[striver]

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Gary,

I do appreciate your suggestion for the external case, and I will give it some consideration.

I suppose I actually completed a parallel W98 install, then. I do remember something being mentioned about the C:\Windows.000 folder. I thought I had installed to the C:\Windows folder. Apparently not. I’ll try the fix you’ve supplied.

I do need to know specifically what file(s) I can safely delete from the old/original W98 installation. I had a hunch I did something other than an over-the-top reinstallation because of all the disk space that was used with, well, the parallel installation.

Just to check if my floppy was registering with Norton DiskDoctor as a 1.44, I once again navigated to its screen. It’s still listed as a 2.88 MB drive. The BIOS lists it as a 1.44. Additionally, the BIOS floppy drive is not selectable. In other words, I am able to arrow up and down on the screen, but the floppy drive is passed over.

Somewhere I thought I read that W98 has some sort of limitation concerning the capacity of the hard drive that it can fully utilize. In other words, I wouldn’t want to replace my existing hard drive with, perhaps, a 160 GB drive when W98 may only be able to recognize and completely use, say, only 100 GBs of that drive. Is this limitation true? If so, what exactly is the size limitation that W98 can handle? I am thinking there may possibly also be some sort of a BIOS limitation to be concerned about?

striver

 

[OldGrayGary]

Hi again striver

It's easy enough to check & see if you've installed Windows 98 into a Windows.000 folder = it would show up in Windows Explorer. You'd have two folders, one with your old information and files - named C:\Windows - and one named C:\Windows.000 with your new information in it. Hal's procedure to fix the situation basically returns the computer to a situation similiar to what it was in before you started the first try at the over-the-top ---> at that point, you simply run another over-the-top, this time making sure to install to C:\Windows and not to C:\Windows.000.

Alternatively, you can keep your C:\Windows.000 that you have now & reinstall things (like Office) - look at little farther down in that thread, Hal's reply to LawyerRon describes just that. (There's a fair amount of renaming things in that procedure).
______________

Most Windows 98 computers can recognize a 40gb-60gb drive, which is probably as big as you'll want to go on that system (since you don't want to spend too much money on it -- other parts are due to fail eventually, and a replacement laptop will come with it's own new hard drive. If you are unlucky enough that the system doesn't recognize a bigger hard drive, a Bios update might be available that would fix that. Or you could use the special tools from the hard drive manufacturer's installation CD to install a "drive overlay" program that would also solve the problem.

There's a little awkwardness in Win98/98se's version of fdisk with drives over 64gb = while partititioning, it will misreport the drive's size. If you create just one partition, however, and tell it to use 100% of the drive, it will partition the drive just fine (it just misreports the size). The workaround for this awkwardness is to use a WinMe version of fdisk, which is newer, and doesn't have the problem. WinMe diskettes are available from bootdisk.com

No other barriers to worry about until you reach 127gb-or-137gb = I don't think you'll be buying anything that large for Windows 98 anyway. It's really more trouble that it's worth to use such hard drives with 98, though it can be done. If you want to read up on that, here are a couple of articles on those two barriers ---

The 127gb barrier is related to the FAT32 file system, the one native to Windows 98 ---
"The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB)." Note that Windows 98 & FAT32 can address hard drives theoretically up to 8 terabytes in size, it's just that the hard disk tools in Windows 98 don't work with these.

The 137gb limitation has to do with hard drive controller limitations (and limitations of early Windows versions, too) - 48bit LBA is necessary to overcome this particular hurdle --- http://www.48bitlba.com/win98.htm

And for a complete discussion of every hard drive limitation that you can imagine, see the lengthy - but very informative - article over at DEW Associates' webpage --- http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm
_______

It won't hurt to try a new drive in the Inspiron: you can always use it in an external case a few years from now, when the Inspiron finally comes to the finish line in its race against extinction.

Enjoy your project!
. . . Gary

 

[striver]

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Gary,

One thing that has perplexed me lately is how I would check my BIOS’s hard drive capacity. Then again, I suppose I’ll be safe if I stay under the 64gb limitation. It’s just that the GBs get cheaper in bulk. Know what I mean? And we all know we can never have enough storage space.

striver

 

[OldGrayGary]

Hi striver

Some vendors publish notes with their Bios updates that tell what capabilities the update adds. Unfortunately, I didn't see any such notes for the Bios updates for your model (there's only one update, in fact, from March 2000). The update v.1.0, A15 from March 2000 seems like it would be recent enough that you'd be OK up to 80gb or 120gb (you'd have to partition the drive with a WinMe version of fdisk, though). You may have that version of the Bios already in your system --- that info would appear either very briefly in a tiny banner at system startup, or you could enter Bios Setup & view the Bios version info in there.

Sometimes you just don't know without a manual that lists the capacities, or with Bios notes that give helpful information, until you plug a drive in and see what happens. Not the most wonderful situation, it's true.

If you went with a 40gb or 60gb notebook drive, you'd have no trouble at all - and the prices for these have been dropping. If you do value the extra room, I imagine with a little shopping (and maybe doing the rebate dance) you could grab a 60gb notebook drive on sale at a local store for about the same price as the 40gb drive I mentioned earlier -- between $50 and $60 (USD).

I wouldn't spend too much on the notebook - you can start saving for it's replacement a few years from now.

Or buy an new one, and have two notebooks to enjoy!
. . . Gary

 

[striver]

Monday, February 26, 2007

Gary,

I’ve been learning a little about external hard drive enclosures, and I’ve come to appreciate the Venus line from AMS electronics. I also learned the Venus DS-2316CBK supports a 3.5” form factor. For maximum air flow, I really prefer the 80mm cooling fan. I think you can understand my concern, though. I would be using it with the 2.5” form factor of my notebook hard drive. I’m wondering how I would adapt it for use with a 2.5”?

striver

 

[OldGrayGary]

Hi striver

You're probably better off with an inexpensive enclosure made for 2.5" drives (or getting an enclosure that fits all types, and comes with all the adapters/connections necessary). The adapter for 2.5" to 3.5" IDE cabling
is about $7 (+ $5 shipping) if you order it online --- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...egory=353&Description=2.5+3.5+adapter&Ntk=all --- that's just about the same price as the 2.5" external enclosures. If you have a nearby store that sells computer parts, I've seen these little adapters for as little as $3.50 [but I'm not sure that there'd be enough space inside your 3.5" enclosure to use the adapter -- without leaving the enclosure slightly open somehow].

The 2.5 hard drives don't usually have as much problem with heat as the larger drives do. You'll notice that 99% of the external enclosures specifically for 2.5" drives don't have fans. Decent venting is a good idea, but an active fan isn't usually required - especially for a backup device, which will only be in use from time to time.

Best of luck
. . . Gary

 

[striver]

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Gary,

I’m soon going to be installing the operating system on my new notebook hard drive. My limited understanding is that it is a good idea to install it in its own partition. That way when the day ultimately arrives that the OS fails beyond repair, I can easily enough reinstall it to its own partition. Am I right about this?

I know I’m going to need to find my anti-static wrist strap. That may be an endeavor unto itself.

striver

 

[OldGrayGary]

Hi striver

I find that I only very rarely need to reinstall Windows XP, and that most home users don't necessarily need any fancy partitioning schemes, such as are popular in the Unix/Linux world. With today's drive-imaging software (such as Norton's "Ghost" or Acronis' "True Image"), recovery of an entire drive is as simple as can be. If something happens to a computer bad enough to cause havoc in the system partition, it's just as likely that there's damage and corruption in the data partitions as well. So, the pros and cons for system partitions aren't as important as before - and I think most home users do just fine with a single large partition. I've seen many a home user with one small partiton nearly entirely full, and another partition nearly entirely empty.

It won't hurt anything to create a system partition, so long as you keep track of where things are. Truthfully, I don't bother with these much anymore myself.

I have between six and seven Windows XP systems here in my office - I built most of them, and none have ever needed to be reinstalled. I have a couple of Windows 98 2nd Editions computers still kicking - neither of those needed reinstalling either. The whole idea that Windows installations somehow "degrade" or "clog-up" is somewhat misleading: well-cared for systems don't have this problem. Sloppy and careless computer use, lack of timely maintenance, and poor network protections can all add up to serious trouble for any operating system - whether Unix, Linux, Mac, or Windows. I had a Windows 3.11 ("Windows for WorkGroups") 486 that I just loved -- it was as stable as any computer I've ever had. I think it had two crashes in it's entire computing life - no reinstallations there, either. Properly maintained, timely updated, and strictly protected, there's no reason an operating system would need reinstallaton. The biggest reason for reinstalling: serious malware infections.

Enjoy your new drive, the new ones are so quiet you can't hear them at all! (. . . and their prices don't make you scream, either - prices have dropped so low, it's just all good now)
. . . Gary