what do you expect,

everything to run properly and fast??? There is a whole other set of

limitations and constraints in that area.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 4, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:40 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>| I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

>|

>| FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

>| FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

>

> For reference, you chose this method instead of the manufacturer's tool(s)

>for what reason; or were there none available or recommended?

Correction, I actually formatted the drive from within Explorer, not

by using format.com.

Sorry.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 4, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:51:14 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>news:lke0b3dtbgcrrgop072bls7fp0kvksfifa@4ax.com...

>| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

>| put finger to keyboard and composed:

>|

>| >| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

>| >| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

>| >|

>| >| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

>| >| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached to

>| >| the SiS 7001. :-(

>| >

>| > Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

>| >remove the 7001]?

>|

>| The problem is that I don't know whether the chipset is switching

>| between USB controllers on its own, or whether the driver is doing it.

>

> Did you try something like filemon or regmon by sysinternals to observe

>what was going on?

> Potential registry settings?

I've started a couple of related threads in other groups.

External 320GB HD / USB 2.0 / DOS / LFN / FAT32:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.msdos.misc/msg/2050739e50b8a233?hl=en&

PCI subdevice and subvendor IDs:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/164ced5a47b020ba?hl=en&

What I've found is that, even when using the USB 2.0 and USB mass

storage support in BIOS, DOS can see the USB HDD as drive D:, but the

transfer speeds are still only USB 1.1 (~0.7MB/s).

The same enclosure, HDD, and cables work fine on an XP box with Intel

chipset. The transfer rate in that case is about 30MB/s. This leads me

to believe that there is an incompatibility at the hardware level.

I notice that enabling USB support in BIOS causes the drive to appear

as both drive D: and drive N: in Windows Explorer, if the system is

booted with the drive attached. Otherwise, if the HDD is attached

after booting, only drive letter N: appears. Maybe this observation

will explain some mysterious ghosting issues that appear from time to

time in this group.

>| Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

>| screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched it

>| a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were still

>| present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

>| controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

>

> So you were apparently using the 1.1 aspect, killed that, BSODed, restarted

>the computer, and the 2.0 didn't kick in?

> Did you do a *Find New Harware* to correct registry, VMM, and other

>aspects?

No, but I believe the problem may be a hardware one, as described

above.

<snip>

>| Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

>| through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

>

> I would think its more the attempts in these two hard drive discussions, to

>use DOS... makes me question whether its a DOS test or Windows.... if it is

>DOS, then your in an entirely OLD world ... really, what do you expect,

>everything to run properly and fast??? There is a whole other set of

>limitations and constraints in that area.

I ran the system for several hours in real DOS mode using just the USB

support provided by the BIOS. There were no stability issues.

In the absence of responses from the other threads, I intend to try

Panasonic's DOS USB 2.0 EHCI drivers (which are documented to support

SiS chipsets), 4dos.com (for LFN support), and a Win98SE boot

diskette. If this doesn't work, then I'll be fairly certain that I'm

seeing a hardware incompatibility issue.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 4, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:32m7b3pbom8tm728id3f4j8a7j7oka5me9@4ax.com...

| On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:59:40 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >| I used Win98SE's format.com and Microsoft's updated fdisk.exe.

| >|

| >| FDISK EXE 64,460 05-18-00 8:35a FDISK.EXE

| >| FORMAT COM 49,575 04-23-99 10:22p FORMAT.COM

| >

| > For reference, you chose this method instead of the manufacturer's

tool(s)

| >for what reason; or were there none available or recommended?

|

| Correction, I actually formatted the drive from within Explorer, not

| by using format.com.

|

| Sorry.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Thanks for the correction, got to keep this all correct for complete

analysis.. CRUNCH

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 4, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

See the bottom, though refer to the entire post, seems there's some sort of

communication barrier here ...

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:33m7b3d85g49n3av1pmmdaqu1njcbva8m1@4ax.com...

| On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:51:14 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:lke0b3dtbgcrrgop072bls7fp0kvksfifa@4ax.com...

| >| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| >| put finger to keyboard and composed:

| >|

| >| >| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

| >| >| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

| >| >|

| >| >| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

| >| >| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached

to

| >| >| the SiS 7001. :-(

| >| >

| >| > Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

| >| >remove the 7001]?

| >|

| >| The problem is that I don't know whether the chipset is switching

| >| between USB controllers on its own, or whether the driver is doing it.

| >

| > Did you try something like filemon or regmon by sysinternals to observe

| >what was going on?

| > Potential registry settings?

|

| I've started a couple of related threads in other groups.

|

| External 320GB HD / USB 2.0 / DOS / LFN / FAT32:

|

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.msdos.misc/msg/2050739e50b8a233?hl=en&

|

| PCI subdevice and subvendor IDs:

|

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/164ced5a47b020ba?hl=en&

|

| What I've found is that, even when using the USB 2.0 and USB mass

| storage support in BIOS, DOS can see the USB HDD as drive D:, but the

| transfer speeds are still only USB 1.1 (~0.7MB/s).

|

| The same enclosure, HDD, and cables work fine on an XP box with Intel

| chipset. The transfer rate in that case is about 30MB/s. This leads me

| to believe that there is an incompatibility at the hardware level.

|

| I notice that enabling USB support in BIOS causes the drive to appear

| as both drive D: and drive N: in Windows Explorer, if the system is

| booted with the drive attached. Otherwise, if the HDD is attached

| after booting, only drive letter N: appears. Maybe this observation

| will explain some mysterious ghosting issues that appear from time to

| time in this group.

|

| >| Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

| >| screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched it

| >| a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were still

| >| present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

| >| controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

| >

| > So you were apparently using the 1.1 aspect, killed that, BSODed,

restarted

| >the computer, and the 2.0 didn't kick in?

| > Did you do a *Find New Harware* to correct registry, VMM, and other

| >aspects?

|

| No, but I believe the problem may be a hardware one, as described

| above.

|

| <snip>

|

| >| Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

| >| through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

| >

| > I would think its more the attempts in these two hard drive discussions,

to

| >use DOS... makes me question whether its a DOS test or Windows.... if it

is

| >DOS, then your in an entirely OLD world ... really, what do you expect,

| >everything to run properly and fast??? There is a whole other set of

| >limitations and constraints in that area.

|

| I ran the system for several hours in real DOS mode using just the USB

| support provided by the BIOS. There were no stability issues.

|

| In the absence of responses from the other threads, I intend to try

| Panasonic's DOS USB 2.0 EHCI drivers (which are documented to support

| SiS chipsets), 4dos.com (for LFN support), and a Win98SE boot

| diskette. If this doesn't work, then I'll be fairly certain that I'm

| seeing a hardware incompatibility issue.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Okay, so YOU state the barrier in DOS is the restriction to 1.1 USB, keep

that in mind.

Next you purport that there are no stability problems using pure DOS and

this 1.1 aspect.

HOWEVER< when using a DOS box in Windows [which has already loaded a virtual

mode driver for USB, perhaps the wrong one] you are having difficulties.

So what your saying is [correct me if I got this wrong]; that you think you

should be able to use pure BIOS support IN A WINDOWS BOX without having any

residual or conflicting effect from:

1. Using a DOS box in this fashion.

2. Failing to run the batches/scripts without any special settings for

memory, Window aspects, and/or other WHILE attempting to use either the

DOS/BIOS support, or a driver which does not supply the support you need.

3. While using an Orangeware driver which does not support your device, OR

while using a Panasonic driver and an older generic support driver.

And this AFTER:

1. I suggested at least using Visual Basic so you could address virtual

mode, memory, Window aspects, AND of course proper driver/device usage?

2. showing that there was another, apparently better generic support driver

available which MAY provide what you need for full Windows usage,

potentially negating the need for another driver?

Did I get this correct?

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 10, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:26:33 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

> See the bottom, though refer to the entire post, seems there's some sort of

>communication barrier here ...

>

>"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>news:33m7b3d85g49n3av1pmmdaqu1njcbva8m1@4ax.com...

>| On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:51:14 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

>| put finger to keyboard and composed:

>|

>| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>| >news:lke0b3dtbgcrrgop072bls7fp0kvksfifa@4ax.com...

>| >| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

>| >| put finger to keyboard and composed:

>| >|

>| >| >| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS 7001

>| >| >| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

>| >| >|

>| >| >| I have been struggling to get the drive to connect at USB 2.0. No

>| >| >| matter what I do, Usbview always shows that the device is attached

>to

>| >| >| the SiS 7001. :-(

>| >| >

>| >| > Is it possible to disable that 7001 in Device Manager forcing 2.0 [or

>| >| >remove the 7001]?

>| >|

>| >| The problem is that I don't know whether the chipset is switching

>| >| between USB controllers on its own, or whether the driver is doing it.

>| >

>| > Did you try something like filemon or regmon by sysinternals to observe

>| >what was going on?

>| > Potential registry settings?

>|

>| I've started a couple of related threads in other groups.

>|

>| External 320GB HD / USB 2.0 / DOS / LFN / FAT32:

>|

>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.msdos.misc/msg/2050739e50b8a233?hl=en&

>|

>| PCI subdevice and subvendor IDs:

>|

>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/164ced5a47b020ba?hl=en&

>|

>| What I've found is that, even when using the USB 2.0 and USB mass

>| storage support in BIOS, DOS can see the USB HDD as drive D:, but the

>| transfer speeds are still only USB 1.1 (~0.7MB/s).

>|

>| The same enclosure, HDD, and cables work fine on an XP box with Intel

>| chipset. The transfer rate in that case is about 30MB/s. This leads me

>| to believe that there is an incompatibility at the hardware level.

>|

>| I notice that enabling USB support in BIOS causes the drive to appear

>| as both drive D: and drive N: in Windows Explorer, if the system is

>| booted with the drive attached. Otherwise, if the HDD is attached

>| after booting, only drive letter N: appears. Maybe this observation

>| will explain some mysterious ghosting issues that appear from time to

>| time in this group.

>|

>| >| Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

>| >| screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched it

>| >| a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were still

>| >| present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

>| >| controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

>| >

>| > So you were apparently using the 1.1 aspect, killed that, BSODed,

>restarted

>| >the computer, and the 2.0 didn't kick in?

>| > Did you do a *Find New Harware* to correct registry, VMM, and other

>| >aspects?

>|

>| No, but I believe the problem may be a hardware one, as described

>| above.

>|

>| <snip>

>|

>| >| Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

>| >| through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

>| >

>| > I would think its more the attempts in these two hard drive discussions,

>to

>| >use DOS... makes me question whether its a DOS test or Windows.... if it

>is

>| >DOS, then your in an entirely OLD world ... really, what do you expect,

>| >everything to run properly and fast??? There is a whole other set of

>| >limitations and constraints in that area.

>|

>| I ran the system for several hours in real DOS mode using just the USB

>| support provided by the BIOS. There were no stability issues.

>|

>| In the absence of responses from the other threads, I intend to try

>| Panasonic's DOS USB 2.0 EHCI drivers (which are documented to support

>| SiS chipsets), 4dos.com (for LFN support), and a Win98SE boot

>| diskette. If this doesn't work, then I'll be fairly certain that I'm

>| seeing a hardware incompatibility issue.

>|

>| - Franc Zabkar

>| --

>| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

>

> Okay, so YOU state the barrier in DOS is the restriction to 1.1 USB, keep

>that in mind.

>

> Next you purport that there are no stability problems using pure DOS and

>this 1.1 aspect.

>

>HOWEVER< when using a DOS box in Windows [which has already loaded a virtual

>mode driver for USB, perhaps the wrong one] you are having difficulties.

>

> So what your saying is [correct me if I got this wrong]; that you think you

>should be able to use pure BIOS support IN A WINDOWS BOX without having any

>residual or conflicting effect from:

>

>1. Using a DOS box in this fashion.

>

>2. Failing to run the batches/scripts without any special settings for

>memory, Window aspects, and/or other WHILE attempting to use either the

>DOS/BIOS support, or a driver which does not supply the support you need.

>

>3. While using an Orangeware driver which does not support your device, OR

>while using a Panasonic driver and an older generic support driver.

>

> And this AFTER:

>

>1. I suggested at least using Visual Basic so you could address virtual

>mode, memory, Window aspects, AND of course proper driver/device usage?

>

>2. showing that there was another, apparently better generic support driver

>available which MAY provide what you need for full Windows usage,

>potentially negating the need for another driver?

>

> Did I get this correct?

Sorry for the confusion, but I think I'm getting closer to a solution.

Anyway, I *eventually* found a USB 2.0 driver (USBASPI.SYS, version

2.15) that works in DOS. It is available in this archive:

http://panasonic.co.jp/pcc/products/drive/other/driver/f2h_usb.exe

I tried several others, including an earlier version (2.06), but they

would either not see the SiS 700x controllers at all, or would only

detect and install the SiS 7001.

The HD driver that I used is DI1000DD.SYS which is available here:

http://www.stefan2000.com/darkehorse/PC/DOS/Drivers/USB/mhairu.zip

The AMI BIOS has native support for USB 1.1 but not USB 2.0.

To isolate the hanging issue, I used a 2GB flash drive and booted to

DOS using the above drivers. I then wrote about 1.9GB in 4 files at a

speed of 1.2 MB/s. Next I copied the files back to drive C: and

verified them. The read speed was 9.5 MB/s, and the system was stable

throughout.

I then tried to repeat this test with the 320GB HD. I was able to

reliably retrieve several gigabytes of data in more than 2000 files at

a speed of 20.6 MB/s. However, whenever I tried to write a large

amount of data to the external drive, either in a large number of

small files (~3MB), or in a small number of large files (~1GB), the

machine *always* hung. So it looks like the random hanging in Windows

is not an Explorer issue, but most likely a hardware one, especially

since it also happens on my socket 7 box. Both boxes use SiS 7001 OHCI

controllers.

My next step is to thrash this HD on my friend's XP/Intel PC by

filling it full of data. Depending on the outcome, I'll next hook up

the drive to my IDE port and run Seagate's diagnostics through it.

During my testing I discovered that the 2GB flash drive is detected by

the BIOS as an external floppy drive and subsequently by DOS as drive

B:. However, the way its file structure is seen by DOS depends on how

it is partitioned and/or formatted.

If I enable USB legacy mouse/keyboard/floppy support, and if the flash

drive has no partition, only a boot sector, then it is detected as a

floppy drive. In this case it takes drive letter B:, but only in real

DOS. A directory listing produces sensible output.

In Windows Explorer the flash drive is detected as a HD and is

assigned the next available drive letter, eg D:. However, drive B: is

not listed. If I now drop back into a Windows DOS box and attempt to

access drive B: (eg dir b:), then the machine locks up and requires a

reboot.

Alternatively, if the flash drive is partitioned with Fdisk, then DOS

outputs gibberish in response to dir b:. I suspect this is because DOS

tries to interpret the MBR as a boot sector and then has trouble

finding the root directory.

FWIW, I found this thread which mentions the chip in my USB enclosure

(JMicron, JM20337):

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=143880

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 10, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:p9vnb3l1ucqasfm9ejr3575uvogffbbuin@4ax.com...

| On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 00:26:33 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:33m7b3d85g49n3av1pmmdaqu1njcbva8m1@4ax.com...

| >| On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:51:14 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| >| put finger to keyboard and composed:

| >| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >| >news:lke0b3dtbgcrrgop072bls7fp0kvksfifa@4ax.com...

| >| >| On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:37:07 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| >| >| put finger to keyboard and composed:

| >| >|

| >| >| >| The SiS 7001 / 7002 controllers are on the motherboard. The SiS

7001

| >| >| >| is the 1.1 controller, and the SiS 7002 is 2.0.

| >| >| >|

[deleted material]

| >| What I've found is that, even when using the USB 2.0 and USB mass

| >| storage support in BIOS, DOS can see the USB HDD as drive D:, but the

| >| transfer speeds are still only USB 1.1 (~0.7MB/s).

| >|

| >| The same enclosure, HDD, and cables work fine on an XP box with Intel

| >| chipset. The transfer rate in that case is about 30MB/s. This leads me

| >| to believe that there is an incompatibility at the hardware level.

| >|

| >| I notice that enabling USB support in BIOS causes the drive to appear

| >| as both drive D: and drive N: in Windows Explorer, if the system is

| >| booted with the drive attached. Otherwise, if the HDD is attached

| >| after booting, only drive letter N: appears. Maybe this observation

| >| will explain some mysterious ghosting issues that appear from time to

| >| time in this group.

| >|

| >| >| Anyway, I disabled both USB 1.1 controllers in DM and got a blue

| >| >| screen error (openhci.sys) when I launched usbview.exe. I launched

it

| >| >| a second time and this time I saw that the SiS 7001 entries were

still

| >| >| present but there were no data associated with them. The USB 2.0

| >| >| controller showed up as usual but the HD was not attached to it.

| >| <snip>

| >|

| >| >| Incidentally there were no hangs while I was playing these files

| >| >| through my DVD. Maybe it's a write issue.

| >| >

| >| > I would think its more the attempts in these two hard drive

discussions,

| >to

| >| >use DOS... makes me question whether its a DOS test or Windows.... if

it

| >is

| >| >DOS, then your in an entirely OLD world ... really, what do you

expect,

| >| >everything to run properly and fast??? There is a whole other set of

| >| >limitations and constraints in that area.

| >|

| >| I ran the system for several hours in real DOS mode using just the USB

| >| support provided by the BIOS. There were no stability issues.

| >|

| >| In the absence of responses from the other threads, I intend to try

| >| Panasonic's DOS USB 2.0 EHCI drivers (which are documented to support

| >| SiS chipsets), 4dos.com (for LFN support), and a Win98SE boot

| >| diskette. If this doesn't work, then I'll be fairly certain that I'm

| >| seeing a hardware incompatibility issue.

| >|

| >| - Franc Zabkar

| >| --

| >| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

| >

[deleted questions now clarified, at least for DOS aspects, WINDOWS issues

still in limbo]

|

| Sorry for the confusion, but I think I'm getting closer to a solution.

Ah, so you were concerned with DOS aspects.. boy you ARE a die hard DOS guy

....

|

| Anyway, I *eventually* found a USB 2.0 driver (USBASPI.SYS, version

| 2.15) that works in DOS. It is available in this archive:

|

| http://panasonic.co.jp/pcc/products/drive/other/driver/f2h_usb.exe

I had tried an older Panasonic driver, with various success... I will

download this one JUST IN CASE..

|

| I tried several others, including an earlier version (2.06), but they

| would either not see the SiS 700x controllers at all, or would only

| detect and install the SiS 7001.

Leaving just 1.1, gotcha..

|

| The HD driver that I used is DI1000DD.SYS which is available here:

|

| http://www.stefan2000.com/darkehorse/PC/DOS/Drivers/USB/mhairu.zip

|

| The AMI BIOS has native support for USB 1.1 but not USB 2.0.

So it was the *BIOS* that was limiting to 1.1, okay

|

| To isolate the hanging issue, I used a 2GB flash drive and booted to

| DOS using the above drivers. I then wrote about 1.9GB in 4 files at a

| speed of 1.2 MB/s. Next I copied the files back to drive C: and

| verified them. The read speed was 9.5 MB/s, and the system was stable

| throughout.

Respectable speed

|

| I then tried to repeat this test with the 320GB HD. I was able to

| reliably retrieve several gigabytes of data in more than 2000 files at

| a speed of 20.6 MB/s. However, whenever I tried to write a large

| amount of data to the external drive, either in a large number of

| small files (~3MB), or in a small number of large files (~1GB), the

| machine *always* hung. So it looks like the random hanging in Windows

| is not an Explorer issue, but most likely a hardware one, especially

| since it also happens on my socket 7 box. Both boxes use SiS 7001 OHCI

| controllers.

Soooo, it does look like the SIS 7001 MAY be the culprit

|

| My next step is to thrash this HD on my friend's XP/Intel PC by

| filling it full of data. Depending on the outcome, I'll next hook up

| the drive to my IDE port and run Seagate's diagnostics through it.

AH, not those old diag tools we discussed in other hard drive discussions

before, I hope, kinda pushing that doncha think..

Are you going to look at the disk [first few tracks] for XP residuals?

|

| During my testing I discovered that the 2GB flash drive is detected by

| the BIOS as an external floppy drive and subsequently by DOS as drive

| B:. However, the way its file structure is seen by DOS depends on how

| it is partitioned and/or formatted.

|

| If I enable USB legacy mouse/keyboard/floppy support, and if the flash

| drive has no partition, only a boot sector, then it is detected as a

| floppy drive. In this case it takes drive letter B:, but only in real

| DOS. A directory listing produces sensible output.

Uhm, okay, so was the Panasonic driver loaded?

|

| In Windows Explorer the flash drive is detected as a HD and is

| assigned the next available drive letter, eg D:. However, drive B: is

| not listed. If I now drop back into a Windows DOS box and attempt to

| access drive B: (eg dir b:), then the machine locks up and requires a

| reboot.

Seems you've located another conflict/limitation between BIOS and OS. The

drive can not be BOTH a floppy AND a hard drive, with different assignments

[drive, memory, etc.]...

|

| Alternatively, if the flash drive is partitioned with FDisk, then DOS

| outputs gibberish in response to dir b:. I suspect this is because DOS

| tries to interpret the MBR as a boot sector and then has trouble

| finding the root directory.

Might it be a fat12 vs fat16 issue?

Most articles describe the format on flash drives as fat16 [1 and 2 gig

flash], so would it be that when a DOS box [is that what you used?] or pure

DOS/command prompt FDisk attempts to write fat12 data/mbr [bIOS routines

used - seen as floppy] which does not support 2 gig, using the Panasonic

driver you found, in the process? [scratches head, huh, how the heck would

it do that,,, fdisk doesn't work on floppy drives,,, but .... between the

BIOS and the various drivers ???]

OR tries to write mbr preparing for fat32 which seems to mess up some flash

drives? {Obviously after formatting either would be noticeable.}

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/index.html

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#MBR

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/95BMEMBR.htm - fat32 MBR

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/STDMBR.htm - standard/old MBR

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/WIN98FDB.htm - 98 floppy FDBR

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/DOS50FDB.htm - DOS 5.00 FDBR

http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#PT - partition tables

It would be interesting to see what it looked like with a disk/hex editor

after the attempts...

|

| FWIW, I found this thread which mentions the chip in my USB enclosure

| (JMicron, JM20337):

| http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=143880

Good, I'll look to see what's what....

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 11, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:29:04 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

put finger to keyboard and composed:

>"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

>news:p9vnb3l1ucqasfm9ejr3575uvogffbbuin@4ax.com...

> Ah, so you were concerned with DOS aspects.. boy you ARE a die hard DOS guy

>...

I really had no alternative. The Windows Orangeware drivers were

crippled, and I was experiencing hangs which appeared to be related to

Explorer. Dropping back to DOS reduced the number of variables.

The added benefit is that I now have a method of backing up a damaged

file system without opening up the box.

>|

>| Anyway, I *eventually* found a USB 2.0 driver (USBASPI.SYS, version

>| 2.15) that works in DOS. It is available in this archive:

>|

>| http://panasonic.co.jp/pcc/products/drive/other/driver/f2h_usb.exe

>

> I had tried an older Panasonic driver, with various success... I will

>download this one JUST IN CASE..

The 2.06 driver displays much more verbose connection information,

such as which device is connected to which controller. From that

standpoint it may be a better troubleshooting tool.

>| I tried several others, including an earlier version (2.06), but they

>| would either not see the SiS 700x controllers at all, or would only

>| detect and install the SiS 7001.

>

> Leaving just 1.1, gotcha..

>

>|

>| The HD driver that I used is DI1000DD.SYS which is available here:

>|

>| http://www.stefan2000.com/darkehorse/PC/DOS/Drivers/USB/mhairu.zip

>|

>| The AMI BIOS has native support for USB 1.1 but not USB 2.0.

>

> So it was the *BIOS* that was limiting to 1.1, okay

Yes, but you wouldn't expect this when you consider that there is an

entry in the BIOS setup which explicitly enables or disables USB 2.0

support. I now believe that this setting merely enables or disables

the SiS 7002 controller. It doesn't appear to enable or disable any

USB 2.0 *code*.

>| To isolate the hanging issue, I used a 2GB flash drive and booted to

>| DOS using the above drivers. I then wrote about 1.9GB in 4 files at a

>| speed of 1.2 MB/s. Next I copied the files back to drive C: and

>| verified them. The read speed was 9.5 MB/s, and the system was stable

>| throughout.

>

> Respectable speed

>

>|

>| I then tried to repeat this test with the 320GB HD. I was able to

>| reliably retrieve several gigabytes of data in more than 2000 files at

>| a speed of 20.6 MB/s. However, whenever I tried to write a large

>| amount of data to the external drive, either in a large number of

>| small files (~3MB), or in a small number of large files (~1GB), the

>| machine *always* hung. So it looks like the random hanging in Windows

>| is not an Explorer issue, but most likely a hardware one, especially

>| since it also happens on my socket 7 box. Both boxes use SiS 7001 OHCI

>| controllers.

>

> Soooo, it does look like the SIS 7001 MAY be the culprit

I now suspect that neither the SiS 7001 or 7002 controllers are

compatible with the JM20337 chip in the external box. For a while,

though, I thought that there may have been a gremlin in the BIOS.

I say this because version 2.06 of the Panasonic USBASPI driver would

produce this message (annotations added):

Device

| Function

Bus | |

| | |

Controller : 00-03-0 VID=1039h PID=7001h (1019h-1808h) OHCI

: MEM=CFFFD000h-CFFFDFFFh(4KBytes)

Controller : 00-03-1 VID=1039h PID=7001h (1019h-1808h) OHCI

: MEM=CFFFE000h-CFFFEFFFh(4KBytes)

ERROR : EHCI memory mapped I/O can not be assigned.

My suspicions were compounded when I actually dumped the ESCD table in

the flash BIOS chip (using Uniflash). I say this because there were no

references to an SiS 7001 device, only three instances of the SiS 7002

at bus 0, device 3, and functions 0,1,2. But this turned out to be a

red herring. To make matters worse, the Phoenix utility that I used

for my analysis

(http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/BIOSutil/Phoenix/nvram120.exe) had a

bug which parsed one of the devices (PCI bridge) incorrectly, and this

had me questioning the validity of the results until I confirmed them

with Uniflash.

>| My next step is to thrash this HD on my friend's XP/Intel PC by

>| filling it full of data. Depending on the outcome, I'll next hook up

>| the drive to my IDE port and run Seagate's diagnostics through it.

>

> AH, not those old diag tools we discussed in other hard drive discussions

>before, I hope, kinda pushing that doncha think..

Last night I wrote 300 1GB files to the drive from within a CMD window

on an Intel/XP box. The write speed was about 21MB/s and there were no

problems. A surface scan found no bad sectors.

> Are you going to look at the disk [first few tracks] for XP residuals?

See end of post.

>| During my testing I discovered that the 2GB flash drive is detected by

>| the BIOS as an external floppy drive and subsequently by DOS as drive

>| B:. However, the way its file structure is seen by DOS depends on how

>| it is partitioned and/or formatted.

>|

>| If I enable USB legacy mouse/keyboard/floppy support, and if the flash

>| drive has no partition, only a boot sector, then it is detected as a

>| floppy drive. In this case it takes drive letter B:, but only in real

>| DOS. A directory listing produces sensible output.

>

> Uhm, okay, so was the Panasonic driver loaded?

No, just plain DOS.

>| In Windows Explorer the flash drive is detected as a HD and is

>| assigned the next available drive letter, eg D:. However, drive B: is

>| not listed. If I now drop back into a Windows DOS box and attempt to

>| access drive B: (eg dir b:), then the machine locks up and requires a

>| reboot.

>

> Seems you've located another conflict/limitation between BIOS and OS. The

>drive can not be BOTH a floppy AND a hard drive, with different assignments

>[drive, memory, etc.]...

>| Alternatively, if the flash drive is partitioned with FDisk, then DOS

>| outputs gibberish in response to dir b:. I suspect this is because DOS

>| tries to interpret the MBR as a boot sector and then has trouble

>| finding the root directory.

>

> Might it be a fat12 vs fat16 issue?

The flash drive was originally formatted to look like a 2GB FAT16

floppy diskette. By that I mean that there was no partition, only a

boot sector.

boot sector | FAT #1 | FAT #2 | Root | File

FAT 16 | | | directory | area

The flash drive has now been partitioned and formatted as a FAT32 HD.

MBR | | Boot | FAT#1 | FAT#2 | Root | File

In both cases the media descriptor byte is/was F8 (= hard disc)

whereas a real floppy diskette has a media descriptor of F0 (= unknown

media type) and a FAT12 file system.

I think what is happening is this. DOS thinks that the flash drive is

a floppy (because the BIOS says so), which causes it to misinterpret

the MBR code as a boot sector. DOS then uses the "boot sector" data to

locate what it thinks is the root directory, but instead ends up in

some strange part of the disk.

> Most articles describe the format on flash drives as fat16 [1 and 2 gig

>flash], so would it be that when a DOS box [is that what you used?] or pure

>DOS/command prompt FDisk attempts to write fat12 data/mbr [bIOS routines

>used - seen as floppy] which does not support 2 gig, using the Panasonic

>driver you found, in the process? [scratches head, huh, how the heck would

>it do that,,, fdisk doesn't work on floppy drives,,, but .... between the

>BIOS and the various drivers ???]

See above.

> OR tries to write mbr preparing for fat32 which seems to mess up some flash

>drives? {Obviously after formatting either would be noticeable.}

>

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/index.html

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#MBR

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/95BMEMBR.htm - fat32 MBR

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/STDMBR.htm - standard/old MBR

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/WIN98FDB.htm - 98 floppy FDBR

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/DOS50FDB.htm - DOS 5.00 FDBR

>http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#PT - partition tables

>

> It would be interesting to see what it looked like with a disk/hex editor

>after the attempts...

See http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/

2GB flash drive boot sector (FAT16):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_BOO_FAT16.BIN

2GB flash drive MBR text dump (FAT32):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR.txt

2GB flash drive MBR binary image (FAT32):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR_FAT32.bin

2GB flash drive track 0 binary image (FAT32):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_TRK0.bin

The above image contains the remnants of the original FAT16 FAT

tables. I used "fdisk /actok" to turn off integrity checking,

otherwise the sectors would normally be filled with zeroes (I think).

13GB hard disc track 0 (Paragon Boot Manager):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/13GB_HD_TRK0.bin

6GB hard disc track 0 (EZ-Drive HD overlay):

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/6GB_HD_TRK0.bin

320GB hard disc MBR and track 0:

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_MBR.BIN

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_MBR.txt

http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_TRK0.bin

The above images were taken after the 320GB drive had been attached to

the XP machine. The root directory contains a Recycled folder and a

System Volume Information folder. And yes, it *is* annoying.

- Franc Zabkar

--

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

August 11, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:fvfqb3ljddidpvlaah756828emvbc62k36@4ax.com...

| On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:29:04 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:p9vnb3l1ucqasfm9ejr3575uvogffbbuin@4ax.com...

[deleted materials]

| > OR tries to write mbr preparing for fat32 which seems to mess up some

flash

| >drives? {Obviously after formatting either would be noticeable.}

| >

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/index.html

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/95BMEMBR.htm - fat32 MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/STDMBR.htm - standard/old MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/WIN98FDB.htm - 98 floppy FDBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/DOS50FDB.htm - DOS 5.00 FDBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#PT - partition tables

| >

| > It would be interesting to see what it looked like with a disk/hex

editor

| >after the attempts...

|

| See http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/

|

| 2GB flash drive boot sector (FAT16):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_BOO_FAT16.BIN

|

| 2GB flash drive MBR text dump (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR.txt

|

| 2GB flash drive MBR binary image (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR_FAT32.bin

|

| 2GB flash drive track 0 binary image (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_TRK0.bin

|

| The above image contains the remnants of the original FAT16 FAT

| tables. I used "fdisk /actok" to turn off integrity checking,

| otherwise the sectors would normally be filled with zeroes (I think).

|

| 13GB hard disc track 0 (Paragon Boot Manager):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/13GB_HD_TRK0.bin

|

| 6GB hard disc track 0 (EZ-Drive HD overlay):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/6GB_HD_TRK0.bin

|

| 320GB hard disc MBR and track 0:

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_MBR.BIN

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_MBR.txt

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_TRK0.bin

|

| The above images were taken after the 320GB drive had been attached to

| the XP machine. The root directory contains a Recycled folder and a

| System Volume Information folder. And yes, it *is* annoying.

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Thanks Franc, still looking at those files .... got some really

interesting/strange inclusions [using WinHex to view]will respond when done

....

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

August 12, 2007

Re: Scandisk and external 320GB USB HD

I have included some code, make sure its cut from all responses [dang near

like alt.binaries or something]:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:fvfqb3ljddidpvlaah756828emvbc62k36@4ax.com...

| On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:29:04 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| >news:p9vnb3l1ucqasfm9ejr3575uvogffbbuin@4ax.com...

|

| > Ah, so you were concerned with DOS aspects.. boy you ARE a die hard DOS

guy

| >...

|

| I really had no alternative. The Windows Orangeware drivers were

| crippled, and I was experiencing hangs which appeared to be related to

| Explorer. Dropping back to DOS reduced the number of variables.

|

| The added benefit is that I now have a method of backing up a damaged

| file system without opening up the box.

Good point of course. Though I'm not sure your going to be doing much DOS

activity on that disk .. [hopefully]

|

| >|

| >| Anyway, I *eventually* found a USB 2.0 driver (USBASPI.SYS, version

| >| 2.15) that works in DOS. It is available in this archive:

| >|

| >| http://panasonic.co.jp/pcc/products/drive/other/driver/f2h_usb.exe

| >

| > I had tried an older Panasonic driver, with various success... I will

| >download this one JUST IN CASE..

|

| The 2.06 driver displays much more verbose connection information,

| such as which device is connected to which controller. From that

| standpoint it may be a better troubleshooting tool.

Sounds like it.

|

| >| I tried several others, including an earlier version (2.06), but they

| >| would either not see the SiS 700x controllers at all, or would only

| >| detect and install the SiS 7001.

| >

| > Leaving just 1.1, gotcha..

| >

| >|

| >| The HD driver that I used is DI1000DD.SYS which is available here:

| >|

| >| http://www.stefan2000.com/darkehorse/PC/DOS/Drivers/USB/mhairu.zip

| >|

| >| The AMI BIOS has native support for USB 1.1 but not USB 2.0.

| >

| > So it was the *BIOS* that was limiting to 1.1, okay

|

| Yes, but you wouldn't expect this when you consider that there is an

| entry in the BIOS setup which explicitly enables or disables USB 2.0

| support. I now believe that this setting merely enables or disables

| the SiS 7002 controller. It doesn't appear to enable or disable any

| USB 2.0 *code*.

Apparently not... so any access WITHOUT a driver would be limited to the

7001 / USB 1.1

|

| >| To isolate the hanging issue, I used a 2GB flash drive and booted to

| >| DOS using the above drivers. I then wrote about 1.9GB in 4 files at a

| >| speed of 1.2 MB/s. Next I copied the files back to drive C: and

| >| verified them. The read speed was 9.5 MB/s, and the system was stable

| >| throughout.

| >

| > Respectable speed

| >

| >|

| >| I then tried to repeat this test with the 320GB HD. I was able to

| >| reliably retrieve several gigabytes of data in more than 2000 files at

| >| a speed of 20.6 MB/s. However, whenever I tried to write a large

| >| amount of data to the external drive, either in a large number of

| >| small files (~3MB), or in a small number of large files (~1GB), the

| >| machine *always* hung. So it looks like the random hanging in Windows

| >| is not an Explorer issue, but most likely a hardware one, especially

| >| since it also happens on my socket 7 box. Both boxes use SiS 7001 OHCI

| >| controllers.

| >

| > Soooo, it does look like the SIS 7001 MAY be the culprit

|

| I now suspect that neither the SiS 7001 or 7002 controllers are

| compatible with the JM20337 chip in the external box. For a while,

| though, I thought that there may have been a gremlin in the BIOS.

|

| I say this because version 2.06 of the Panasonic USBASPI driver would

| produce this message (annotations added):

|

| Device

| | Function

| Bus | |

| | | |

| Controller : 00-03-0 VID=1039h PID=7001h (1019h-1808h) OHCI

| : MEM=CFFFD000h-CFFFDFFFh(4KBytes)

|

| Controller : 00-03-1 VID=1039h PID=7001h (1019h-1808h) OHCI

| : MEM=CFFFE000h-CFFFEFFFh(4KBytes)

|

| ERROR : EHCI memory mapped I/O can not be assigned.

Opps, that looks like something is already mapped.., like Video maybe ...

no commandline options to assign elsewhere?

|

| My suspicions were compounded when I actually dumped the ESCD table in

| the flash BIOS chip (using Uniflash). I say this because there were no

| references to an SiS 7001 device, only three instances of the SiS 7002

| at bus 0, device 3, and functions 0,1,2. But this turned out to be a

| red herring. To make matters worse, the Phoenix utility that I used

| for my analysis

| (http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/BIOSutil/Phoenix/nvram120.exe) had a

| bug which parsed one of the devices (PCI bridge) incorrectly, and this

| had me questioning the validity of the results until I confirmed them

| with Uniflash.

Okay, private comm or can you post it?

|

| >| My next step is to thrash this HD on my friend's XP/Intel PC by

| >| filling it full of data. Depending on the outcome, I'll next hook up

| >| the drive to my IDE port and run Seagate's diagnostics through it.

| >

| > AH, not those old diag tools we discussed in other hard drive

discussions

| >before, I hope, kinda pushing that doncha think..

|

| Last night I wrote 300 1GB files to the drive from within a CMD window

| on an Intel/XP box. The write speed was about 21MB/s and there were no

| problems. A surface scan found no bad sectors.

Did you expect any? Why, XP has generic support... and should have been

patched to handle almost anything you wanted to do. .

Its 98 that your interested in or supposedly testing,, so are you going to

use the upgraded Maximus Decim drivers or what?

|

| > Are you going to look at the disk [first few tracks] for XP residuals?

|

| See end of post.

|

| >| During my testing I discovered that the 2GB flash drive is detected by

| >| the BIOS as an external floppy drive and subsequently by DOS as drive

| >| B:. However, the way its file structure is seen by DOS depends on how

| >| it is partitioned and/or formatted.

| >|

| >| If I enable USB legacy mouse/keyboard/floppy support, and if the flash

| >| drive has no partition, only a boot sector, then it is detected as a

| >| floppy drive. In this case it takes drive letter B:, but only in real

| >| DOS. A directory listing produces sensible output.

| >

| > Uhm, okay, so was the Panasonic driver loaded?

|

| No, just plain DOS.

|

| >| In Windows Explorer the flash drive is detected as a HD and is

| >| assigned the next available drive letter, eg D:. However, drive B: is

| >| not listed. If I now drop back into a Windows DOS box and attempt to

| >| access drive B: (eg dir b:), then the machine locks up and requires a

| >| reboot.

| >

| > Seems you've located another conflict/limitation between BIOS and OS.

The

| >drive can not be BOTH a floppy AND a hard drive, with different

assignments

| >[drive, memory, etc.]...

|

| >| Alternatively, if the flash drive is partitioned with FDisk, then DOS

| >| outputs gibberish in response to dir b:. I suspect this is because DOS

| >| tries to interpret the MBR as a boot sector and then has trouble

| >| finding the root directory.

| >

| > Might it be a fat12 vs fat16 issue?

|

| The flash drive was originally formatted to look like a 2GB FAT16

| floppy diskette. By that I mean that there was no partition, only a

| boot sector.

|

|

| The flash drive has now been partitioned and formatted as a FAT32 HD.

|

| MBR | | Boot | FAT#1 | FAT#2 | Root | File

|

| In both cases the media descriptor byte is/was F8 (= hard disc)

| whereas a real floppy diskette has a media descriptor of F0 (= unknown

| media type) and a FAT12 file system.

|

| I think what is happening is this. DOS thinks that the flash drive is

| a floppy (because the BIOS says so), which causes it to misinterpret

| the MBR code as a boot sector. DOS then uses the "boot sector" data to

| locate what it thinks is the root directory, but instead ends up in

| some strange part of the disk.

|

| > Most articles describe the format on flash drives as fat16 [1 and 2 gig

| >flash], so would it be that when a DOS box [is that what you used?] or

pure

| >DOS/command prompt FDisk attempts to write fat12 data/mbr [bIOS routines

| >used - seen as floppy] which does not support 2 gig, using the Panasonic

| >driver you found, in the process? [scratches head, huh, how the heck

would

| >it do that,,, fdisk doesn't work on floppy drives,,, but .... between the

| >BIOS and the various drivers ???]

|

| See above.

|

| > OR tries to write mbr preparing for fat32 which seems to mess up some

flash

| >drives? {Obviously after formatting either would be noticeable.}

| >

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/index.html

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/95BMEMBR.htm - fat32 MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/STDMBR.htm - standard/old MBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/WIN98FDB.htm - 98 floppy FDBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/DOS50FDB.htm - DOS 5.00 FDBR

| >http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html#PT - partition tables

| >

| > It would be interesting to see what it looked like with a disk/hex

editor

| >after the attempts...

|

| See http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/

|

| 2GB flash drive boot sector (FAT16):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_BOO_FAT16.BIN

So this was what, the original? [bTW: this is the first flash I have looked

at. If this is the original/factory I will make a specific template, and

save for future recovery.] What flash stick maker?

I see the BS[bPB]:

OEM - ,\}2#IHC; *Flash Fat 16* reference; *2GB_FLASH* volume label; Ext.

boot signature (29h) - 29; File system - Fat 16;

Sectors over 32MB - 3963904; heads 255, sectors per fat - 242, etc., and,

BIOS drive (hex, HD=8x) - 80; Media descriptor (hex) - F8

|

| 2GB flash drive MBR text dump (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR.txt

|

| 2GB flash drive MBR binary image (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_MBR_FAT32.bin

Partition type OB, sectors in part1 3935862

Master Bootstrap loader code [in case anyone was wondering] -

<CODE>

33 C0 8E D0 BC 20 7C FB 50 07 50 1F FC BE 1B 7C BF 1B 06 50 57 B9 E5 01 F3

A4 CB BE BE 07 B1 04 38 2C 7C 09 75 15 83 C6 10 E2 F5 CD 18 8B 14 8B EE 83

C6 10 49 74 16 38 2C 74 F6 BE 10 07 4E AC 3C 20 74 FA BB 07 20 B4 0E CD 10

EB F2 89 46 25 96 8A 46 04 B4 06 3C 0E 74 11 B4 0B 3C 0C 74 05 3A C4 75 2B

40 C6 46 25 06 75 24 BB AA 55 50 B4 41 CD 13 58 72 16 81 FB 55 AA 75 10 F6

C1 01 74 0B 8A E0 88 56 24 C7 06 A1 06 EB 1E 88 66 04 BF 0A 20 B8 01 02 8B

DC 33 C9 83 FF 05 7F 03 8B 4E 25 03 4E 02 CD 13 72 29 BE 46 07 81 3E FE 7D

55 AA 74 5A 83 EF 05 7F DA 85 F6 75 83 BE 27 07 EB 8A 98 91 52 99 03 46 08

13 56 0A E8 12 20 5A EB D5 4F 74 E4 33 C0 CD 13 EB B8 20 20 20 20 20 20 56

33 F6 56 56 52 50 06 53 51 BE 10 20 56 8B F4 50 52 B8 20 42 8A 56 24 CD 13

5A 58 8D 64 10 72 0A 40 75 01 42 80 C7 02 E2 F7 F8 5E C3 EB 74 49 6E 76 61

6C 69 64 20 70 61 72 74 69 74 69 6F 6E 20 74 61 62 6C 65 20 45 72 72 6F 72

20 6C 6F 61 64 69 6E 67 20 6F 70 65 72 61 74 69 6E 67 20 73 79 73 74 65 6D

20 4D 69 73 73 69 6E 67 20 6F 70 65 72 61 74 69 6E 67 20 73 79 73 74 65 6D

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 8B FC 1E 57 8B F5 CB 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

</CODE>

|

| 2GB flash drive track 0 binary image (FAT32):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/2GB_F_TRK0.bin

OB partition -

Did you notice the hex 00 through hex 3E [64 PER except for the 3E], track

2 must have continued ...

F8 FF FF FF B5 5C 04 00

<CODE>øÿÿÿµ\� </CODE>

FD 3D FE 3D FF 3D 00 3E

|

| The above image contains the remnants of the original FAT16 FAT

| tables. I used "fdisk /actok" to turn off integrity checking,

| otherwise the sectors would normally be filled with zeroes (I think).

Huh...

|

| 13GB hard disc track 0 (Paragon Boot Manager):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/13GB_HD_TRK0.bin

|

| 6GB hard disc track 0 (EZ-Drive HD overlay):

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/6GB_HD_TRK0.bin

|

| 320GB hard disc MBR and track 0:

| http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/USB_HD/320GB_MBR.BIN

Uhm, was this AFTER installing in XP; or after formatting in XP?

Standard 32 template applied is screwed, NT template applied results in

this:

Shows an 0C partition type; signature forward/reversed {6C364832 - 3248366C

= NT specific}; sectors in partition - 625137282; and,

Master bootstrap loader code [again in case anyone was wondering or wishes

to compare]: