Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:57:09 +1200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Hi Matt: Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:21:19 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? I guess the few left on the list are troupers who just don't have much to discuss anymore. I confess I've been spending all my time on the Tosh U305-S2808 Best Buy return I won on EBay a while back for $523. The 110 sits in its dock looking a bit sad these daze... Like yours, my 110 sits somewhere in a cupboard. I'm away until X-mas but otherwise I fire it up every few months, sometimes together with an old DEC 450SLC-e (with a 50 Mhz 486 DX2!) which dates back from 1994 I think. It's that I've got a JVC 741 subnotebook that serves as my daily work horse, otherwise I might still use my 110 daily. I only use it sometimes for things in my LAN (like testing communication between various operating systems). From Xin's list I learn that there are still people using the 110, but more for hobby (trying to stretch its specs or to cramp in Win-XP or the likes) than production (whatever that may mean). The archives has our two posts Philip. And our posts came through pretty quickly. I was surprised, as I thought Dan's list server was probably clogged up with spam again. So the at least the gears seem not too rusty. The spammers probably found out that traffic is too low to benefit from even the microseconds they need to send their junk. Regards, Philip Matt Libretto list info: List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:03:29 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: libretto@basiclink.com Subject: Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:15 +1200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Hi Matt, I still receive messages (once every two months or so) so the list still survives. I do wonder if the archives still exist. Tru www.webarchive.org a lot can still be found, but not all :-( Try also Xin's cool talk forums, http://www.fixup.net/talk/ there's still traffic there on librettos. (Funny detail: the forum SW doesn't seem to log you out if you close your browser, only if you log out yourself. I seem to be logged in perpetually there and as I lost my login details some years ago t ha! t is A Good Thing - for me). Philip Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:02:42 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Could it be? Last post to the list I have in my mailbox and see in the online archives is the one I posted (below).MattLibretto list info: List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:49:47 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: libretto@basiclink.com Subject: Re: [LIB] Finally need a more powerful laptop Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Finally need a more powerful laptop So much for the new Hotmail interface. Here's the post again from Yahoo: - Well... the demands of ne! tworking have become so demanding that I?ve just got to get something relatively small and light with more power than this old 100CT. Something for around the $500 mark. I saw a Toshiba on sale at Best Buy last week for $429. But I?d like to get something with more CPU power than it had. Something that can deal with MPEG2 video capturi ng! which I read requires at least a 1.8GHz cpu. This little Asus is close if goes on sale at some point: http://us.acer.com/public/page4.do?link=oln56.redirectdau22.oid=36061UserCtxParam=0GroupCtxParam=0dctx1=25CountryISOCtxParam=USLanguageISOCtxParam=enctx3=-1ctx4=United+Statescrc=1730318441#inu57_50457 My poor old 110CT case is cracked and broken in so many places I?m amazed it?s still working. Still, its been a great old war horse. But wifi internet browsing has just become too much for it. Anyone know any good current deals on something like that Asus? Tis the time to start following all the local and online sales. Matt Libretto list info: List archive: http://www .m! ail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.co m ! _ Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com
Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:15:15 +1200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Hi Matt, I still receive messages (once every two months or so) so the list still survives. I do wonder if the archives still exist. Tru www.webarchive.org a lot can still be found, but not all :-( Try also Xin's cool talk forums, http://www.fixup.net/talk/ there's still traffic there on librettos. (Funny detail: the forum SW doesn't seem to log you out if you close your browser, only if you log out yourself. I seem to be logged in perpetually there and as I lost my login details some years ago that is A Good Thing - for me). Philip Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:02:42 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OPD: Dan's Basiclink Libretto List? Could it be? Last post to the list I have in my mailbox and see in the online archives is the one I posted (below). MattLibretto list info: List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:49:47 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: libretto@basiclink.com Subject: Re: [LIB] Finally need a more powerful laptop Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Finally need a more powerful laptop So much for the new Hotmail interface. Here's the post again from Yahoo: - Well... the demands of networking have become so demanding that I?ve just got to get something relatively small and light with more power than this old 100CT. Something for around the $500 mark. I saw a Toshiba on sale at Best Buy last week for $429. But I?d like to get something with more CPU power than it had. Something that can deal with MPEG2 video capturi ng! which I read requires at least a 1.8GHz cpu. This little Asus is close if goes on sale at some point: http://us.acer.com/public/page4.do?link=oln56.redirectdau22.oid=36061UserCtxParam=0GroupCtxParam=0dctx1=25CountryISOCtxParam=USLanguageISOCtxParam=enctx3=-1ctx4=United+Statescrc=1730318441#inu57_50457 My poor old 110CT case is cracked and broken in so many places I?m amazed it?s still working. Still, its been a great old war horse. But wifi internet browsing has just become too much for it. Anyone know any good current deals on something like that Asus? Tis the time to start following all the local and online sales. Matt Libretto list info: List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.co m ! _ Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_072008
Re: [LIB] fbreader
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:26:14 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] fbreader John wrote: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:36:26 -0800 (PST) From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fbreader http://fbreader.sourceforge.net You mean: www.fbreader.org Very nice ebook reader that works well on the libretto. it does right angle pages so it can be held like a book and the fonts are nice and easy to see. There are many more e-book readers, most of them free. P.
Re: [LIB] Back on the list, back on the Libby
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:10:43 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Back on the list, back on the Libby Nick L wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:27:10 + From: Nick L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Back on the list, back on the Libby snip Well, I've just bought a U100 for an irresistable price as clearance snip Does anyone have any information on what physical size the drive in the unit is, and moreover have any teardown or disassembly instructions? I've searched but couldn't find anything on google or the list apart from one chap who tried to get the machine apart but failed because of a ribbon cable still holding things together so it sounds quite involved. Try here: http://www.silverace.com/libretto/librettocontent.html (no info on model) or http://repair4laptop.org/disassembly_toshiba.html (no mention of a LibU100, but perhaps it'll come...) or use www.webarchive.org or google/yahoo/mssearch cache to look in older toshiba web pages. Little traffic on this list these days :-( Good luck, Philip
Re: [LIB] QUERY: Toshiba Power extentions VALD etc
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:46:50 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] QUERY: Toshiba Power extentions VALD etc Avi Cohen Stuart wrote: Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:42:08 +0100 From: Avi Cohen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: QUERY: Toshiba Power extentions VALD etc To all, On my website http://www.xs4all.nl/~avics I have the tosapc2k.exe Toshiba VALD driver for W2K w2kmobx1.exe Toshiba Mobile Extensions w2kpwrx1.exe Toshiba Power Utilities Is any one using these on W2K or on XP? I think I once downloaded the same files from Toshiba and did use them. AFAICR they worked well. I plucked them from the Toshiba site once and saved them but I was wondering if one uses or if they are needed... Does Toshiba still have them on their website (something like taissomething.com)? If not, the files on your site may be useful. And if yes, they might become useful in the future as soon as Toshiba drops them. Philip
Re: [LIB] Asus reveals $190 mini notebook
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:26:23 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Asus reveals $190 mini notebook Mark Srebnik wrote: Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 20:33:11 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Srebnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Asus reveals $190 mini notebook snip The eeePC 701 that is on sale now has 4GB flash storage and 512MB RAM (but user upgradeable to 1 or 2 GB, but the Linux OS on it only recognizes 1GB, but if A number of distros install default kernels which can only see 1 GB (and report 880 MB or so) - just to be sure that Linux can initially run on as much HW as possible. Swapping the kernel for a BIGMEM one will very probably fix this. but one might need to compile one's own kernel? I wouldn't know what distro is on the eeePC. you put XP on it, it will see 2GB) If XP can see it, surely a proper Linux kernel can, too. Philip
Re: [LIB] Can someone explain the following?!
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:29:19 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Can someone explain the following?! Hi Avi: As far as I understand your questions: Avi Cohen Stuart wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:18:17 +0100 From: Avi Cohen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Can someone explain the following?! Case: Libretto 110 HD: 40 Gb First partition: Primary Partition approx 5 GB this will be the W2K root (FAT32) Second Partition: Primary Partition approx 2Gb this will contain the Installation files (FAT) I leave 102 Mb empty For hibernation? if so, it's probably at the wrong place. 5 GB + 2 GB = 7 GB; hibernation area should be around 8 GB. It starts at about 8.35 GB (7.775 GiB). Then I create a Logical Partition with 1 large NTFS partition You mean, you first create an extended partition, and then inside that a logical partition? The partitions I create on my XP Laptop using a USB-to-HD converter thingy (Kama Connect) Then I copy the W2K CD to the second partition. Remove the HD from the USB (on a nice way etc...) Insert the HD into the libretto Boot using a Win98 disk Do a cd C: looks OK cd D: Abort/Fail/Retry... Problem is almost certainly that DOS can only use 1 (one) primary FAT partition with some reliability. When I tried this myself long time ago, I remember it took DOS (Win98) a lng time to come up with an error message while still booting. It just didn't like 2 readable primary partitions + an extended one. If you have one of those primary partitions non-readable for DOS (e.g., NTFS) you'll have no problems. It's just DOS's drivers which cannot emulate drive letters for more than one primary partition. Remember, the extended partition (where your logical partitions live) is really a primary partition. GR!!! Go back to the XP delete the Logical Partition Boot again in Win98 and then I can access the D: driver WHY DO I HAVE TO DELETE THE LOGICAL Partiton!? AFAICT, because of limitations of DOS. Why not make: - A 5 GB primary partition - An extended (in fact, also primary) partition for the rest of the disk - Inside the extended partition: - A logical 2.7 GB for your W2K stuff, extending almost til the start of the hibernation area - 100 MB hibernation partition - Other logical partitions as you see fit - Then just delete the 100 MB hibernation partition to get rid of the drive letter it uses. Lots of this type of misery stuff has been described in the archives of the Lib mailing list (use www.webarchive.org to get to e.g., the technoir archive). Philip
Re: [LIB] virtualization - was: speed gain using flash card
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:42:52 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] virtualization - was: speed gain using flash card John wrote: Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT) From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] virtualization - was: speed gain using flash card --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:50:56 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card snip I use this for real work (number crunching etc virtualisation), a Lib snip What is virtualisation? I notice linux 2.6 has a section called that in the kernel. Is it the same? Things like VirtualPC, VMWare, VirtualBox, SVista, QEmu, Bochs, . where you can run -say- Windows 2000 inside another operating system. Sometimes I got three of four of those running simultaneously. As these virtual guest operatings systems take their share of RAM from the host's RAM, a lot of RAM is needed. I use it for shielding my employers remote call-in stuff from my own PC (because otherwise the remote stuff takes over the entire desktop), for trying out network stuff, testing of new Linux distros, you name it. As far as the 2.6 kernels are concerned: I suppose you refer to Xen, indeed some kind of virtualisation. See http://www.xen.org/ Philip
Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:50:56 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card John wrote: Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:51:48 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card long snip Sometimes I feel a bit sorry to have decommissioned my L110; it merely serves as a sort of book stand, right on top of a What do you use in place of it? I tried the U100 but JVC MP/XP741 http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/jvc/JVC-main.html I use this for real work (number crunching etc virtualisation), a Lib with just 64 MB RAM simply lacks power for that. At its time my Lib110 served very well nevertheless. I like it still. P.
Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:51:48 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] speed gain using flash card Hi John: John wrote: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:46:51 -0700 (PDT) From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: speed gain using flash card Hello fellow members I am using a sandisk extreme II 8 gig compact flash as a solid state hard drive in my Libretto 110CT and am having twice the speed for read and writes as I was Good idea getting with a standard hard drive. The extreme III and IV are opproximatly twice and three times as fast as the II so if I would get another increase if I upgraded to one of those. I am getting 4 MB as opposed to 1.5 to 2 with the hard drive. I should expect 6 and 8MB with the extreme III and IV. AFAIK (based on a vague reminiscence and a google search) the theoretical maximum data transfer speed on an ISA bus is about 6 MB/s. As the Lib110's HD is attached through a 16 bit ISA connection (without DMA), that 6 MB/s is about all you'll get. Or am I wrong here? (hopefully not, for your sake) I am also using a second flash card for a virtual memory drive but it is an old one so only gives hard drive speeds. If I updated that with a newer one I would think the increase in speed be noticalbe in swap file use. How did you connect that 2nd one? thru the PCMCIA slot? I remember I found an external -PCMCIA, or rather, Cardbus- HD to be clearly faster than the internal one (I had a 7200 rpm Hitachi inside). There was also a thread on this in the mailing list. I notice a real reduction in temperature also using a solid state drive. My libretto was always having to slow down to cool off but it is very cool now when it runs. Anyway it all sounds like a bright idea to me. Any idea about battery power savings using flash rather than rotating storage? Sometimes I feel a bit sorry to have decommissioned my L110; it merely serves as a sort of book stand, right on top of a much older DEC 450SLC/e notebook (with a 50 Mhz 486-DX2 inside - wow). Sometimes I start them up just for fun, like today when the clocks in my place must be reset to winter time. BTW have you ever had any luck upgrading the RAM beyond 64 MB? (I remember you were busy with that). There were some guys who have fitted a Portege 64 MB module in the extension slot to get 96 MB; that was the max I've ever heard of w.r.t. Lib110. Best wishes, Philip
Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!!
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:22:51 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! Fran wrote: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:14:54 +1200 From: Fran [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! On Wed, 03 Oct 2007, Dan V wrote: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:23:00 + From: Dan V [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! Hi John, Looks like I went a bit too fast with that new hard driveI never for a second thought about the hybernation problem (of which I had read about already, but forgotten). So when does a Libretto hybernate? Could I simply switch hybernation off? No way. Thanks for opening my eyes on this one...I would hate to lose important data You can turn hibernation off in windows but if it gets low on battery the BIOS level hibernation will kick in and torch anything at the 8.4G barrier. ...not to mention when the Lib gets too hot inside. Plenty in the archives about how to allow for this. Indeed. Philip
Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up?
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:54:17 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:08:47 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? And oh... does anyone know what happened to Mike Kopplin's list archives on thre technoir.org site? You can still find lots of it on the WayBack Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ at least until June last year. Philip
Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up?
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:35:30 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? Avi Cohen Stuart wrote: Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:20:35 +0200 From: Avi Cohen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? SFP? Care to tell me what it is? and can it be disabled on XP as well? System File Protection. Windows makes back-ups of critical system files from \windows\system32 in a protected subdir called dllcache. As soon as some bad written installer overwrites those dll's, Windows copies them back from the cache. And yes, on XP it can be disabled too. google for nLite and you can learn how to make XP installation CDs with SFP disabled and much more. P.
Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up?
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:06:29 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 22:59:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MARGI - Was: [LIB] Lib list server belly up? snip I was reading Philip's page on setting up W2k on the 110, and was wondering if I ought to try disabling SFP. But it seems he was dealing with SP2. I've got SP3 installed, and will probably upgrade that to SP4. I don't see any info on disabling SFP in W2K SP4 though. I ran SP4 on my Lib, maybe even a SP5 a la Fred Vorck. Fred Vorck's pages are also based on SP4. And yes, disabling SFP makes a huge difference, no so much for RAM usage but rather for starting up / shutting down times. BTW I read your mail three times, on to my personal e-mail, two in the LIB list. Philip
Re: [LIB] Sold my Libretto 110CT - bought Asus S200N
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:58:52 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Sold my Libretto 110CT - bought Asus S200N Chris Hogan wrote: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:38:43 +0100 From: Chris Hogan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Sold my Libretto 110CT - bought Asus S200N Yeah -- I saw one of these in an airport shop a couple of years ago and got excited (sad, eh?!), but was put off by the max 512 ram. But Philip's 1gb chip worked, now that's really got me thinking again. ...if you can still get one. BTW to be precise, the max was not specified as 512 but as 768 MB (256 built-in + max 512 expansion - probably the biggest known module at that time). So, maybe even bigger RAM modules than 1 GB will become available in the future - who knows. Note: the (shared) video memory is included in this number; with 512 MB that amounted to 8 MB, with 1280 MB it was automagically adjusted to 32 MB. Couldn't find BIOS settings to influence this manually. All I can say is that I'm quite happy with my JVC XP741. P.
Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 21:57:12 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 David Chien wrote: Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: David Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 W2K is installed on a ~4GB primary partition as C: .. and W98 is installed on a ~4GB extended partition D: after the W2K partition. There is a blank space of ~100MB following D:, and a ~72GB E: extended data partition after that. Interesting I have always installed OSs into a primary partition on the HD, not the extended. I know that W2K/XP/etc - the newer OSs - can be happy in an extended partition, but older OSs mostly demanded a primary partition. Hi David, you must be talking about real old OSes... At least WIN31 can boot from C: (the DOS stuff) but be installed on a logical D: That's the way I've got it on most of my PC's. (Win31 can be run through OS/2, I use WinOS/2 for my parallel scanner which is otherwise not supported by OS/2). I'd make two primary paritions, with only one active and visible, the other not active and hidden. Install each OS into each partition, then use the W2K loader or Partition Magic PQBOOT, etc. to select which OS to startup on bootup. Unlike DOS FDISK, Win2K's disk manager will happily make more than one primary partition; using BootPart one can add the boot stuff from other partitions to its boot menu. BTW On my old Libretto pages I have a description of sharing many software packages between Win98 and Win2K (even IE). Only requirement is consistent drive letters for each OS. If you can't see any files in the partition you know there are files: a) It's either in NTFS format so you can't see it from DOS. b) You may need a boot loader like EZ DRive to see the HD past a certain point on your large HD. smile - old discussion Once W98 has booted, it doesn't need a boot manager, it implements all int13 extensions needed for 8GB access by itself. So if you install Win2K and W98 each into their own 4 GB partition (below the 8 GB limit) you'll have no problems. Same goes for Win2K. c) ? some other reason ..for what? Anyway, best wishes, P.
Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:36:29 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 02:49:53 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 I just set up a Fujitsu 80GB HDD in my 110, and have W2K and W98SE dual booting. But I?ve been at it for few days now, and have failed to sort problems getting audio for Margi DVD-To-Go to play in through the Lib speaker in W98. I had no problems with this on my 40GB HDD. I?d like to reformat the W98 partition and reinstall W98, but I see there?s no files in the root folder for W98 on my D:\ extended partition. I?m worried that if I reformat and reinstall W98, W2K?s boot loader my not be able to see the new W98 installation. W2K is installed on a ~4GB primary partition as C: .. and W98 is installed on a ~4GB extended partition D: after the W2K partition. There is a blank space of ~100MB following D:, and a ~72GB E: extended data partition after that. I see Phil?s still reading the list messages (is the server is working), and hope he might now how this might work. It's not simple as you may ruin the W2K boot stuff. This is the wrong installation order (W98 should be first, then W2K, but now you need to do it in reverse order). I did indeed install W98 1st onto the 2nd, extended partition. That, because the last time I did this I installed W98 on the 1st, 'primary' partition, and it seems I had problems when I had to reinstall W2K which had boot files installed in the C: W98 root. Should I have installed W98as the 1st primary again? I do not think that that's an essential difference. Just a matter of taste. Make sure you can somehow boot into W2K from CD-ROM. That will allow you to (in a later stage) use the recovery console to run fixboot etc. I never did that BTW, so others may have better ideas. I actually just booted from a W98 boot FD, and installed W98 1st from installation files copied earlier to the E: drive. For the W2K installation, I ran smartdrv.exe after running the W98 boot FD, and put it on the 1st primary drive. Perhaps I should have done a bit more research before that. Is it imperative that I boot from a CD? (In a PC?) Which should be on the 1st partition? In a Lib1x0, you can't boot from CD. You must boot from floppies or hard disk. If that's OK, simply reformat D: and reinstall W98. Then reinstall W2K's boot stuff by booting from the CD-ROM (using the four floppies IRC) and then do something like repair or recovery console . It's not that hard, I just forgot how and what exactly. I've gone the 'recover' route before recentlyv via running winnt.exe from file on E: in the past. CD-ROM not needed? Not if you copy the entire \I386 directory from CD-ROM to hard disk. Then you can install run form hard disk. That's the way I did it, hard disk is much faster than CD-ROM BTW I do not read the list very often. My Lib is decommissioned, just occasionally it's started up. A guy at work has expressed interest in buying a 110. I'm not all that sure that at this point it's worth it what with seemingly better alternatives that David Chien and others have proposed. Oh, I do not think I'll sell my Libby. I even still have my old DEC 450 SLC/e (50 MHz 486DX, 20 MB RAM, separate built-in keypad, easily swappable hard disks, ). I simply can't separate easily from good stuff. And yes, now I have a JVC741 MP-XP (1.1 GHz Pentium-M, wifi, 100 GB HD (a mod), 1.2 GB RAM, ). Indeed, much better than the Libretto, and even better (IMHO) than the Lib U100 that has a screen can't be bent back more than 45 degrees AND has a highly reflective coating AND is too fine to be read easily from by someone who is aged 50 now. P.
Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:44:40 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 Hi Matt: Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Dual boot W2K/W98 problems on 110 I just set up a Fujitsu 80GB HDD in my 110, and have W2K and W98SE dual booting. But I’ve been at it for few days now, and have failed to sort problems getting audio for Margi DVD-To-Go to play in through the Lib speaker in W98. I had no problems with this on my 40GB HDD. I’d like to reformat the W98 partition and reinstall W98, but I see there’s no files in the root folder for W98 on my D:\ extended partition. I’m worried that if I reformat and reinstall W98, W2K’s boot loader my not be able to see the new W98 installation. W2K is installed on a ~4GB primary partition as C: .. and W98 is installed on a ~4GB extended partition D: after the W2K partition. There is a blank space of ~100MB following D:, and a ~72GB E: extended data partition after that. I see Phil’s still reading the list messages (is the server is working), and hope he might now how this might work. It's not simple as you may ruin the W2K boot stuff. This is the wrong installation order (W98 should be first, then W2K, but now you need to do it in reverse order). Make sure you can somehow boot into W2K from CD-ROM. That will allow you to (in a later stage) use the recovery console to run fixboot etc. I never did that BTW, so others may have better ideas. If that's OK, simply reformat D: and reinstall W98. Then reinstall W2K's boot stuff by booting from the CD-ROM (using the four floppies IRC) and then do something like repair or recovery console . It's not that hard, I just forgot how and what exactly. BTW I do not read the list very often. My Lib is decommissioned, just occasionally it's started up. Philip
Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!!
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:02:13 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! There's one thing I overlooked: How's the master/slave/cable-select setting on the HD? P. David Chien wrote: Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:43:21 -0700 (PDT) From: David Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! So insert hard disk into libretto - by default the hard disk is a master. Boot off a windows 98 floppy. Run fdisk and make the biggest primary partition I can, 8gb and mark it active, reboot. We did run fdisk /mbr right? Boot off the floppy again and format c: /s to include the system start up files. You may need to boot off a Windows 98SE disk for large hard drive support. Older versions of DOS don't support large hard drives well. Also, download the EZ-Drive from my site, then install that right away. It's the easiest way to make everything work from the start. If you don't do this, then it should be pretty easy. 1) Install HD 2) Boot from Win98SE diskette 3) fdisk, create a small 2GB primary active bootable partition. 4) reboot, run fdisk /mbr to make sure. 5) take out floppy, reboot, and you should be in. 6) at this point, you'll either need an OS that supports large HDs like window s2000/XP/Linux, or you'll need to a) run a drive manager like EZ-Drive or do one of the many tricks to get a large HD working posted in prior articles here. 7) I simply used EZ-Drive, then use Partition Magic or Ranish Partition Manager to resize the first partition up to the 8GB boundary, then create a 2nd data partition after the 8GB to the end of the HD. 8) Install Windows and off you go. adorable toshiba libretto The latest news and information for the Toshiba Libretto owner. http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!!
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:16:12 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! Alan Middleton wrote: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:12:37 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Middleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Basic libretto 110 hard disk upgrade not working!! Hello, I'm not sure if this list is still active but I'm fresh out of ideas so hopefully someone is still listening :) Some people still lurk sometimes. The list is still in my spam filter's friends section I recently purchased a Samsung laptop hard disk (http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointMSeries/HardDiskDrive_SpinpointMseries_MP0804H_sp.htm) with the intention of resurrecting the libretto 110 and using it as a portal media player. The original 40Gb hard disk upgrade has long since disappeared so I don't have anything to compare it with :( So insert hard disk into libretto - by default the hard disk is a master. Boot off a windows 98 floppy. Run fdisk and make the biggest primary partition I can, 8gb and mark it active, reboot. Boot off the floppy again and format c: /s to include the system start up files. Yes, should work. Job done? No, sadly not, when I restart I'm asked to insert a system disk. Boot off the floppy again and I can see drive c: complete with command.com and as I expect it to be when I rerun fdisk (yes it is active, I triple checked). Intriguing. So now what? I don't think I've missed anything in the set up or in the bios config that should cause me these problems. First thought: the BIOS. Make sure the HD is in Enhanced IDE, not Standard IDE. On page 2, select Primary IDE for Built-in HDD under DRIVES I/O. The BIOS settings can be wiped after a long rest of your Lib. Then, maybe a sys C: might help (copies not only system files but also boot sector code. Invoked by format /s, true). Other than that, I see no mistakes. Or perhaps the boot sector on drive C: is damaged. Try to make some other partitioning scheme and then see if that boots. If this doesn't help you're SOL, sorry. Philip
Re: [LIB] Echo Indigo on 110CT's 64MB RAM
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:28:23 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Echo Indigo on 110CT's 64MB RAM Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 02:54:22 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Echo Indigo on 110CT's 64MB RAM Libretto list info: List archive 1: http://www.technoir.org/cgi-bin/libretto.cgi List archive 2: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com To unsubscribe: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/msg16212.html I found this guy, Daniel Iversen's website on, Making Windows 2000 run (rather well) on only 32MB RAM: http://www.nexle.dk/daniel/win2000-32mb/ I've had a glance tru it. What he describes seems plain standard stuff (but still useful). I'm sure there are some more services to disable which can help. The suggestion to not install any service packs seems a bit ill-adviced unless you never connect to the Internet. Those SPs haven't been made for nothing I don't see any posts from or about him in the list archives. I've already done much of what he's described, but the process of installing and using X-Setup from X-teq looks insteresting. Then there's Fred Vorck's web page Philip pointed to some time back that describes the process of making a custom Win2000 setup disk that would eliminate installing Internet Explorer and a few other components. Don't know if I need to go that route yet though. Removing IE before you even install Win2K (like Vorck describes) will eliminate some 20 MB RAM usage (paged out or in RAM). That surely helps to eliminate startup time and paging (trashing the hard disk when starting applications). It will also decrease the footprint of Windwos Explorer (which is intimately linked to IE). From what I remember (I do not use my Libby anymore these days) my IE-less Win2K (SP4) ran with acceptable responsiveness (for a 233 MHz / 64 MB RAM PC), even with AVG anti-virus ZA. I ran even OpenOffice on it (very slow to start, once loaded it's fast enough tho). But e.g., Acrobat reader took ages to just scroll up a page in a 10 MB document. Philip
[Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [LIB] Memory 96MB]]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:39:47 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: RE: [LIB] Memory 96MB]] Webarchive.org still has the link! http://web.archive.org/web/20050424064037/http://falinski-edv.bester-kundenservice.de/product_info.php?products_id=134 Philip Original Message From: - Sun Jan 21 22:32:28 2007 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 0080 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:32:27 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 SeaMonkey/1.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Libretto libretto@basiclink.com Subject: [Fwd: RE: [LIB] Memory 96MB] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dan Avi, (I bcc this message directly to your e-mail address too, as it seems that it takes 24 hrs or more to see my postings appear in this list) Early 2005 there were messages about a German firm who put some 64 MB Portege memory module in the Libretto. Apparently a few parts on the mobo (RTC battery) had to be moved, otherwise it seemed the 96 MB module worked fine. snip
Re: [LIB] 110 HD Confusion (Win98SE)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:57:38 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110 HD Confusion (Win98SE) Hi Joseph: Joseph wrote: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:08:53 -0700 From: Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 110 HD Confusion (Win98SE) Greetings: I want to upgrade to a Western Digital Scorpio 120GB HD, running Win98SE, and have MS DOS 6.22 as well on a 110CT 1. Do I need a drive overlay? You do NOT strictly NEED it, but it can make things easier. There was a thread a month or so ago on exactly this subject. A long answer to your question is in a posting by me: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto%40basiclink.com/msg16832.html A little later, John Martin outlined how to set it all up, and some people added useful suggestions, * OFF-TOPIC: * Pity the mailing list archives on http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ are inaccessible nowadays. Would make some very useful reading for you. On the Wayback Machine there's a backup until the end of January 2005: http://web.archive.org/web/2005104934/www.technoir.org/libretto/list/ But there were other list archive somewhere anyone? I found: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto%40basiclink.com/ (seems fairly complete at first glance) http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto%40yahoogroups.com/ (but some people -like me- don't like yahoo groups) I fear the Libretto mailing list archives might simply vanish in the near future. Unless www.webarchive.org keeps a recent copy. * /OFF-TOPIC * 2. What is the steps for installing both MS DOS 6.22 and Win98SE? To start with: have separate partitions for them. Win98 SE is based on MS-DOS 7. You can't mix up DOS versions. BTW: what does DOS 6.22 have that MS-DOS 7 (the base under Win9x) does not have? I see no real advantage in having 6.22. I have tried FDISK, Installing MS DOS 6.22, then atemping to get the CD-Rom to be recognized to install Win, but could not see the CD-Rom. Does DOS 6.22 support FAT32? which is what you need if you want DOS to access any partition bigger than 2 GB. I want to keep things as simple as possible, one partion, no overlay if possible, etc. 120 GB in one partition? In that case a scandisk session (which happens occasionally on Win98 98SE DOS 6.22) would take quite some time, you know People who I think are far more knowledgeable than me ( perhaps even you) use to advise against having just one big partition. At least a separation between data and operating system is warranted. And on Librettos 50-110 there is another VERY good reason that you need at least two partitions: it is called the hibernation area problem. Which boils down to the fact that when the Libretto hibernates through the BIOS it writes its RAM contents to a place around 8 GB. Which would be right in the middle of your one big partition And no, the hibernation routine doesn't care what data it overwrites there. And yes, after wake-up from hibernation you might need to re-install the entire fandango. FYI: BIOS hibernation is used automatically when the Lib overheats and DOS/Win95/98/98SE/ME use it because they have no built-in hibernation like Win2K WinXP. Good luck, Philip
Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade? (John Martin method)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:46:05 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade? (John Martin method) Hi Joseph, Answering for John (w/o asking, sorry) :-) Joseph wrote: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:07:56 -0700 From: Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 110 HD upgrade? (John Martin method) Hi: Would you mind please clearing up a few issues on your method to allow the 110ct BIOS to see the full 120Gig without using a drive overlay? Using your method, will I end up with single partition [C:], or 2 [C: and D:]? I also ask specific questions below Thanks so much John!! Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 07:42:07 -0800 From: John Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade?? 1. First I use fdisk to set up the drive to its maximum size INSIDE the Libretto. It will be about 8Gig This to me is the most logical step because any issues with the Libretto bios become irrelevant because the bios in question IS making the partition. No figuring out where to leave a hibernation hole etc. So, just boot off a DOS floppy while the new HD is in the 110, do FDISK for the entire BIOS see-able size, 8Gig? Yes. Don't forget to format it too (FAT32). 2. Then I remove the drive from the Libretto and install the adapter and place it into the second computer as a secondary drive. Can I use an 2.5 USB 2.0 external hard drive enclosure for this process, and just plug the HD into my Desktops USB port? Yes. 3. I normally use Western Digital Lifeguard Tools usually, but other programs for setting up drives will probably work fine. I use this software to set up the remaining space on the drive into two partitions. The first partition I just set up as 100 meg or so. The second partition I set up as the rest of the drive. It's a bit more complex, sorry. The second partition is probably an extended partition (a container for logical partitions). In that extended partition you can make any number of logical partitions (e.g., the two you intended to make). However, if Lifeguard Tools can make the first 100 meg partition as a primary partition and the remainder an extended partition, that would be superior. You can then assign all extended space to one logical partition. Can I use Partition Magic for this? Probably, but not inside the Libretto. 4. Reboot and verify the partitions. (this just insures they were writing to disk) Now I DELETE the 100 meg partition. This insures an Operating System doesn't try to format and use it. This 100 meg area insures there is plenty of space between usable partitions for the Librettos hibernation. Yes. So in the end you end up with 2 partitions, C: (8Gig) and D:(100Gig or so) or a single C:? You'll end up with a primary C: (8 GB) partition, and an extended partition (100+ GB) containing one D: partition. At this point I place the HD back into the 110? Yes. I can now boot off a DOS floppy, install DOS, then I want to install Win98 on top of it; can this be done this way? Yes, but don't forget: DO NOT USE DOS OR WINDOWS FDISK (or partition magic)!!! (sorry for shouting). If you do, you'll ruin your D: partitions. BTW why not install Win98 right away? (it contains DOS). As long as you don't run FDISK there's no risk involved. Philip
Re: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:07:14 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works! Hi Avi: Avi Cohen Stuart wrote: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:09:57 +0100 From: Avi Cohen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works! Philip, I'll check the 32 bit properties. Any hints where I should look? First try: BIOS settings. I believe I had it set to Auto-Selected. You can try your luck with 16-bit/Cardbus (sic). (I think PCIC-compatible is strictly 16 bit.) And check the CPU cache (write back). As far as I can see on XP the PCMCIA takes irq 11. I also have these problems with DVD playback even I use a USB 2.0 and a HD or a DVD drive. On Win2K both pcmcia-ports take irq 09. Shouldn't make much difference I'd guess. But XP is an enormous resource hog on a 64 MB 233 Mhz PC. Do you use that to play DVDs? Any tips on the settings? Not much more, actually. I was simply surprised that a 16-bit ISA bus is faster than a 32-bit cardbus (= PCI-extension). Philip
Re: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works!
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:32:21 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works! Avi Cohen Stuart wrote: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:47:02 +0100 From: Avi Cohen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Margi DVD-to-Go card works! snip I use XP with a dvd iso copied to HD and that also works with the WDM driver. I've read your post on this subject a few days back. What strikes me is that you copy DVDs to your HD, as cardbus (=32 bit) DVD players are supposedly faster than the Lib100/110's internal hard disks which are on an ISA bus (= 16bit no DMA). And on top of that there's a software layer simulating iso image access which adds overhead, too (though a similar HW or SW layer is present in the DVD player stuff). Have you properly enabled 32-bit on the pcmcia ports? Does XP use proper drivers for them? I read somewhere that the Lib100/110 cardbus ports use polling rather than IRQ for a number of things. That might explain some of the slowness you've encountered when playing DVDs. Philip
Re: [LIB] Re: State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM (and
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:48:19 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Re: State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM (and the 96MB Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:31:58 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Re: State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM (and the 96MB thing!) From: T. Ribbrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... boot from one floppy (with BIOS support), then switch to network install. Obviously, this requires a network card and ideally a second machine that can be used as server (though an internet connection might do). How did you go about enabling the network card from a boot floppy? A few years back David Chien wrote out the procedure for getting DOS drivers for an HP M820E CD/CD-R-ROM drive enabled from a floppy. I'm guessing the process to enable a network card is similar. There's another option to install Linux on a Libretto: using loadlin options to start an installation from a DOS prompt. The images needed can be found on most linux iso images. That said ... finding the proper kernel options is a different thing, however... I would not recommend even thinking about any of the big desktop environments a la KDE or Gnome. Back when Neil Barnes was on the list, he recommend the IceWM shell for a copy of Mandrake 7.1 he helped me set up on my L50. None of the windows managers I tried at that point could match the performance of IceWM. True. The last Linux I had on my Lib was Mandrake 9.2 w. IceWM dfm (for the desktop icons). Other usable light-weight distros I've tried on my L110: Damn Small Linux, VectorLinux. FreeBSD is also a good candidate (though not a Linux version). P.
Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade??
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:46:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade?? Hi John, Just some notes: 1. I reckon you do not use an overlay? 2. You deleted the hibernation partition in your step 4. I simply assigned it a partition type of A0 (= IBM Thinkpad hibernation partition). If you do this, no partitioning tool will ever suggest to use this space as it is occupied, and DOS/Windows won't be able to access it and thus cannot write to it either. 3. A last hint: I deleted DOS FDISK from my Libretto to be sure that I could never accidently run it and screw up the MBR. The only harmless thing DOS FDISK can do is change the active partition. All other changes will make everything beyond 8 GB again inaccessible. Philip John Martin wrote: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 07:42:07 -0800 From: John Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade?? Because I learned about how to work around this hibernation area from this system and so many helpful Libretto users, I will share my preferred method of formatting drives around the hibernation area on Libretto 100 and 110CT's. I have done this for others many times now. The methods seems SO complicated compared to just formatting a hard drive, but trust me, these guys know what they are talking about. It is necessary. After a LOT of experimentation I only have a lot of respect for most everyone who offered me (and many others) ideas on how to work around this hard drive hibernation area on Libretto's. Here is the method I use. It requires a second computer with bios ability to see beyond the Libretto's. Most any Pentium 2 Class and up is a sure thing.) I use an adapter to plug the 2.5 drives into the full size EIDE cable of the second computer. I have used this method many times now with my two Libretto's (100CT and 110CT) so I don't know about any other models. I have also done this more than a dozen times now for others Libretto's. 1. First I use fdisk to set up the drive to its maximum size INSIDE the Libretto. It will be about 8Gig This to me is the most logical step because any issues with the Libretto bios become irrelevant because the bios in question IS making the partition. No figuring out where to leave a hibernation hole etc. 2. Then I remove the drive from the Libretto and install the adapter and place it into the second computer as a secondary drive. 3. I normally use Western Digital Lifeguard Tools usually, but other programs for setting up drives will probably work fine. I use this software to set up the remaining space on the drive into two partitions. The first partition I just set up as 100 meg or so. The second partition I set up as the rest of the drive. 4. Reboot and verify the partitions. (this just insures they were writing to disk) Now I DELETE the 100 meg partition. This insures an Operating System doesn't try to format and use it. This 100 meg area insures there is plenty of space between usable partitions for the Librettos hibernation. Because the Libretto itself set up the original 8 gig partition, the END of this partition is sure to be in the right place relative to the Libretto Hibernation. I know the hibernation might only need to be smaller, but is easier to be safe and besides that, I think the software I have used has a minimum size I can make the partition. Haven't set one up in a few months. An important note I did realize years ago after several drive corruption's! You can not turn off the Librettos hibernation function. It can be triggered by hardware independent of your OS for thermal overload and low battery conditions. SO no matter your OS, IF the Libretto tries to hibernate, it goes as far as the BIOS (specifically) can see (8.X gig) and starts it write. Instant data corruption. If I had ONLY known this years ago it would have saved me so much time formatting and replacing data. I have successfully done the above on more than a dozen Libretto 100CT's and 110CT's with basically every hard drive brand I have seen. It has been used on drives from 15gig to 100gig. I run Windows 98 on my Librettos but I have set this up for persons with other OS's. I do not install their OS's, I just set up the partitions and make them DOS bootable. It isn't as difficult as it looks at first. I can do this in a few minutes now. If you need any specifics for any of the above, just email me and I will do my best to assist you further. Most likely everything I have typed is somewhere else in this system though. I learned it all here. Good Luck John Martin No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.6/565 - Release Date: 2-12-2006 21:39
Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade??
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:33:50 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade?? hello Tony, Tony Oresteen wrote: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:40:51 -0500 From: Tony Oresteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^^^ I've hidden your e-mail address. Now that I noted this...: Apparently the server doen't hide e-mail addresses. Bad thing, as this is a good opportunity for e-mail address harvesters :-( (The list archives are publicly accessible) Subject: Re: [LIB] 110 HD upgrade?? Phil, ...Philip :-) (sorry) With the 70CT and the 100CT, you do need an overlay to get past 8 gigs. On the contrary, I have never used an overlay in my L110 and yet had full use of 15, 40 60 GB hard disks in my Lib. Admittedly you must get your HDs partitioned somehow. But even in a Lib100/110 an overlay is not necessarily needed at that stage. Just tonight I set up a 10 gig drive for my new Libby 70CT. I didn't use FDISK I used Partition Magic 8.0. It showed the drive as 8 gig drive when I partitioned it in the Libby. PM8 uses the Libby BIOS to get the drive info. The thread you started and that I replied to was about L110 upgrades, not about L70 upgrades. I'll only refer to L100/L110, as I know little about the L50/70 BIOS. ISTR that the Lib50/70 BIOS has no int13 extensions implemented... right? anyone? The stanza uses the BIOS points to the issue at hand. I'll gladly explain again (I'll promise to limit the recurrence time of my explanation to once every 1-2 years or so). OK, here we go: The L100/110 BIOS (don't know about L50/70) does have all int13 extensions implemented for access 8 GB. As a consequence you simply do NOT need an overlay - for daily use that is. Not even for DOS. But... there's a bug in the one little BIOS function which returns drive size. That function is only used at partition time, doubtlessly also at hibernation time. It apparently still uses CHS translation. Now, DOS FDISK and older versions of PM always ask the BIOS for drive size and get a wrong answer from the Libretto. Modern OS-es (Win2K, Linux, even OS/2) ask the drive itself and get a good answer. That's why I suggest to avoid DOS FDISK or PM8 for partitioning; they use a wrong answer. And once again: this problem only plays a role at partitioning hibernation time. Once a partitioning scheme incl. areas 8 GB has been set up, this whole issue is irrelevant. Taking the drive out and putting it in a USB external case I attached it to my XP desktop. Sure enough Drive management shows 1.8 gig unallocated space. That include the drive memory swap area that the Libby uses. Do not try to use this area! When the Libby sleeps it copies the contents of RAM at the 8 gig boundry and overwrites anything that is there. Indeed, in the L100/100 the hibernation area is another, related problem. On my Lib it extends up to cyl. 1026, i.e. beyond the 1024 cyl (=8.3 or so GB) limit). Luckily, hibernation uses int13 extensions (otherwise it can't extend beyond 1024 cyls), so it is a contiguous area of RAM size + video size + some BIOS data blocks. On my Lib110 I have 71 MiB reserved, and as linux /boot is immediately beyond it and I never experienced hibernation or linux problems, I know this is sufficient. BTW The fact that the hibernation area extends beyond 1024 cyls. while the start is based on CHS calculations is intriguing (but I've never bothered to do the arithmetic so it might be logical too). Summing up the technical issues: 1. Only if you want: - to partition your new 8GB hard disk INSIDE your Libretto, AND - you insist in using DOS FDISK (BTW the same as in Win98x) or PM8, ONLY THEN you need an overlay (or LDS100CT.exe for disks 32 GB, see URL below). 2. In ALL other cases, including: - daily access to partitions beyond 8 GB inside the Libretto, AND/OR - partitioning outside the Libretto, AND/OR - using anything else for partitioning than DOS FDISK or PM8, an overlay is overkill (as it merely duplicates available functionality) and it won't solve the hibernation area problem either. From a practical perspective, an overlay is an easy (but IMO dirty) fix. Sure it works (but NOT for the hibernation!) And a little warning: overlays *can* give trouble: (1) As soon as you invoke other OSes that do not need overlays and may get confused (that's why you must always pre-boot into the overlay before booting your OS). And as outlined above, even native DOS is in this category, it needs no overlay to access data 8 GB. (2) If you move your overlayed HD into another PC as second HD or external HD. Because then the overlay won't have a chance to get initialized; consequence is that you might not be able to access the data on that disk anymore. Modern disk access routines may be able to cope with the second issue, so it may not be a real problem anymore. BTW Most of my L110 info comes from someone who has painstakingly scrutinized through all
Re: [LIB] Subscribing?
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:39:28 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Subscribing? Lines, Nick wrote: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:28:12 - From: Lines, Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LIB] Subscribing? Folks, sorry to do this to you all, but I have a friend who wants to join the list as he's just bought an L5 (lucky swine!) The pages of information at libretto.basiclink.com seem to be gone, but Then there's always www.webarchive.org (the Way Back Machine). Philip
Re: [LIB] State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:05:02 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM Lines, Nick wrote: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:36:41 - From: Lines, Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LIB] State of the Art on OS for the 100CT/64MB RAM Folks, I'm wondering what everyone out there is running on their libbys, snip What would people recommend for a W2K based solution, and what would people recommend for a linux graphical environment? A stripped down Win2K: www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html Runs fairly smooth here. For Linux I'd stick with IceWM plus dfm for the desktop icons. Since I got a JVC741 mini-notebook I don't use my Lib anymore (I've lend it to a colleague to be used in a course presently), so I can't tell which distros are best suited for the Lib1x0. I remember that recent Mandriva distros (one of my favorites) needed 64 MB RAM to be installed (for the install kernel - running was OK with 64 MB or less). Vectorlinux may also be a good choice. What browsers would people recommend on either platform? Office suites? Seamonkey, Firefox. These use about the same amount of RAM as IE, but IE is loaded by default when booting Windows (unless you use Vorck's method to avoid installing IE components in the first place, URL see above). I've got an old Opera 5.12 lying around, now that's a fast one. Office: MS-Office 97 is still the fastest. But there are also 602 Office suite, Abiword, OpenOffice.org crawls and eats memory but once loaded it's not too slow. If people are interested, I'll try to collate the responses into something that we can chuck on a web page somewhere - perhaps a howto for minimising W2K, and a best practice for Linux? The first is already done by Fred Vorck. On the web there are or have been several sites on Linux on Libbies. www.webarchive.org might help here. David Chien has a good overview on his site to start with, including some of your suggestions. Philip
Re: USB [WAS:Re: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?!]
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:24:36 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: USB [WAS:Re: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?!] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:52:39 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: USB [WAS:Re: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?!] I am not sure, but pin 68 (page 210 of the manual), shows DOCDET - which I interpret as Dock Detect. It should be a simple matter of monitoring what this pin does with and without the Libby connected to the docking station. The other issue Ray and others were concerned with was a special hardware chip inside the docking station that actually provided the proper USB signals. IIRC John M thought that chip in the EPR is just a line driver, i.e. a buffer to allow the USB port to deliver enough power (USB cables may be several m long, output impedance should be low enough to keep the signal robust to interference on the cable). It seems there are many such chips available; though I only found ads for bulk delivery of 10,000+ or so :-( John M also mentioned that one of the linux versions he tried was able to detect the USB controller - but he didn't specify if that was with or without EPR attached. It's all somewhere in the archives (last spring or so?). Philip
USB [WAS:Re: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?!]
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:02:45 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: USB [WAS:Re: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?!] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:50:34 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 100CT at 300Mhz?!?!?! Jose, this has been done and well documented. See this site: http://www.fixup.net/tips/l100266.htm Also, if you are going to do this, here is something else you may consider: I don't know if anyone else saw this link from Vitaly, http://chiba3.dip.jp/notepc/ss1000.html But if you look at it you will see instructions for adding a USB port to the Libretto ff1100V computer. Looking very carefully at it and comparing the signals on the Port Replicator connector on the Lib L100 /L110 CT Notebooks, it would appear you could do the same thing to these. From the Libretto manual, page 211, Table C-2 Docking Interface connector pin assignments (140-pin)(3/3), pin 93 is USBDP, or USB Data positive; and pin 94 is USBDN, or USB Data Negative. By finding a suitable +5V and Gnd point, these are the 4 signals needed for the USB port. This has been discussed before, by - a.o.- John M, Raybot and me. Problem is how to get the USB controller to work at all. It appears to be switched off if no EPR is attached. I guessed that perhaps some connectors on the port replicator connector might need to be connected, or one of those pins may need to be pulled up or down to signal the USB controller to initialize. Although I do not use my L110 that much nowadays (it's just a back-up machine now, I got a JVC 741 for on the road) I'd be very interested if only for the fun of trying to get USB to work. Philip
Re: [LIB] Firewalls?
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:53:52 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Firewalls? David Chien wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:32:30 -0800 (PST) From: David Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Firewalls? 2.6.362 allows pings and port IDENT 113 is visible to the internet. Doesn't here, at least not on my LAN where I used a linux portscanner to try things out. Perhaps you've once allowed pings to come through, and didn't notice it was a ping because it actually appeared as some legal Windows service. Or maybe some obscure Windows program uses that port for some reason. BTW ZA has options for distinct security levels. Philip
Re: [LIB] Libretto 100/110 at 1024x600?
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:18:36 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 100/110 at 1024x600? Anders Nordin wrote: Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:18:07 +0100 From: Anders Nordin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Libretto 100/110 at 1024x600? Hi! Has anybody been able to hack the drivers or something on your librettos so that you were able to set the resolution 1024x600? I have only managed to set the resolution to 1024x768 (yes, on the libretto's own screen). Anybody know of a way? IIRC the NeoMagic 2160 video adapter simply doesn't support that mode (in an easy way, that is). Long time ago, while writing Fortran callable graphics routines in assembler, I played with some SuperVGA routines which assisted in uncovering all supported graphics modes on video adapters. I can't remember to have seen any other non-standard graphics resolutions than 800x480 on my Lib110; apart from many seldomly used text modes. If you want, one of these days I can try to dig up a few of those routines. Then again, the NeoMagic is VESA2.0 compliant and has a lot of capabilities, more -and perhaps even much more- than the native Windows driver allows. I strongly suspect that it must be possible under Linux fairly easily, and if X.org or XFree86 can, some advanced Windows driver might allow it, too. SNAP perhaps? (www.scitechsoft.com) Philip
Re: [LIB] Firewalls?
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:33:56 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Firewalls? Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:31:53 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Firewalls? I finally got tired of the free ZoneAlarm taking so long to load at boot. How long is so long? I still run ZA 2.6.something on all my Windows installations, the only nag is a start-up screen displaying for 3 or 4 seconds. Otherwise, I never noted much boot delay compared to virus scanners, registry integrity checks, reading ACLs etc etc which take 4 minutes on my 1.6 Ghz desktop. Would re-installing ZA help? Some alternatives: http://www.snapfiles.com/Freeware/security/fwfirewall.html http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,8132,RSS,RSS,00.asp BTW, I could download Sygate Personal Firewall 5.6 just a minute ago through the pcworld link above. Philip
[LIB] Pimping a lib110
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:02:02 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pimping a lib110 http://www.exonome.com/fj/yzpl/ (Sorry if this has been reported before here)
Re: [LIB] Toshiba 100GB HD review
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:52:09 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Toshiba 100GB HD review Richard Mittendorfer wrote: Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:38:09 +0100 From: Richard Mittendorfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Toshiba 100GB HD review Also sprach John Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:35:11 -0800): Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:31:38 -0800 From: John Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Toshiba 100GB HD review I do not run linux, I run Windows 98SE as it is required for compatibility by my profession. So, will a Libretto 100/110CT running Windows 98SE be able to see all of a hard drive larger than 128GB? After some patching, that might well be the case (see below). I don't know, but AFAIK it sees what it get's from BIOS. And the Yes and no. When booting, Win98 is initially in 16-bit (DOS) mode, and then it gets all the HD info it needs through the BIOS, incl. the disk layout info from the MBR. But at the end of the boot process, Win98 takes disk I/O over from the BIOS (switch to 32-bit mode) and will be able to see all of the HD. Pity that there's no 32-bit disk partitioner in Win98. Would have avoided a lot of problems (and posts on this subject...) Libretto BIOS will not see the whole disk (INT13 limitations). So you will need some kind of bootmanager, which will pass the right table to the OS, I've heard about such a thing, but can't name one. Hope, google will help. To be precise: as the int13 extensions for disk I/O have been implemented OK, one just needs to get a proper MBR in place. *That* is hard inside a Libretto. But of course, clever software or clever procedures can help to get this together. Search the archives for more info. I doubt that W98 can _handle_ disks greater 128GiB/137.4GB(SI norm). IIRC 48bit LBA(?) first came with ServicePack1 to XP. Linux since 2.4.19 can handle them. It also doesn't read the BIOS, so the INT13 limit doesn't show up. I am almost certain I understood the 128GB limitation to be hardware, not software, so in that case the operating system, linux as well as I think it's more like a hardware specification limit, not a real HW operational limit. For Win98 etc there are patches to access drives 137 GB (not widely tested BTW AFAIK. Anyone care to try?, e.g.): http://members.aol.com/rloew1/ Philip
Re: [LIB] connecting camera to lib70ct
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:41:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] connecting camera to lib70ct Tim de Jong wrote: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:36:16 +0100 From: Tim de Jong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] connecting camera to lib70ct Tim de Jong wrote: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:54:41 +0100 From: Tim de Jong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: connecting camera to lib70ct Hi, I'm looking for a way to get photo's of my camera to the lib70ct. I've tried an usb pcmcia card but that one is 32bit and not supported. I think there are to ways to accomplish this. Get an pcmcia card reader or pcmcia usb card. I use linux on my libretto and my camera is an sony P73. Does anyone know if it's possible to use an memory card reader which supports linux on the lib70ct or a supported pcmcia usb controller? Get a PCMCIA CompactFlash adapter for about $10 US. http://cgi.ebay.com/CompactFlash-CF-Type-II-2-I-PCMCIA-Adapter-Reader-NEW_W 0QQitemZ8754446199QQcategoryZ3710QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Too bad my camera doesn't eat compact flash but sony memory sticks. Or do you know of any pcmcia memory stick readers which are linux compatible? Yes. I got a pcmcia to SD+MMC+memory stick+another-card-format-I-forgot converter (a 4 in 1) from my local photo supply store down the block for about EUR 25,-. And as linux perceives all these pcmcia to any format converters as ide devices, all modestly recent linux versions should be able to read them out-of-the-(linux)box. In rare cases only you might need to add a stanza in /etc/pmcica/config P.
Re: [LIB] Win2k installation on Lib110
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:17:41 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2k installation on Lib110 carval wrote: Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:58:55 GMT From: carval [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Win2k installation on Lib110 Hi In would like to install Win2K on my Lib110, In dont have a woking floppy drive or cd/rom, I do have a 2.5 ide adapter, I have make 2 partitions 8gb and 3.5gb (with free space in between for hibernation) I make the first partition bootable and copied the cabs file (i386) to the second Partition. I know, I cant run setup to install Win2K, like in Win98. What software do I need? I remember someone mentioning a software call smart drive?? any ideas??? The idea looks good to me :-) Have a look here: http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Windows.html#Win2K for some hints and links. You can start the installation from DOS, by running D:\I386\WINNT.EXE Do not forget to first start (indeed!) smartdrv.exe (disk cache) - makes the difference between 1 hour and 4+ hour installs! (You can find it in a Windows 98 subdirectory (\Windows\COMMAND\ or maybe \Windows\ itself.) Good luck, P.
Re: [LIB] USB port on L100 / L110
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:38:59 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] USB port on L100 / L110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:54:54 -0800 (PST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] USB port on L100 / L110 the hardware connector hookup part is easy. I believe there is some issue with turning the chip on to use usb. You may need an additional hardware connection and/or software driver it use it properly. Perhaps some of the pins used to attach the EPR to the Lib are internally connected (in the EPR) to signal the Lib to switch USB on; in the simple port replicator these pins may not be connected. Just an idea (but perhaps totally wrong) P.
Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:43:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions Raymond wrote: Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:53:13 +1100 From: Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and Hi Raymond: Sounds like a plan but I think you may have a couple of issues. I think Win98 is one of those operating systems that needs the drive overlay to work properly on the Libretto otherwise it can't see above the 8G mark (or can't see it properly or something - it was a while ago but I remember headaches in that area). I'm afraid I have to disagree here. Even plain DOS can see all of my 60 GB HD inside my Lib110, w/o drive overlay - as long as the extended partition type is 0x0f rather than 0x05 and the partition scheme (MBR) has been cooked in a modern desktop. Using DOS / Win98 FDISK in a desktop, the 0x0f type is default so no worries there. (0x0f apparently signals DOS to invoke int13 extensions.) The second issue you may have is AFAIK Win98's implementation of FAT32 doesn't work for partitions over 32GB due to its limit on cluster size so you'll need to split your 91GB'odd chunk of space into at least 3 partitions (unless you want to install, say, Win2k which in my experience responds somewhat faster than 98 anyway on the L100, perhaps due to better memory management). I'm afraid you mix up things here too. Perhaps you're right for Win95. But Win98 is quite happy with huge FAT32 partitions. It is Win2000 XP that refuse to format partitions 32 GB with FAT32, they insist on NTFS. For no good reason, as they happily read FAT32 on 32 GB partitions. See: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=184006 http://www.allensmith.net/Storage/HDDlimit/FAT32.htm for some limits. Philip Good luck! - Raymond
Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:36:12 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:40:37 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and Hello Philip Nienhuis and thank you again for additional information. You're welcome. snip For testing and information gathering I used your (Philip Nienhuis) method, inside another Libretto 100CT, I created the largest partition FDISK would allow. (20GB Toshiba HD was used for testing) FDISK reports Total disk space is 7978Mbytes (1Mbyte = 1048576 bytes) Sounds familiar :-) On my current working 100Gig HDD, the first partition I created with Data Lifeguard Tools is seen by FDISK as 7538Mbytes and again FDISK is reporting the Total Disk Space is 7978Mbytes (1 Mbyte = 1048576) Makes sense. I realize the method you (Philip Nienhuis) stated would be more disk space efficient. Though less efficient, my current HDD setup should theoretically have plenty of space for my BIOS Hibernation file with a 500 meg (meg=1048Kb) gap there. In my current understanding, as long as the start of my second partition is out of reach of the Hibernation BIOS Routines +/- 8Gig bug, it should be safe. Based on the above information, does anyone disagree? :) No. After all, 100GB is a lot. 0.5 GB less wouldn't be discernable. Success, Philip
Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS...
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:09:55 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:34:35 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... I would like to address Philip Nienhuis directly, but of course welcome any who can offer additional information on this. Previously stated by Philip... And additionally, you can also simply copy your complete Windows 98 SE installation using appropriate XCOPY options in a DOS window (that's how Please take a second look: In a DOS window, mind you. Obviously running Windows. You probably overlooked that one. The same (at least, I guess it's the same) XCOPY you use in plain DOS, has quite some more options when used in a DOS window under Windows. At least, in my (original Toshiba-) Win98 version. I'd be surprised if it's different in Win98SE, as it also works in Win-ME (although ME has no plain DOS, at least not without hacks). FYI, I use XCOPY origin destination /S /E /C /H /C continues in case of errors - handy for swap files /H copies hidden system files I usually back up my Win98 stuff) rather than use fancy software for that. Don't forget to make its partition active. The XCOPY which I have used extensively since it was included with DOS could not copy hidden or system files. The XCOPY version I have with Windows 98 states directly Copies files (except hidden and system files) and directory trees. Again, in plain DOS, yes. Try it in a Windows DOS prompt. Philip
Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:22:05 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and Outline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:34:09 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Libretto HD Upgrade - Hibernation Area - Questions and Outline Hello Everyone... I have a few questions/ideas relative to hibernation on the Libretto 110CT. I understand that BIOS Hibernation on the Libretto is unable to see a drive larger than 8.4 gig. I also understand that BIOS Hibernation can not be completely disabled on the Libretto. My understanding is that Libretto BIOS Hibernation can be executed completely independently of the OS. Thermally or via detection of low battery are the two ways individuals from this website have stated. Procedure: Duplication of Windows 98 from a single partition 20gig drive to a 100gig Toshiba Drive. With two issues. Issue 1. Leaving the BIOS Hibernation space around the 8.4gig area of the drive, between partitions one and two. Issue 2. Preservation of my current full Windows Installation. No overlay necessary or used. Basically I want to do a hard drive upgrade with partition split AND space to accommodate the hibernation area around the 8.4Gig area of the drive. These are my questions... Question 1. How does the Libretto decide where to put the hibernation area. example: Go to end of HDD (or as much as it can see 8.4) and write the contents backwards or just back up and start to write towards the end? (direction likely doesn't make difference) John: Just a hunch: it writes towards the end. The difference *does* make a difference: Speed. Writing ( reading) backwards is terribly inefficient. Hibernation proceeds as follows: 1. Hibernation routine requests disk size from BIOS HD size routine 2. BIOS HD size routine cheats a bit, and gives an answer which leaves sufficient space for hibernation to anyone who's asking. The size of the cheat depends on another BIOS routine, i.e. the one which returns RAM size 3. Hibernation routine knows about the cheat and begins writing the RAM image starting at the next sector beyond the reported HD size. Now, not only does the BIOS HD size routine cheat, it also contains the 8 GB bug. Yes confusing, but these are two different things (see below for more). BTW one thing is sure: the hibernation image is one contiguous file (i.e., no holes or gaps in it). example: Go to end of partition and write hibernation data? Question 2. I do not have a utility to examine the hard drive data to locate the cylinders where hibernation is being written, though I have seen were several have done just that. There is ONE 20Gig partition on my current working drive. So... Does anyone see why the following installation would not work. Just a hint in advance: clearly state what MB type you mean: digital (= base 10.24, formally called MiB) or SI (base 10.0). Makes quite a difference once in the GB realms. Other than that, I suppose the setup below should be OK. a. Put Original (20Gig Toshiba) HDD and new HDD (100Gig Toshiba) into a desktop computer with modern BIOS to correctly see all of both hard drives. b. Booted from OnTrack Disk Manager floppy disk. Defined the three following partitions with OnTrack Disk Manager on the Toshiba 100Gig Drive. 7.9GB (Boot and Windows Drive) 500MB (For spacer) 91MB (or to end of visible drive) Note: I chose 500 meg to space the beginning of the 91MB partition theoretically outside where the Libretto BIOS Hibernation routines can see. c. Rebooted into Windows Safe Mode from Boot Menu of Functional 20Gig Drive, which contains my original Working Windows Partition with configuration and data trimmed below 8gig. Opened a DOS Box and executed XClone program to duplicate the only partition on HDD 1, C: (20 gig drive) onto the first partition (7.9gig) of HDD2. (Although not documented, while XClone doesn't work in DOS, it does work in Windows Safe Mode... or more accurately, I have used it in Windows Safe Mode several times with no issues. I have never had any failure with XClone) d. Loaded Fdisk and deleted the 500MB partition of HDD 2 between the 7.9GB and 91GB partitions. I realize this should not be necessary, but I chose to do it anyway just to simulate space at the end of my partition. Also keep it from accidentally being formatted or used in some way. Status: No problems at this time. As stated above, I do not know how to verify if it is hibernating in the area I left blank. Although I have read the archives, I do not know or have any of the utilities described to locate the hibernation data. Any suggestions that anyone cares to offer about this installation would be appreciated. I would do it (and have done it several times) this way: 1. Put 100 GB HD in Libretto. Do not use Ontrack or EZ-drive or whatever, delete/deinstall it. 2. Use DOS FDISK to make
Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS...
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:43:59 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:09:52 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... Hello Raymond and thank you for your reply... I was amazed at how this topic was discussed so much over the years with no real end result that I could determine. It took many days to read the full archives. The BIOS HDD 8.4 seems like a simple thing. Sort of a Yes/No to me. A No of course is not what I wanted to hear. Also because much of the information did not apply to the 100/100 directly I hoped it might be outdated at least for these last two CT Models. I will gladly accept the No at this point. :) This all leads back to a previous question however... I have allowed this computer to hibernate a number of times now since safely duplicating the drive. The drive is full less 1/2 gig or so free. I opened up a number of browsers and spreadsheets etc to make certain the memory would have been completely full when written to disk. I realize that Scandisk is NOT a high level tool, but I simply can not believe it can't find a 64meg damaged spot on the hard drive, which hibernation should have caused. Is it inaccurate to believe Hibernation should have blown the formatting, data, everything on that area of the disk? Any idea? (As an aside: the damaged spot it is not just 64 MB but rather 64 MB RAM + 2 MB video RAM + BIOS data) As regards scandisk: Damage assessment depends on where the crucial disk organization data are stored (i.e., tables with pointers to clusters containing file fragments). On FAT(-32), this is usually at the start of the partition. As long as those pointer tables (File Allocator Tables) are intact, scandisk simply won't notice that the actual cluster contents are blown to pieces. You know, scandisk won't inspect a cluster that is in use by e.g., some .xls file to check if that cluster contains valid Excel data; it just checks that the cluster chain itself (in the FAT) is still complete and its beginning is attached to some file descriptor somewhere in the FAT. IOW, the very contents of data clusters is not quite scandisk's affair - it won't even look at the data area proper (unless you instruct it to do a surface check). While FAT32 may be a bit more complex than FAT16 (or FAT12), this must be largely the explanation you seek. Even if there are aditional FATs elsewhere on the partition, as long as these have not been touched scandisk won't ever notice problems. Other file systems (NTFS, HPFS (OS/2), ext2 / ext3 (Linux)) have their crucial data areas scattered over the entire partition, so they are much more vulnerable and data corruption would be noted much easier. BTW As Raymond wrote, there has been considerable debate on the merits of various disk overlays. Even an otherwise very (IMO) knowledgeable prominent Lib user (dr. Xin Feng) once believed that some Maxtor overlay (MaxBlast III) would finally fix the BIOS hibernation of Librettos 100/110CT. Alas, he was corrected all too soon. I think the BIOS hibernation routines might be patched (at least theoretically), but it would take considerable disassembly efforts of some very knowledgeable guy to come up with a BIOS upgrade. I once tried a similar thing on an ancient AT-like desktop, but although I could recognize a lot from IBM BIOS sources in the AT tech ref manual, after a week I had to give up - it was too complicated. Now the Lib110 design date is about 10-12 years later than that desktop and is thus much more complicated - so I think there's little chance that anyone will ever be able to succeed. Philip
Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS...
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:37:04 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:44:26 -0600 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 110CT Large Drives with EZ BIOS... Hello Everyone... snip one partition. I quickly found data corruption. After three times of having to re-duplicate my original 4gig drive back to the 20gig I realized it was after hibernation that this occurred. SO, three questions... One... When hibernation corruption occurs, does it or should it not, also destroy formatting? I ask because my computer has hibernated by accident 4 times now In case one partition (primary or logical) also includes the native BIOS hibernation area, yes, it is very probable, and it is unavoidable. This is the main PITA with the Lib100110's BIOS hibernation routines. Did you leave space for the hibernation area (in the 4 GB HD: at the end of the HD. On the 20 GB HD: around 8 GB)? and I can run Scandisk in Windows (98SE) OR Scandisk in DOS and neither finds ANY problems with the drive. This is not consistent with what I have read, or maybe I am missing something. I was running NO drive overlay at all when this occurred. Overlay or not makes no difference. And DOS or Win98 scandisk are -to put it mildly- not very reliable. I find that Win2000 disk repair very very often fixes problems that win98 scandisk won't even see. Two... In an attempt to be able to use hibernation, EZ BIOS has been installed/enabled. Scandisk has been run in DOS and in Windows and everything seems fine. Also, I filled the drive with data to make sure writes could occur to the end of the disk, they can. Is there a way I can verify it is safe to allow hibernation? Has been described in detail quite often; check the archives. Hibernation always occurs around 8 GB (say, cylinder nos. (after disk translation) 1017-1026 or so). And -beware!- AFAICT the Lib's BIOS hibernation routines do NOT use EZ-BIOS snip I am unable to trim my current configuration down to under 8 gig to allow for the Dual Partition with space between them in the 8gig area. In that case you simply cannot be helped. You MUST leave the BIOS hibernation area around 8 GB empty, period. I know of no other way to get that together than to have that space NOT included in any actively used data partition. So there you are.. (You also can't leave all space below 8 GB empty and make a primary partition beyond it, as the Lib's BIOS won't allow you to boot from beyond 8 GB.) If I were you, I'd reconsider the Dual Partition option again And BTW you strictly do not need EZ-drive; if you take out your Lib 20/100 GB HD, partition it inside a desktop and put it back you'll see that all of the HD can be accessed. And additionally, you can also simply copy your complete Windows 98 SE installation using appropriate XCOPY options in a DOS window (that's how I usually back up my Win98 stuff) rather than use fancy software for that. Don't forget to make its partition active. Besides that, I prefer one large drive due to the nature of the large databases I work with. Understandable, but not possible with a Lib 110. Good luck, Philip
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:03:57 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:45:51 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] How did my email address get into here? Right: Put your new HD back in your Lib70. Then, get a Win98 boot disk (e.g., boot98.exe for Win98 OEM from www.bootdisk.com), make a boot floppy from that and use it to boot your Lib. Use the FDISK on that boot floppy to wipe all partitions and try to make the biggest primary partition you can with your new HD *inside* the Lib70 (answer yes to large HD support). Format the partition (it will be FAT32). (the reason to do it inside the LIB is that you then can make the maximum partition size below the hibernation area.) Next, put the HD back in the desktop, boot the desktop also from that Win98 boot floppy. Use FDISK from the Win98 boot floppy to make an extended partition using all the rest of the HD space. (the reason to do this next step in the desktop is that your desktop's BIOS (hopefully) doesn't suffer from the limitations that the Lib's BOS has w.r.t. HD size.) Hmmm doing all the partitioning at this point. Okay... insteresting. Of course. Easiest way to go. In the new extended partiton, assign the first 50 MB to a temporary logical partition - this will be the future hibernation space. Then make logical partitions as you like, e.g. the 12 GB you suggested. Format this/these partition(s) (it/they will be FAT32) Only then delete the first 50 MB logical partition. You will have a hole there. If FDISK doesn't allow that, you can delete the 50 MB partition using WinXP's disk management. If all is well, your HD can now be used inside the Lib70 without use of EZ-drive. Before you put it back, boot into WinXP and copy the Win98 CD contents onto the logical partition. It sure seems like I've had XP remove the Active status of drives that I've added to desktops that way Philip. Though I don't think it did it consistently. It would be a lot easier going this route than the route via DOS I outlined. I guess you could boot the Lib drive from a W98 boot floppy in the desktop with the drive as the only hard drive connected, and use FDISK to reset the Active status if that occurs though, right? Yes. P.
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:17:31 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se - MP3 Player Jon DuQueno wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:48:50 +0100 From: Jon DuQueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se - MP3 Player Success :P Good. ...snip And one last thing, I can't find the little cable for the network card so may have to buy another (I want windows updates, file transfer and web browsing) does this look ok? www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=31879doy=19m10 Well, it's 16 bit. (32bit (=CardBus) won't work on your 70CT.) So far, so good. But be aware that in network card land (as in most places), you get what you pay for. Cheap cards often have lousy throughput, and often the cheaper the card the more tasks it leaves to the CPU. In your relatively slow Lib70, your CPU already has a heavy burden without a network card. So don't be surprised if responsiveness almost grinds to a halt in case of big network transfers. That said, just using it for Internet won't be a problem in this respect as most dial-up and even ADSL connections are usually much slower than the design speed of a 10 Mbit LAN card. In case you want to hook up to a LAN, search for used e.g., 3Com cards or Xircom (eBay). P.
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - mp3 player
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:19:24 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - mp3 player Jon DuQueno wrote: Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:53:50 +0100 From: Jon DuQueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - mp3 player Hi, I've got 32MB RAM and I'm trying to play 192kbps mp3's. Windows media player 6 maxes out the CPU with 4.8MB unused physical memory and sounds very choppy. Win 5.x wouldn't play mp3's. I tried Windows media player 9 but it was hopeless. Winamp 2.8 just about plays ok with 75% CPU and maxed out physical memory. VLC media player is just as bad as Windows media player 6. I have tried killing everything in task manager but doesn't make any difference, not much running anyway since it's a new install. I checked Toshiba power save and processor is set to full speed. Idle CPU 10% and unused physical Memory 2.4Mb (using system monitor). Is this normal performance for a 70CT? is there anything I can do to improve mp3 playback? Could any bios settings be having an affect on performance. Tried playing an mpeg video (16MB / 3 min) in windows media player 6 and computer locked up... Maybe I have just reached the performance limit of this machine. Don't want to try overclocking just yet, soldering in a machine I only just got is a little scary. Will Office 2000 run ok? Seems to me, you've answered your own question already higher up in your post. Try 98Lite - perhaps that will tame down Win98 sufficiently. P.
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive?
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:38:19 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? Jon DuQueno wrote: First of all, please use plain text rather than formatted text. The font size in your message is too big for me. BTW It seems you use some Japanese character encoding.. (that's what Mozilla Mail tells me) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:38:55 +0100 From: Jon DuQueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? Hi, Thanks for your reply. Got a cheap 20GB IBM TravelStar today :) But having a little trouble formatting it and installing win 98 (I don't really know what I'm doing) :( Well you've made a mistake many beginners make (see below). You chose the wrong DOS boot disk. Don't worry, it will be all right. I deleted all the partitions using desktop-Win XP-computer management. Then I tried creating a new partition using a Fdisk from a Dos 6.22 boot disk in the libretto (downloaded from www.bootdisk.com). I thought this would give me the max primary partition size (8GB ish) but when I created a maximum primary partition it was only 2GB :( Obviously you implicitly / unknowingly chose FAT16 for the partition *type*. DOS 6.22 doesn't know anything about FAT32. FAT16 has a maximum partition size of 2 GB. So I then tried creating a 7.8GB Fat32 partition in desktop-Win XP-computer management instead. I then copied my old Win98se CD to the c: drive, put drive back in the libretto and booted from my dos disk. But it wouldn't let me switch to the c: drive... error Invalid drive specification. Should this work, what am I doing wrong? Problem is, DOS 6.22 won't be able to access FAT32. You need a boot floppy for Win98 or Win95 OSR2. Nevertheless, using that DOS 6.22 boot disk you could make the C:-partition active (proper term: bootable). WinXP doesn't allow you to make a partition bootable, unlike DOS FDISK which does allow that. Right: Put your new HD back in your Lib70. Then, get a Win98 boot disk (e.g., boot98.exe for Win98 OEM from www.bootdisk.com), make a boot floppy from that and use it to boot your Lib. Use the FDISK on that boot floppy to wipe all partitions and try to make the biggest primary partition you can with your new HD *inside* the Lib70 (answer yes to large HD support). Format the partition (it will be FAT32). (the reason to do it inside the LIB is that you then can make the maximum partition size below the hibernation area.) Next, put the HD back in the desktop, boot the desktop also from that Win98 boot floppy. Use FDISK from the Win98 boot floppy to make an extended partition using all the rest of the HD space. (the reason to do this next step in the desktop is that your desktop's BIOS (hopefully) doesn't suffer from the limitations that the Lib's BOS has w.r.t. HD size.) In the new extended partiton, assign the first 50 MB to a temporary logical partition - this will be the future hibernation space. Then make logical partitions as you like, e.g. the 12 GB you suggested. Format this/these partition(s) (it/they will be FAT32) Only then delete the first 50 MB logical partition. You will have a hole there. If FDISK doesn't allow that, you can delete the 50 MB partition using WinXP's disk management. If all is well, your HD can now be used inside the Lib70 without use of EZ-drive. Before you put it back, boot into WinXP and copy the Win98 CD contents onto the logical partition. And remember: after you've done the above, NEVER EVER again use FDISK *inside* your Lib70. If you do, your extended partition might become invisible - to be repaired only inside your desktop. (To put it more exact: it is the combination of the Libretto BIOS and DOS FDISK which should be avoided at all cost.) Is it possible to use a 8GB primary partition? Sure. Does it need to be formatted as fat16 (Win XP-computer management didn't give me fat16 option)? 8 GB can't be formatted FAT16. Period. Anything 2 GB must be either FAT32 or NTFS, and the latter is only usable for Windows NT, 2000 or XP. So for Win98 your only option is FAT32. DOS FDISK (the proper version, from the Win98 bootdisk) should ask you for large hard disk support or something like that. Answering Yes to that question will make your partition FAT32. Do I ned to be using EZ-drive？ Not yet. Does Win XP-computer management use 1,000 or 1,024 when specifying partition sizes? Good question :-) I don't know, I'll have to look (but not now). Simply try the procedure I've described above, it'll probably work out OK without you having to know such silly numbers. Ideally I want a 8GB partition for Win98 (C:) 100mb for hibernation data and 12GB for a second partition (D:). Libretto bios version is 6.20. Should be possible. I have tried searching the archive and www.silverace.com/libretto/ but can't find an idiot proof guide for setting up 8GB+ drive on the 70CT, please help. You're
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:50:40 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se Jonathan DuQueno wrote: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:04:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jonathan DuQueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? - Installing Win98se Hi, I'm making progress but now I’m stuck again :( - Deleted all partitions using desktop-win xp-computer management. - Used Win 98se boot disk to create max primary dos partition (7.8GB). - Formatted as Fat32 using desktop-win xp-computer management. - Copied Win98se CD to primary partition. - Booted from Win 98se disk and run c:/win98/setup.exe. - Scan disk runs ok. - Win 98 preparing setup wizard reaches 100% (pretty color screen and working mouse thingy, love it even more now). - Then I get an error message :( “Message SU0013 Setup can not create files on your startup drive… If you have HPFS or NTFS you must create a MS-DOS boot partition…” Found this http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=188166 on Microsoft but not much help :( I downloaded the boot disk from www.bootdisk.com (Windows 98SE OEM). Is this because I formatted the drive using XP or a problem with the boot disk I’m using? Either may be the case. Just follow the steps from my last post, but before you finally put the HD back in the Lib for Win98 installation proper: - DISCONNECT your desktop's HD (!!!), - connect your new Lib's HD to the IDE cable which is normally attached to the desktop's HD (using 2.5-3.5 adapter), - Boot desktop from Win98 boot floppy, - and then run:A:FDISK /MBR Put the new HD in the Lib, reconnect your desktop's HD as it was before. This FDISK /MBR command will make sure the MBR (some disk partitioning data structure on the HD) is something that Win98 fully understands. Good luck, Philip
Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive?
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:33:05 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? Jon DuQueno wrote: Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:00:45 +0100 From: Jon DuQueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Libretto 70CT - Replacment hard drive? Thanks for all your help. Looks like the libretto is mine if I want it, so i'm going to see if I can pick up a cheap 6GB+ HD from second hand shop next week. I've been looking on www.silverace.com/libretto/ and think I know how I can get it up and running: 1) Get HD and connect to desktop via 3.5 adapter 2) Format 8GB(max) primary Fat32(?) partition leaving 32MB(?) for hibernation data. If the Lib 70CT has the same BIOS limitations as the 110CT model, the maximum size of that primary FAT32 partition, would be more or less as follows (assuming 32 MB RAM): - max 1019 cylinders, or - 8.385 GB (in SI units = based on 1,000) or - 7.803 GiB (based of 1,024) This would also be the maximum combined size of all partitions below the 8 GB mark. But why make one big partition? It is better to split it up in two or more, one for the Win98SE + programs, the other(s) for data. And/or use the third one for storage of the Win98 other SW setup files. BTW, while still in the desktop, you might format the primary partition from DOS using FORMAT /S. Would save you the hassle of having to boot from floppy. 3) Copy Win98se cd-rom data other software to HD using desktop (don't have cd-rom drive for libretto so guess this is quickest/easiest way?). Probably. Other options (in case of HD inside Libretto): - A network/LAN. There exist excellent DOS bootdisks fitted with drivers for many 16-bit LAN adapters (AFAIK the 70-CT doesn't support Cardbus anyway); I have one and used it for a Xircom CEM33 PCMCIA LAN card/modem. - Laplink cable. Either serial (if you've got the time ;-) or parallel (usually about 50 KB/s). DOS Interlnk would be the program to use. - CF-cards or SD cards or so, fitted with a proper CF/SD-to-PCMCIA adapter, DOS drivers for PCMCIA (card socket services). I don't know if such DOS drivers can be obtained easily. A HD in a 2.5 to 3.5 IDE adapter is probably the easiest and fastest. 4) Install drive in Libretto 5) Boot from DOS 6.22 boot disk and run win98se setup.exe. See above. 6) Install libretto drivers, tools and utilities 7) Install and play Doom Please correct me if any of this is wrong. Nothing wrong yet, I just gave some hints based on my own experiences. Questions: 1) Laplink cable - Is this just a serial cable and some software? Can I use this to transfer win98se to libretto HD even if no OS is installed? Yes, see above. But it is slow, especially the serial option. 2) I found a PCMCIA Xercon network card, can I use this to connect to my LAN. Do I need to install win98se and drivers first for it to work. Yes and not necessarily, resp. See above. I forgot the link(s) to the DOS boot LAN disks: http://www.nu2.nu/bootdisk/network/ (probably the best one around) http://tdonline.com/bootdisk.htm (never tried this one) 3) Is it possible to use a wireless network card with the libretto 70. This would be pretty cool. Why not. I got a Cisco 350 PCMCIA wifi card; works even in my old Digital SLC450/e from, uhmmm, 11 years ago (a whopping 50 Mhz 486DX 20 MB RAM under Win95). Don't expect miracles as regards performance... 4) Which OS will run fastest 95, 98se or 2000. Since it's 32MB 120Mhz this Better avoid Win95. It did serve me well for some years on my 110CT, but it is too old now, relatively unstable, has many many limitations under the hood, etc. could be an issue. Can I dual boot 98se and 2000 if I get big enough HD? Sure. But on my Lib 110CT with 64 MB 233 Mhz CPU, Win2000 performance is barely adequate. On 32 MB and a much slower CPU, Win2000 is really too slow. You can try Fred Vorck's method or nLite or (if you really want to pay) Win2KLite to strip Win2K down, but I doubt if it's worth the trouble. http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html (rest of he URLs on that page) 5) What about the 8.4GB limit, do I need to install EZ-Drive? Only if you have a HD bigger than 8.4 GB. And even then you strictly do not need it; I'm not one of the proponents of EZ-drive. But many Libretters are fond of it, and that IS an important fact to keep in mind. The problem is with the Libretto BIOS. If you partition an entire HD 8.4 GB in your desktop using the 2.5 to 3.5 IDE adapter, chances are that you do not need a disk overlay at all and that once in the Libretto even DOS can see all of your HD beyond 8.4 GB. If it works for you this way, keep in mind that any repartitioning must NOT be done in the Libretto but in your desktop. 6) Will I need to do a bios update? If so how? I got no 70CT so I can't tell. Have a look on the Toshiba support site and look around for downloads? 7) What can I use it for other than Doom? Wirelessly
Re: [LIB] W2000 drivers gone from Philip's website, or never there?
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:11:12 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] W2000 drivers gone from Philip's website, or never there? Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:49:15 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: W2000 drivers gone from Philip's website, or never there? From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Special EPR drivers for a 110 running W2000? I don't remember having to install anything like that. I thought W2000 already had them. But my short lived experience ended at the end of last years. So my memory is fuzzy. That's Philip's expertise. Thank you, I'm flattered, but no, I'm not quite a Win2K expert. Just got some experience with Win2K on a Lib110. But I see no mention of EPR drivers on his site: http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Windows.html Matter of fact, I don't see any mention of the W2000 drivers for the Lib 110 on that URL in this note that I thought I found on Philips website last year: True, as it has actually been written by GeraintJ: http://www.geraintj.com/ (click the libretto knob and you'll encounter the very text below). - Windows 2000. Some files that you will need to install windows 2000 ( win2k ) on a libretto 100 (or 100ct) or 110 (and its variations.) tosacp2k.exe tosutil2k.exe w2kpwrx1.exe Yes those are the ones (to be installed in that very order, with reboots in between). But I don't host them on my website - they are (C)Toshiba, so But, IIRC GeraintJ had them up. snipped I'm confused now as to just where I found that note and related drivers. Maybe Philip sent me there in an off-list email back when. Philip? No, see above. That said, I have an update of my web pages lying around for over half a year. Time to fire up my ftp.exe some time (but first finish some house maintenance... - maybe mid-October) Still, I find no mention of W2000 drivers anywhere for the 100/110 EPR. I don't own an EPR, so I'm not sure, but I'd say Win2K does not need special drivers for the EPR. Philip
Re: [LIB] Just got a 50ct
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:17:27 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Just got a 50ct greg ehrendreich wrote: Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:14:18 -0500 From: greg ehrendreich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Just got a 50ct I just got a 50ct from my sister. Stock, no upgrades. Pretty cool. But it comes sans floppy, sans cradle, (but it does have the headphone adapter...). With working (though kinda short life-span) battery and AC adapter. My landlord has a 110, with a cradle, but also no floppy. The cradle is not backwards compatible, of course. anyhow, I pretty much have two generations of these guys to play with, if I really knew what to do with them. Anyhow here's where I've (barely) gotten so far with the 50: I can't get it to install the drivers for my Belkin 802.11b card (f5d6020 ver.2), or run a hell of a lot of anything actually. I think the 95 install is whacked and there really isn't any way to fix it, far as I can tell. Just tells me that I'm missing .dll's every time I try to do anything. I'd like to just install linux onto it, but all the instructions I can seem to find online use a boot floppy. Well, you can also use the DOS program loadlin.exe to boot a linux kernel from a DOS partition. As long as your Win95 installation can still be used to boot into pure DOS, you are mostly set. You can find some info on my web page, http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/MDLinux.html#PREPARATION I used this trick to install VectorLinux too. I have the following assets to work with: 3com megahertz (3ccfe574bt) lan pc card and dongle CF I/II adapter and about a gig of CF cards Any suggestions for what the best way to go about attacking this sucker? Can I install an OS off of a CF card? Some DSL-derivative maybe? Alternative question: If I were to spend any money at all, should I? If it's a hobby, by all means YES. If you want to do something useful with it, well maybe not. Philip
Re: [LIB] How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD?
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:57:15 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD? Rick Mansfield wrote: Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:41:59 -0400 From: Rick Mansfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD? I installed a completely fresh copy of Win2k with NTFS pretty easily. All I did was use a different PC to generate the floppy disks for the Win2k installer (the utility was in the /bootdisk directory on the CD). I plugged in the CD drive and the floppy drive simultaneously, booted from the floppies, and Win2k setup understood the CD drive by itself. As long as your PCMCIA CD drive's drivers are either built-in to Win2k (as mine are) or have a Win2k setup driver, it should be easy. snipped AFAIK Win2K supports most PCMCIA or Cardbus CD-ROMS more or less natively. An older Argosy CD-ROM player was recognized and installed immediately w/o driver disks etc. I got two Freecom CD-ROM/RW devices here (one PCMCIA, one Cardbus) and the Freecom brand happens to be one of the exceptions. But... the original Lib110 restore stuff I have utilized a floppy with -guess what- a DOS driver for a Freecom CD-player (FCPOINT.SYS) (a so-called point enabler - no card services or whatever needed). BTW for taming down Win2K a little have a look at www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html and http://www.beemerworld.com/tips/disabledllcache.htm http://www.beemerworld.com/tips/servicesxp.htm (OK, for XP but translation to W2K is easily done) http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/07/running-windows-with-no-services.html (ditto) One of the Win2Ks on my Lib110 (per Vorck's dec '04 .inf-file set) has a mere 76 MB memory footprint, incl. 15 MB for ZoneAlarm AVG antivirus. Just after installation it used to be something like 45 MB Booting up fully (i.e., HD stops rattling) takes just 1 min 30 sec, shutdown about 15 seconds. P.
Re: [LIB] Linux on a 100CT
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:51:37 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Linux on a 100CT Tony Oresteen wrote: Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:44:56 -0400 From: Tony Oresteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Linux on a 100CT I've decided to run Linux on my Libby 100CT (233MHz 64MB RAM). I have a spare 12 Gig drive that I will use only for Linux. DOS/Win98 will stay on the 40Gig. Last night I partition the 12 Gig as follows: Partition 1: 128mb Linux Swap Partition 2: Logical Partition 1: 52mb Boot Linux ext2 Logical Partition 2: 7.2 gig Linux ext3 Partition 3: 100mb Libby hibernate area Partition 4: 4 gig Linux ext3 To partition I first booted to Partition Magic 8.0 and it saw the drive as an 8 gig. I wrote down the last sector info. I then booted to EZ-BIOS 9.09 and installed EZ-BIOS. I then booted PM 8.0 and it now saw the drive as a 12 gig. I made the first partition 8 gig and adjusted the size until it was the EXACT size that PM saw without EZ-BIOS. I then created the 100mb hibernate area. Once the hibernate area was established (do NOT format it) I then cut up the 8 gig portion into swap, boot, and stuff. The remaining 4 gig was made a Linux stuff partition. Now the hard part. How do I load the Linux distribution files to the hard drive? I downloaded Amigo Linux 2.0 to my Windows 2K box but I am wondering how to get them on the 12 gig drive. Suggestions? Well, some: 1. Why use EZ-BIOS if Linux already during installation bypasses the buggy Lib BIOS in the first place? Only Win98 DOS may benefit from it. EZ-BIOS only makes things more dependent complex. I'm not quite a fan of it. 2. There's a potential pitfall with assigning partitions just like PM 8.0 saw them w/o EZ-BIOS. Many disk overlays hide the very first cylinder/head so in fact shift the entire drive geometry one track up: they pretend to the OSes that cyl 0 head 1 is actually cyl 0 head 0 (to be able to hide their own initialization code). No problem for the OS, but the Lib's hibernation BIOS can't be fooled this way - it just ignores the disk overlay. Watch out for this 3. You really do not need PM 8.0 in any way, as most Linux distros bring their own partitioning tools with them. You might only need one small partition to fire up the install kernel install program, Linux partitioning stuff will take care of the rest. Such a temporary partition can be made easily with even DOS FDISK. Some distros allow even to boot from floppy. 4. What you can do to install Linux is to make a temporary FAT partition and copy the install kernel + support files to it. Then boot using loadlin.exe (usually something like loadlin vmlinuz parameters) and off you go. Look at the links on the linux-on-laptops pages for installation reports to get some ideas: http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/toshiba.html Good luck, Philip
Re: [LIB] How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:22:41 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD? Jim Hanak wrote: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:54:45 -0500 From: Jim Hanak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How to install to Lib 110ct with a bare HD? This has probably been covered before, but can someone point me to where this is? Sure. You might try Google, or seek the Libretto searchable archives first: http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ I have working PCMCIA floppy and CD-rom drives. Any advice? *What* would you like to install? - Win98? - Win2K? - Linux? - .? Philip
Re: [LIB] Enhanced Port Replicator Problem
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:13:51 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Enhanced Port Replicator Problem Matthew Hanson wrote: Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:26:18 + From: Matthew Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Enhanced Port Replicator Problem From: David Chien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Could either be a bad port replicator, bad connection between the two, or simply corrupted registry/software settings that is causing the problem. Can't tell unless you test the port replicator on another Libretto or restore W2K to a known working backup copy and/or wipe reinstall the OS. Ahh... this is a good example of what David has been a champion of through the years... imaging the drive after a successful OS installation. I'll use Ghost to make an image right after a fresh OS installation, then another after getting most hadware drivers and basic applications set up, and then a 3rd whan I've gotten all the software I use set up, and the system cmnpletely tweaked. If any problems develop somewhere along the way or afterwards, it's just a matter of a minute or two to reload one of the images. Also, check the Libretto Maintenance Manual linked on my site below for additional diagnostic hints. Philip was one of our resident W2K gurus here on the list, but we haven't heard from him in a while. Though this may be a bit too unique fir him to have seen. Alive and kicking ( lurking). But with much much less time lately :-( (little kid, new job, what-not.) And indeed, I got no extended port replicator so this is way beyond my expertise From what I've read in this thread I think David pointed out the way to go. And talking about installing W2K, I'd visit Fred Vorck's place first to see how it can be stripped down to run faster and less insecure. NLite is good, but IMO Vorck's stuff is still better. That said, I'm thinking of acquiring a JVC MP-XP741 (or was it a XV741?). JVC now sells the 841 (+ 1 pound weight a little lower battery life than 741, due to built-in CDRW/DVD combo) in Germany UK; German prices start at 1600 EURO. There's also a 941 (DVD +-RW built-in rather than combo). German JVC 741 prices are also around 1650 EURO. Anyone any opinions about these models? You could also try posting the problem to the Toshiba Notebook forum on Compuserve. There are a number of people over there who may know more about W2K issued, specificaly in the Windows XP Pro-Server-2000-NT Support forum. Windows XP Pro-Server-2000-NT Support: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-winprohelp Hmm...Compuserve has done some restructuring. I guess Toshiba notebook support has been included in the Laptop Computing forum: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ws-laptop I've been a Compuserve (Classic) member for 15 years and never heard of this forum... oh my oh my. But it seems that Compuserve's forum support is slowly dying out. The forums ( especially the forum software libraries) used to be my main reason for keeping Compuserve Classic (alongside worldwide local dial-in and the old CIM mailer's immunity for viruses: it's so ancient it doesn't know what to do with an attachment in the first place), but nowadays I'm thinking of dropping Compuserve altogether. Philip
RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:53:49 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know) I see in list historic about sound on DOS games in Libretto... But I dont have sucess : - P I set in AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 T2 P330 SET MIDI=SYNT:2 MAP:B (yes... thast my config in BIOS or in Device Manager in Windows)... Adress IO 220, IRQ 5 DMAs 0 and 1 and MIDI port are 330 (I dont know really that port are for MIDI keyboard (0x388?) or for midi sound output) T is Sound Blaster Type.. and I have tried 1, 3, and others.. but in 110CT manual tell me thasts sound cart is compatible with Sound Blaster Pro v3.0... and the options in T sad Sound Blaster Pro and Compatible are set 2 and 4 Remember on the L110 you have two DMA registers, input output. You might need to specify the H-parameter too and match it with the BIOS settings. See e.g., http://forum.iamnotageek.com/archive/index.php/t-37905.html (15 seconds of Googling - hint!) for a parameter overview. Philip
RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:53:49 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know) I see in list historic about sound on DOS games in Libretto... But I dont have sucess : - P I set in AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 T2 P330 SET MIDI=SYNT:2 MAP:B (yes... thast my config in BIOS or in Device Manager in Windows)... Adress IO 220, IRQ 5 DMAs 0 and 1 and MIDI port are 330 (I dont know really that port are for MIDI keyboard (0x388?) or for midi sound output) T is Sound Blaster Type.. and I have tried 1, 3, and others.. but in 110CT manual tell me thasts sound cart is compatible with Sound Blaster Pro v3.0... and the options in T sad Sound Blaster Pro and Compatible are set 2 and 4 Remember on the L110 you have two DMA registers, input output. You might need to specify the H-parameter too and match it with the BIOS settings. See e.g., http://forum.iamnotageek.com/archive/index.php/t-37905.html (15 seconds of Googling - hint!) for a parameter overview. Philip
RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:53:49 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know) I see in list historic about sound on DOS games in Libretto... But I dont have sucess : - P I set in AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 T2 P330 SET MIDI=SYNT:2 MAP:B (yes... thast my config in BIOS or in Device Manager in Windows)... Adress IO 220, IRQ 5 DMAs 0 and 1 and MIDI port are 330 (I dont know really that port are for MIDI keyboard (0x388?) or for midi sound output) T is Sound Blaster Type.. and I have tried 1, 3, and others.. but in 110CT manual tell me thasts sound cart is compatible with Sound Blaster Pro v3.0... and the options in T sad Sound Blaster Pro and Compatible are set 2 and 4 Remember on the L110 you have two DMA registers, input output. You might need to specify the H-parameter too and match it with the BIOS settings. See e.g., http://forum.iamnotageek.com/archive/index.php/t-37905.html (15 seconds of Googling - hint!) for a parameter overview. Philip
RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 20:53:49 +0200 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Sound on 110CT (again, I know) I see in list historic about sound on DOS games in Libretto... But I dont have sucess : - P I set in AUTOEXEC.BAT SET BLASTER=A220 I5 D1 T2 P330 SET MIDI=SYNT:2 MAP:B (yes... thast my config in BIOS or in Device Manager in Windows)... Adress IO 220, IRQ 5 DMAs 0 and 1 and MIDI port are 330 (I dont know really that port are for MIDI keyboard (0x388?) or for midi sound output) T is Sound Blaster Type.. and I have tried 1, 3, and others.. but in 110CT manual tell me thasts sound cart is compatible with Sound Blaster Pro v3.0... and the options in T sad Sound Blaster Pro and Compatible are set 2 and 4 Remember on the L110 you have two DMA registers, input output. You might need to specify the H-parameter too and match it with the BIOS settings. See e.g., http://forum.iamnotageek.com/archive/index.php/t-37905.html (15 seconds of Googling - hint!) for a parameter overview. Philip
Re: [LIB] CF Card Libretto
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:11:03 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] CF Card Libretto Tony Oresteen wrote: Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:20:01 -0500 From: Tony Oresteen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CF Card Libretto A tip a question. Tip: I've been using a Compact Flash card to move data from my desktop to my Libretto. I use a CF to PCMCIA adapter in the Libretto 100CT and a CF USB reader on my desktop. For $75 I bought a new SanDisk 1 GB CF card from BH Photo NY. You can copy an entire cd-rom to the CF card and then copy it to the HD in the LIBRETTO without needing to haul an external CD-ROM drive. Use a USB 2.0 CF reader if you can (My home readed is USB 2.0, my work readed is USB 1.1. Big difference!!!) Question: If I leave the CF in the Libretto and re-boot Windows 98, Windows 98SE crashes. I remove the CF card, reboot and all is fine. Once Windows is booted I can insert the CF card and Win98 sees it just fine. I've tried it with CF cards that are 64mb, 128mm, 512mb, and 1 gb. Same problem. Windows 98 won't boot with the CF card in place. The message I get is that there is a problem with the STACKS and to increase it. No mater what I do with the STACKS command in the CONFIG.SYS file Win98 crashes on boot with a CF card inserted into the PCMCIA slot. Any ides? Tried it here on a L110 with a 96 MB CF card I use for my digicams. Win98 boots fine However, this CF card is formatted FAT16 (only newer digicams format or even support CF cards formatted FAT32). Perhaps FAT32 makes a difference? Re suggestions: I can't imagine it is due to STACKS. In fact, my CONFIG.SYS contains only DEVICE=PANNING.SYS FILES=80 and AUTOEXEC.BAT contains: SET TEMP=C:\TEMP SET TMP=C:\TEMP + some environment strings for OpenWatcom. Those are really all the working statements. What's the BIOS setting for the PCMCIA/Cardbus slots? Here it set to Auto. Philip NB: I'll unsubscribe from this list for a few weeks due to a stay abroad w/o email (the mail space on my ISP's POP server will rapidly fill up with spam anyway...)
Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:05:16 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:38:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first (HD LED) happens with some HDs only = So the answer = Yes The 1st? The 1st on the right side or left? No the first question the OP asked. Guess it was first on the left ... :-) snip Does anyone have the 50/70 100/110 service manuals online anywhere? Mine seem to be corrupt. I've yet to write anything about the W98/W2K file problem I discovered. I hope the problem with these corrupted manual files isn't related. somewhere in www.photoengineering.com P.
Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:19:58 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:16:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hint: before asking questions, peruse the archives on: http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ We don't mind answering but some self-help may yield much better answers and insights. Problem these days is that Dan's removed the footer from posts that gave the URL to one of the 2 list archives. And though I know Mike Kopplin runs the one you list above, in all these years, I've never figured out who runs this one: http://www.mail-archive.com/libretto@basiclink.com/ Thank you! I did not even know about that one. I always though it was Dan. because of the libretto@basiclink.com in the URL. But Dan told me he doesn't even know who's running it. As for people posting questions before checking in the archives, yes... that's always a nice way for people to go. But personally I don't mind people popping up and asking whatever's on their mind. I've found that many archive searches can be a real pain myselt. Of course you, David, Raymond and a few others always end up addressing the more complicated issues... Oh but I don't mind people asking. What I meant is about something I enounter myself sometimes: I ask a question, get an answer I did not expect (because I had a wrong perception of the problem at hand) and had to ask several questions more before I found out the actual problem. So I suggest to check list archives first, just to get an idea of possible solutions and backgrounds and help save time and confusion. I did not mean to put anyone off, like happens on several usenet NGs (e.g., comp.os.linux.*) Philip
Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:40:24 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New 30 Gb Drive Issue Laszlo Szalai wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:48:47 +0100 From: Laszlo Szalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New 30 Gb Drive Issue Dear All, I've installed a new IBM Travelstart 30Gb drive to my libbi 110CT and the HDD led is always green, doesn't switch off and the disk in only in PIO mode. Is it normal ? The first (HD LED) happens with some HDs only = So the answer = Yes Doesn't switch off: what operating system? PIO mode: Yes. Recently there were some postings on this subject - the Lib doesn't support DMA. Hint: before asking questions, peruse the archives on: http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ We don't mind answering but some self-help may yield much better answers and insights. Philip
Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:44:07 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:27:16 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a link to a couple of very handy utilities ( other things), Control Panel and Startup Monitor, for W2K. Control Panel offers a fancied-up msconfig-type utility, which works very well, allowing one to select/deselect software that W2K will run at startup. A great improvement over Task Manager. Hmmm... Looks like a handy utilty to shut down some processes that otherwise might also be disabled in the W2K Administrative Tools. Haven't gotten to the point of installing the stripped down version of W2K Philip writes about. But I keep wondering if it might be possible to get more performance out of W2K by just going in and shutting down processes that I may not need, as I'm not running it as a client server. For a start, have a look here: http://www.techspot.com/tweaks/win2k_services/ I found it doesn't make very much difference in performance, but some services do affect (negatively) security. Philip Philip
Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:30:40 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:22:29 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues In a message dated 1/24/2005 1:34:00 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: .question: what has WAN to do with AVG-Free? That would be a question for AVG - I have no idea (see below) preventing it would appear. I would Shut Down the L100 at that point. On the next boot-up, hibernation would work. Then, after resuming and attempting to hibernate, the error message appears and prevents hibernation...Even after de-activating - but not uninstalling - AVG, the error appeared. I've finally uninstalled it. FWIW, this also occurs on my daughter's Portege 7010CT. Any advice is welcome! Well, my (IE-stripped) Win2K hibernates fine running AVG-Free (7.0 I think) wifi LAN. (The other -full- Win2K on the Lib runs McAfee.) I suppose your problem has little to do with AVG-Free. Win2K hibernation can be hampered by hardware drivers which do not properly shut down the HW before and reinitialize it after hibernation. The NT driver for the L10/L110 Neomagic video is a fine example. In your case, I'd suggest there's something wrong with your network drivers or network connections (WAN). The fact that uninstalling AVG does not help is a clear indication of this. Philip You've misunderstood my (granted, abbreviated) explanation. Uninstalling AVG does, in fact, solve the WAN driver interference with W2K hibernation Sorry, I didn't grab that. problem. And as I said, the same behavior occurs with a Portege 7010CT: prior to AVG-Free installation, problem-free W2K hibernation; afterwards, WAN driver interference. BTW, there is mention of this problem on the AVG site, with the recommendation to buy the commercial version, where the problem is solved. Got a link for that? I searched on www.grisoft.com but couldn't find it. Guess it may be time to pony up for AV software. Sure, there are other free AV-products, e.g.: http://www.freeware.freeweb-hosting.com/av.html http://www.thefreesite.com/Free_Software/Anti_virus_freeware/ Admittedly, AVG Free v. 7.0 performs a bit less in some respects than v. 6.0. Manually updating the av-definitions often takes a long time, if the server can be reached at all. Automatic updating-while-booting always goes fast and flawless. But it is free and otherwise works well, I don't complain. What would concern me more is whether AVG Free can catch enough viruses. I have the impression that it performs a bit less in this respect than McAfee, but McAfee really slows down Windows on the Lib110. P.
Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:35:41 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/27/2005 3:33:18 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Got a link for that? I searched on www.grisoft.com but couldn't find it. My bad. The problem software is Sygate firewall, not AVG. (Oh, the shame:-/ ) Don't worry. Would ZoneAlarm be a good alternative? (or Kerio, ...) ...snip What would concern me more is whether AVG Free can catch enough viruses. I have the impression that it performs a bit less in this respect than McAfee, but McAfee really slows down Windows on the Lib110. I used the (until recently) free version of Computer Asociates AV+firewall called EZ Armor, but the renewal was $30, and the firewall was difficult to manage. AVG seems OK, but I have had a low incidence rate of virus infection, so can't judge its effectiveness. Not a Norton fan, and I agree with your observation of McAfee. It was great when it was freeware, though. Found a good link, interesting results. It suggests that McAfee is the best of all and AVG just performs average. To your liking: Norton did not come out that good either: http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/ Sorry for the error. That's OK, Philip
Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:13:06 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:38:05 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. I had SP4 applied to an already existing (Dutch) W2K-SP3, but due to problems with its NT-VDM I had to reinstall W2K; so I reinstalled it with SP4 slipstreamed into it. So back to the question of W2K shut down time with SP4 loaded. I'm guessing that your slipstreamed copy still takes that 60-70 seconds to shut down... yes? That, unlike my copy of W2K w/SP3 that shut down for me out of the box for me in about 15 seconds. Correct, the slipstreamed full W2K one takes about 1 - 1.5 minutes. A slipstreamed but then IE-stripped W2K takes a mere 15-20 seconds, although that time has increased a bit with a new virus scanner version (AVG Free). I think the main problem is that Win2K ( NT, XP, ...) upon shutdown checks and/or rewrites large parts of the registry to disk. So the challenge is to keep the registry small (saves boot-up time too). Initially the registry is some 10 MB or so, but soon it'll grow and grow. I got a message once that the (still default) maximum registry size (18 MB IIRC) was too small and I had to increase it. I suspect over time a lot of junk is collected inside, so a reg clean-up program may help out a lot. Never tried it though. I just had to restore a pre-Windows Update image of my W2K installation last week. The 1st thing I noticed was that it shut down in a flash. Without adding any further software, I went online and ran Windows Update. As soon as the system rebooted, I shut the system down to check to see if it was the updates that were slowing the process down. And indeed, it took that 60-70 seconds again. So if it's a registry problem, it's one that the WUs are causing, not software. Tho' I wonder if it's something more to do with what Windows is doing at shut down more than it has to do with processing the registry. Though maybe an update caused W2K to do more in-depth registry analysis... but I'm just guessing. Apart from the registry, Win2K has to wait for HW and might also check all kinds of network settings etc, whether existant or not. After all, it has been designed as a client OS (in a network) rather than for stand-alone home use (hence Professional). W/o NIC inserted it shuts down a lot faster than when attached to the network (same goes for booting). But I did stumble upon what would seem to be a useful piece of software while troubleshooting a firewall problem the other day. Here's a slick looking utility called Error Nuker that clears registry of orphaned entries, potentially speeding up your system: http://www.error-nuker.com http://www.download.com/Error-Nuker/3000-2094_4-10348363.html Yes there are many many many more. Registry Cleaner, etc come to mind. It might also help to fix the size of the page file and defragment that using pagedefrag, a free tool from www.sysinternals.com. Making it fixed size will help keeping it defragged. If you dare, you can defrag Win2000 system files while being booted into W98 - that's the way I did it (temporarily changing system attributes of these files etc) Re: SP4: Well it may not speed up but it will fix a lot of security leaks and holes. And as I said a couple of postings ago, it does increase stability, especially with legacy (16 bit) programs. I'd think running Windows Update would address all of those security issues. Tho' I aven't run any legacy programs to my knowledge. But I'm still not clear (bad memory?) what SP4 may install that Windows Update doesn't... if anything. No info on Microsoft's site? (technet, etc?) P. Matt __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:33:08 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:38:42 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] AVG Free Issues In a message dated 1/24/2005 5:13:48 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip Correct, the slipstreamed full W2K one takes about 1 - 1.5 minutes. A slipstreamed but then IE-stripped W2K takes a mere 15-20 seconds, although that time has increased a bit with a new virus scanner version (AVG Free). I'm also running (or rather *was* running) AVG Free, but it interfered with W2K hibernation. Upon attempting to hibernate, a message about a WAN driver .question: what has WAN to do with AVG-Free? preventing it would appear. I would Shut Down the L100 at that point. On the next boot-up, hibernation would work. Then, after resuming and attempting to hibernate, the error message appears and prevents hibernation...Even after de-activating - but not uninstalling - AVG, the error appeared. I've finally uninstalled it. FWIW, this also occurs on my daughter's Portege 7010CT. Any advice is welcome! Well, my (IE-stripped) Win2K hibernates fine running AVG-Free (7.0 I think) wifi LAN. (The other -full- Win2K on the Lib runs McAfee.) I suppose your problem has little to do with AVG-Free. Win2K hibernation can be hampered by hardware drivers which do not properly shut down the HW before and reinitialize it after hibernation. The NT driver for the L10/L110 Neomagic video is a fine example. In your case, I'd suggest there's something wrong with your network drivers or network connections (WAN). The fact that uninstalling AVG does not help is a clear indication of this. Philip
Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:01:57 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:02:44 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does installing the Service Pack 4 result in the same slow shut down? Or is this only happening to me? Don't know. ISTR shutdown/boot times were also quite long w/ SP3. Ah... so you've not yet gone to SP4 yet Philip? Wonder what people are seeing that have installed it. Yes, I have SP4 on both Dutch and English W2K. Okay... I'm a but confused here You do have SP4 installed. Do you have it installed on a standard, non-stripped down installation? My copy of W2K Yes. I had SP4 applied to an already existing (Dutch) W2K-SP3, but due to problems with its NT-VDM I had to reinstall W2K; so I reinstalled it with SP4 slipstreamed into it. (The NT-VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) problem in my case related somehow to Netscape 4.79, Win2K kept on producing 500 - 1000 VDM-scratch files per hour, finally choking the partition with the %TEMP% directory. Since SP4 I never experienced similar problems.) came with SP3 as part of it. And when 1st installed, it shut down fairly quickly. I think the main problem is that Win2K ( NT, XP, ...) upon shutdown checks and/or rewrites large parts of the registry to disk. So the challenge is to keep the registry small (saves boot-up time too). Initially the registry is some 10 MB or so, but soon it'll grow and grow. I got a message once that the (still default) maximum registry size (18 MB IIRC) was too small and I had to increase it. I suspect over time a lot of junk is collected inside, so a reg clean-up program may help out a lot. Never tried it though. Don't imagine installing SP4 will ever speed things up. I wonder if some Windows specialist may know how to speed up the shut down process. Seems if I haven't made any chanages to the OS during a session, it doesn't need to check for changes. Turning that process off might speed things up. Well it may not speed up but it will fix a lot of security leaks and holes. And as I said a couple of postings ago, it does increase stability, especially with legacy (16 bit) programs. P.
Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum?
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:59:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? John Musielewicz wrote: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:09:16 -0800 (PST) From: John Musielewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? hi matt umm matt the bios sees a drive over 8Gig as a 8 gig drive so it'll write on the end of the drive. it sees the whole drive like this |-bios=8GB---| |-Operating system=greater 8GB---| so figure looking at the drawing above the end or the drive is to the right the bios will write it at the end and the os will write it at the end if you set it up that way of course. now many people will say differant but I let you in on a little secret. I am Once I was thinking exactly these same thoughts, after I was informed by Wilm Bockey that the BIOS hibernation stuff indeed uses the int13 extensions - IOW the BIOS hibernation routines would have no problem at all writing the memory image to the real end of the disk. But then (1) a number of people who ignored the location of the hibernation area around the 8 GB barrier have reported serious data loss; (2) a number of people simply tested where the BIOS dumps the memory image using files with special patterns and found it to be around 8 GB; (until further info comes along I perceive these as simple facts) and some further thinking yielded: (3) There is no specially designated hibernation area mentioned in the MBR or EMBR. Without it, how would BIOS hibernation be able to deduce where the end of the disk is...? The only available alternative outside the OS is to use the crippled disk size reporting function of the BIOS itself. And that can only see max. 8 GB... You can check that yourself using a simple DOS assembly prog to involve int13 subfunc 48h; it reports disk size by CHS parameters (implying 1024 cyl limit) rather than number of sectors (cf. to LBA). kind of a computer god if I can stay awake long enough Yes your USB info a while ago was indeed divine :-) to let the others finish telling me why it WON't work and then me doing it the way I said just to go home and get away from the m***ns. Now you can use a drive overlay if you want and it'll change things kinda but not really for a couple reasons..1 the drive overlay will force you to write he hibernation partition at the 8GB barrier (which is no barrier for the OS or bios by the way that is just hype) because the bios will use the overlay. but why would you want to use an ?? I always thought an overlay replaces the hard disk routines of the BIOS (it catches int14/15 IRQs) overlay to begin with? you have to sit there and count silly things like sectors and cylinders and other odd things that are only fun if your explaining them to a cute girl:) and want to impress her with what a brain you have. The easy thing is really to do what you : ...lot of interesting stuff snipped... P.
Re: [LIB] 50CT with big drive - problems
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:11:21 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] 50CT with big drive - problems Daniel Fenert wrote: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:14:27 +0100 From: Daniel Fenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 50CT with big drive - problems 1. After upgrading from 2GB to 30GB, HDD Led is always lit (not real problem, but annoying :) I agree. I got a Hitachi 7K60, same problem. Seems to be a bug in the Libretto, it does not conform fully to the ATA standard (says Hitachi support). 2. I can't suspend machine properly, I'm using linux (2.4.26), after running: apm --suspend usual suspend status shows for a second, and then libretto goes off (to state where power led blinks once a few seconds). I use pmsuspend2 (swsusp) on Mandrake9.2, works flawlessly. I can get it back from this state of course, but after few minutes when it really turns off I get following message: WARNING: CAN'T RESTORE HIBERNATED STATE. PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE. And then it starts as after reboot :-/ And that is REAL problem for me because I've never rebooted my libretto (that's lie - I rebooted it once per few months to upgrade kernel :) My partition table looks like this: partfromto size hda11 511 (~4GB) hda2512 1017(~4GB) Suggestion: AFAIK cyl. 1017-1026 are used by the BIOS hibernation (1017 partly). Your hda2 and hda4 overlap with it. Better be conservative and reserve more space (before and after) for the hibernation area. A few 8 MB cylinders more or less is peanuts on a 30 GB HD. space for hibernation from 1018 to 1024 hda410253648(~20GB) (that's extended partition) hda5 In the free space there was in the begining partition of type 0 (empty), but I deleted it because I thought that it was the problem, and now I know it still doesn't work. ps. there's no increase in drive speed (tested with `hdparm -tT /dev/hda`), this new drive is 5400rpm with 8MB cache... I get: ~45MB/s buffer-cache reads, ~3.5MB/s buffered disk reads. Be content with it. ISA bus, no dma support (see a few posts back in the list archives, http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ ) -- Daniel Fenert --== [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==-- P.
Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum?
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:13:19 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? Nick Schiller wrote: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:25:54 - From: Nick Schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? Matt/John I have read this exchange with interest - but some bewilderment I am a reasonably capable PC user but by no means an IT Engineer. I simply want to run a big disc in my little libretto. From what I can understand there is no issue with putting a nice big disc in under either W2K or XP. However, the hibernation does seem to be an issue. I can understand the logic of what is being described but have no real understanding of how to implement it on a disc - could either of you provide an idiots guide to setting up a new disc in a Libretto CT110, 64Mb, 266Mhz - 233 Mhz :-) it would be very much appreciated Search the archives, http://www.technoir.nu/libretto/list/ or peek at my Windows page, http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Windows.html (be careful with numbers, I should update the page soon) Philip Nick Schiller -Original Message- From: Philip Nienhuis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2005 19:00 To: Libretto Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:59:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? John Musielewicz wrote: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:09:16 -0800 (PST) From: John Musielewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Disc Size - Maximum? hi matt umm matt the bios sees a drive over 8Gig as a 8 gig drive so it'll write on the end of the drive. it sees the whole drive like this |-bios=8GB---| |-Operating system=greater 8GB---| so figure looking at the drawing above the end or the drive is to the right the bios will write it at the end and the os will write it at the end if you set it up that way of course. now many people will say differant but I let you in on a little secret. I am Once I was thinking exactly these same thoughts, after I was informed by Wilm Bockey that the BIOS hibernation stuff indeed uses the int13 extensions - IOW the BIOS hibernation routines would have no problem at all writing the memory image to the real end of the disk. But then (1) a number of people who ignored the location of the hibernation area around the 8 GB barrier have reported serious data loss; (2) a number of people simply tested where the BIOS dumps the memory image using files with special patterns and found it to be around 8 GB; (until further info comes along I perceive these as simple facts) and some further thinking yielded: (3) There is no specially designated hibernation area mentioned in the MBR or EMBR. Without it, how would BIOS hibernation be able to deduce where the end of the disk is...? The only available alternative outside the OS is to use the crippled disk size reporting function of the BIOS itself. And that can only see max. 8 GB... You can check that yourself using a simple DOS assembly prog to involve int13 subfunc 48h; it reports disk size by CHS parameters (implying 1024 cyl limit) rather than number of sectors (cf. to LBA). kind of a computer god if I can stay awake long enough Yes your USB info a while ago was indeed divine :-) to let the others finish telling me why it WON't work and then me doing it the way I said just to go home and get away from the m***ns. Now you can use a drive overlay if you want and it'll change things kinda but not really for a couple reasons..1 the drive overlay will force you to write he hibernation partition at the 8GB barrier (which is no barrier for the OS or bios by the way that is just hype) because the bios will use the overlay. but why would you want to use an ?? I always thought an overlay replaces the hard disk routines of the BIOS (it catches int14/15 IRQs) overlay to begin with? you have to sit there and count silly things like sectors and cylinders and other odd things that are only fun if your explaining them to a cute girl:) and want to impress her with what a brain you have. The easy thing is really to do what you : ...lot of interesting stuff snipped... P.
Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:40:47 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:34:08 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but not vital AFAICS: arcldr.exe arcsetup.exe Hmmm... don't see those listed for the Windows 2000 Pro startup process here: These seem to be used or at least installed in case of dual booting (W2K + W9x). From what I can find, those files seem to be more related more to repairing W2K, or a W2K/W98 dual booting system: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/prork/pref_tts_pwtl.asp http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/1393e.asp http://tweakhomepc.virtualave.net/dual/repairdualboot.html But very useful to know about for sure. Full version Win2K : same story. IE-Stripped version: total shutdown time less than 20 seconds after clicking Start-Shutdown. While on the stripped version boot time increases a little, shutdown remains fast as ever. Okay... insteresting. It's not just my setup then. Does installing the Service Pack 4 result in the same slow shut down? Or is this only happening to me? Don't know. ISTR shutdown/boot times were also quite long w/ SP3. Ah... so you've not yet gone to SP4 yet Philip? Wonder what people are seeing that have installed it. Yes, I have SP4 on both Dutch and English W2K. P.
Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:59:26 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:56:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Hanson wrote: Boot.ini Ntldr Ntdetect.com And sometimes Ntbootdd.sys There may be others. Yes, but not vital AFAICS: arcldr.exe arcsetup.exe Hmmm... don't see those listed for the Windows 2000 Pro startup process here: These seem to be used or at least installed in case of dual booting (W2K + W9x). http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/prork/prbd_std_damc.asp But I'm not sure if that's the page I found last month when I was searching for info on MS support pages describing the boot process. I was wondering if your installation of W2K is taking as long as mine is now Philip. As I wrote before, the shut down popup window saying, Please wait... Saving your settings has been hanging up for over a minute ever since I had Windows Update install 37 patches. Full version Win2K : same story. IE-Stripped version: total shutdown time less than 20 seconds after clicking Start-Shutdown. While on the stripped version boot time increases a little, shutdown remains fast as ever. Does installing the Service Pack 4 result in the same slow shut down? Or is this only happening to me? Don't know. ISTR shutdown/boot times were also quite long w/ SP3. P.
Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not?
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:12:02 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not? Jim Drouillard wrote: Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:23:56 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Drouillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not? The easier way to download hotfixes is to use Windows Update to get the fix number then search for it on MS TechNet. They link to downloadable versions of the patches. Example: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-041.mspx Jim True. Mostly that is :-( The problem is that this way you can't get all the fixes. Some just can't be found on the MS site - only way to get them applied is to either use Windows Update or recover them from an already patched Windows as I outlined. Philip == Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:06:50 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not? 6. There is a trick to save the hotfixes: - A. You need to keep track of which hotfixes and patches are applied in what order. Hint: higher numbered hotfixes obviously have to applied after lower numbered ones. B. Winupdate removes the downloaded update files once they have been applied, but... C. ...Microsoft still hasn't learned the game: these downloaded files are not gone completely! On all Windows versions I saw (95 until XP home) the donwloaded files are still present in the browser cache.. look in Temporary Internet Files etc, the file names are mangled but still contain the original hotfix number. There are 4 caches, look in all of them (hint: sort on date). D. Copy these files a.s.a.p. to a backup subdir and later on CDROM, after having changed their names to something more mnemonic. E. Once you've installed Windows, simply re-apply the hotfixes in the order you wrote down in A. F: Presto! Philip == __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not?
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:06:50 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2000 SP4 worth it or not? Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:12:52 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Win2000 SP4 worth it or not? Real quick... anyone have any option on whether or not Win2000 Service Pack 4 is really worth idownloading and nstalling? From the looks of the user comments at download.com, I think not: http://www.download.com/3302-2098_4-10210714.html But it's a real problem to have to go to Windows Update to install all of the 38-40 patches via dialup every time you load a new copy of W2K. And the process of downloading the updates individually and figuring out what order to install them is a real pain, if possible to do correctly at all. 1. *That* ^ is precisely the reason that a service pack is so practical. 2. On W2K SP2 and SP3, one of my home-developed apps was able to solidly lock up W2K (the app contains a SVGA mouse driver I wrote in assembler. I think that was the culprit). On SP4, until now, that hasn't happened. That by itself doesn't imply superiority of SP4, but it more than just coincidental. 3. I tend to doubt the negative reports in the URL you provided. I'd rather think the PC's in question were already flakey. 4. Yet it is better to slipstream a service pack into a W2K installation CDROM and then install it, than applying SPx to an already installed (and possibly somehow polluted) W2K. If you want to try Fred Vorck's IE-removal trick, you need to do this anyway. It is easy to do. BTW if you use Vorck's trick, about 2/3 of the hotfixes since SP4 are simply not needed - they are for IE, Outlook etc which are no more present. 5. A while ago Microsoft gave away hotfix CDROM's including patches for all Windows versions, updated until about last summer. Perhaps you can get still them? 6. There is a trick to save the hotfixes: - A. You need to keep track of which hotfixes and patches are applied in what order. Hint: higher numbered hotfixes obviously have to applied after lower numbered ones. B. Winupdate removes the downloaded update files once they have been applied, but... C. ...Microsoft still hasn't learned the game: these downloaded files are not gone completely! On all Windows versions I saw (95 until XP home) the donwloaded files are still present in the browser cache.. look in Temporary Internet Files etc, the file names are mangled but still contain the original hotfix number. There are 4 caches, look in all of them (hint: sort on date). D. Copy these files a.s.a.p. to a backup subdir and later on CDROM, after having changed their names to something more mnemonic. E. Once you've installed Windows, simply re-apply the hotfixes in the order you wrote down in A. F: Presto! Philip
Re: [LIB] WiFi L110
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:36:02 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] WiFi L110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:40:01 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WiFi L110 Is it possible to use a WiFi card on a L110 running Win98? Yes. If so, what do all of you recommend, for maximum distance?? An access point or wireless router with sufficient transmit power. Or another PC with wifi card of course. Proper location of the access point or router can be very important. What software do I need if any? The drivers for the wifi card itself. All the rest is built in Win98, perhaps except for some encryption options. Thank You! -JP Wifi cards use quite a bit of battery power. You Lib110 battery will drain some 25 % faster with it, depending on the card, transmit power and signal strength. On World of Wiondows Networking you can find a lot of info: http://www.wown.com and for wireless: http://www.wown.com/articles_tutorials/Wireless_Networking/ P.
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:31:18 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:03:15 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...snip Something I noted when doing a more time consuming binary comparison of a few MP3 files a while back with BC, is that one particular program character, a 'y' with an umlout above it was replaced with an 'i' character with an umlout when the files were copied over. But it doesn't seem it'd be an issue here, would it? I wouldn't know, though I'd search that option too. XP Win2K are based on Unicode (double byte char set), Win9x is AFAIK not. But AFAIK the file systems should be transparent to both Windows versions. You probably copied the files in Explorer, no? You can also copy them in a DOS prompt / command window using something like XCOPY /S /D /E /C /H /V or so (type XCOPY /? for usage options). Especially /V is useful as it verifies each copied file. From your last post I understood that you used Win2K to copy the files over the LAN. What would happen if you use W98? A suggestion: - Perhaps your G:-partition has bad blocks? ...snipped conclusion = no bad blocks? ...snip At that point I gave up... installed EZ-Drive again... ran Scandisk from W98, and it found no errors at all. Because EZ-drive shifts all tracks one up (to hide itself), It seems there's got to be more to it than that Philip. W2K seems to have a much more broad 'understanding' of how partitions and file systems work than W98SE does. Oh yes I fully agree here. Compared to Win2K, Win9x is just a collection of hacks, kludges and trickery. But normally it is quite reliable. Zillions of people stil run W9x w/o problems. But what I meant is that shifting a partition one cylinder or track up may help to avoid bad blocks an/or previous data. Bad blocks is no black white thingy, it is a sort of gradual decline of disk surface detoriation that may or may not show depending on a *lot* of circumstances. OS #1 might note it, OS #2 not. OS #A may try 5 times and then give up, OS #B may try just twice. It depends Previous data may also clobber up FATS etc. I encountered situations more or less like yours which I simply did not trust. Just to be sure, I changed shifted partition layout several times to avoid these situations. Although admittedly I am not sure what the cause was of my problems, it did help in my case. It ought to for MSs sake. After all, W2K is smart enough to create an 0c logical partition where it's needed. Whereas my Beware... Win98 or even DOS FDISK will do that too! but it needs a proper BIOS to do so, that means that it won't work in a Libretto. But on my desktop, which has a proper BIOS, it worked OK. very 'MS Windows based' Partition Magic v8.0 doesn't want to do it. AAMOF I found that by merely running PM 8.0 on this 40GB HDD in question and not doing any modifications at all, it would auto-convert the 0c partition I set with Ranish to a type 0b! And that no doubt reflected PoweQuest and MS's viewpoint towards disk partitioning at some point in the near past which has now changed. Yes that is a (severe) limitation of PM. I tend to dump programs that change things behind your back especially if they do so while you did not ask for any changes at all. Moreover, IIRC you ran PM in your desktop, didn't you? If it made 0B FAT32 logical partitions beyond 8 GB in your desktop, PM is simply buggy. snip Since MS-DOS wasn't able to see the G: drive from the DOS prompt with the area of the extended partition it was sitting on set to 0f, I put the HDD back in the desktop (actually before installing EZB) and reset it to 05. Did MS-DOS see it then? I wouldn't expect that, rather the other way round. With the extended partition area for G: set to 0F, no... MS-DOS failed to see any logical G: drive at the DOS prompt. It could access logical D:, E: and F: 8GB, but not G: 8GB. With it set to 05, I could access the G: drive in DOS. That seems to be just the opposite of what you wrote below: DOS can't see both FAT32 partitions unless I change the extended partition type to 0F. Are we talking about the same extended partition components? The first No, read on. entry for an extended partition I see in Ranish is one that fills the entire drive from just after the 1st primary to the end of the drive. My setup has that set to 0F. Then for each segment of that extended That is the entire extended partition, yes. For DOS that needs to be 0F. For Windows (Win9x once it has booted out of DOS) it can be either 0F or 05. partition, there are individual extended segments that are set to 05: C: Primary type 0B Extended type 0F Area from end of C
USB [Was: Re: [LIB] slow]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:29:20 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: USB [Was: Re: [LIB] slow] john wrote: On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Philip Nienhuis wrote: john wrote: ..snip On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Philip Nienhuis wrote: john wrote: On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Philip Nienhuis wrote: snip : I got no USB on my Lib (no EPR, no USB card either). On both the 100 and 110 1.1 usb is native. you just need to plug in a connector to the docking port plug. I got no docking station, just the port replicator :-( you don't need the dock. if you check the 100 maintence manual it shows the pinout for the usb. you just need to connect to those four pins and you have it. Found it, pins 91-94 (Table C-2), i.e. USBVC1 (2X), USBDP1, USBDN. Right but. Sure, but how? in practice? Wasn't there supposed to be an extra chip in the dock to add the full USB capacity? And isn't there any buffering needed on the EPR/dock connector? I remember some discussion on this in the list a year or so ago. The usb support is in the I/O ? GA. It isn't supported under Windows from what I've seen neither 2000 or XP sees it. The linux alternative driver does uhbc I think its called. There isn't the buffering drivers--for a hotswappable setup you would need to install those (being able to plug and unplug the cable with poweron) but its there. Any suggestion for adding these drivers in? It would be interesting to add a USB port to the small port replicator (I/O Adapter) if at all possible I wonder if there is some sort of HW handshaking needed to initialize USB; if so, the chips in the EPR might take care of this and w/o an EPR USB simply won't work. Philip
Re: [LIB] slow
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:03:25 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow john wrote: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 05:29:12 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Philip Nienhuis wrote: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:18:34 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow ...snip In my case I get 2.5-3 hours (a bit less than Windows) using ACPI. Using APM it's just about 2-2.5 hours. YMMV your using 110CT, right? you should easily be getting over 5-6 hours with heavy use even. My libby lasts easily longer than pdas out there which is why I like it. I take off in the morning and usually don't have to recharge til I get home. the cells may be going bad in your battery pack. Yes I have a 110CT. I use the original battery pack (actually a replacement, the original is lying in a closet waiting for me having time to put in new cells someday), not one with newer type cells. The capacity is still roughly the same as when I got it new. the Neomagic framebuffer driver neofb to load using the 'libretto' parameter. Haven't found out why. Gives me a nasty error and locks up the I don't use framebuffer, I just use native XFree86 Neomagic accelerated support. does it set the screen up in 800x480 size automagically? I had trouble with that at first -- it kept defaulting to 800x600 -- until I started using the framebuffer driver. Once i got the framebuffer working X and programs started using the screen properly. No native XFree86 needs a custom XF86Config or XF86Config-4 Grab mine from http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Lib110arch/XF86Config.txt More info on: http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/MDLinux.html#XFREE86 computer. I also have a problem hotplugging my dvd drive from a usb port, when it is disconnected I get a glitch that says it is linked to a whole bunch of drivers, and forces me to shut down. I'm having a whole bunch of fun:))) besides not being able to play movies. I got no USB on my Lib (no EPR, no USB card either). On both the 100 and 110 1.1 usb is native. you just need to plug in a connector to the docking port plug. I got no docking station, just the port replicator :-( .long snip internal technical design left lots to be wished already when they were introduced. These rough edges become all the more evident now that current HW and SW development leave 199x designs behind. they aren't. unless someone comes up with a bussless machine we are still using the orginal desgn from the accubus:)) That's a bit like saying it uses a keyboard and a monitor so it's still the same overall design. Of course things have advanced: - how about UDMA, AGP, PCI-Express, USB 2.0, FireWire, Speedstep, SATA, HT, 64bits? These inventions surely help to get current systems run much faster. - max 2 MB video memory and max 64 MB RAM apparently were quite reasonable in 1998, but a stupid 16-bit ISA bus for IDE while PCI was firmly established in 1997 or so, polled IRQ for the PCMCIA slots, buggy ACPI and buggy BIOS int13 extensions are simply technical deficits. E.g., you can't even install Mandrake 10.x on a Libretto anymore, unless you recompile an install kernel or pre-install with the HD in a desktop and add a custom kernel with ISA-IDE support compiled in. No doubt you'll then find that 64 MB is too little to get anything useful done. And then the size of current XFree86 or X has not been mentioned yet... I don't use distributions except for slackwares occaisionlly--X is fine runs as fast or faster than it did before. the problem is I have memory leaks plus the neofb driver is caching about 20MB of ram to use for video when I don't need it. I just need to limit that. Try XFree86 v. 4.x + a suitable 800x480 XF86Config-4. Search the Web for a suitable XF86Config-4, I found mine that way (the link above is for XFree86 v. 3.x). philip
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:52:39 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:56:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what happened on you Lib is that initially scandisk got confused because of the 0b setting (it doesn't use LBA disk translation then) and screwed up the file system, including your Daemon Tools subdir. Now that you converted it to 0c, scandisk can at last do a proper job and obviously finds the file system and in particular, that subdir has been screwed up. I didn't allow scandisk to make that change on the Daemon Tools subdir when I ran it the other day. It popped up that message, and gave me the option to repair or quit. Having seen the damage fixing the error did once last week, I've been quitting, and either running chkdsk from W2K to check for problems on that drive, or installing EZD and running scandisk again from W98. And with EZB, scandisk finds no problems. But I did allow scandisk to repair a couple of these errors last week before switching C: from 0b to 0c. Do you think that when I allowed scandisk to convert those folders and files to recovered data files, it also wrote changes to FATs that are confusing it now that the C: partition has been changed from 0b to 0c? This is all pretty confusing to me. ;-P Yes I think that is possible. Data partitions aren't really affected by the change from type 0b to 0c, right? The change only affects booting from a partition, in that the partition is seen as Windows FAT32 LBA as type 0c, and just Windows FAT32 as type 0b. Yes they are affected. And it has not much to do with booting. The thing is, the 0B/0C type seems to determine which way Windows will access a FAT32 partition. In case of logical partitions 0B type, no LBA or int13 extensions will be invoked = possible data loss on 8 GB FAT32 partitions. So you need 0C type to tell Windows to use int13 extensions every time it accesses such partitions. On other FAT32 partitions, invoking int13 extensions may be overkill but it surely doesn't hurt. So I guess I could just leave things as they are with EZD installed. But I am still having problems with Winamp not being able to find MP3s on G: that are listed in its ACSII M3U playlist files. And that's running Winamp from W2K. Tho' I really have no idea if the two file/folder issues are related. Winamp problem may be related to something totally different. I don't know, I can't check it from here :-) How about I delete the C: partition, create a new one as 0c, restore a 'vanilla' image of W98. And delete the G: partition, create a new one, 0b or 0c probably doesn't matter for a data partition, and restore the data from backup on the desktop. Or do you think W2K may still be playing a part here? If I created a new C: and restored a W98 image, I'd have to run W2K setup again so it can boot from C:. C: does not need to be type 0C, as long as it is entirely below 8 GB. Be sure to set the type of logical FAT32 partitions beyond 8 GB to 0C. That DOES make a difference. P.
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:58 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:22:31 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Hi Matt: Here I got Win2K on a primary C: (and another stripped one on a logical G:) and Win98 on logical E: (plus OS/2 maintenance on logical D:\ FAT16)), so I can't reproduce your setup. Yet I wonder if the exact file path name you mentioned in your post / request to me matter much. I got a 10 GB and a 15 GB logical FAT32 partition on my Libby (both 8 GB) and I am very very sure that there are file- and pathnames inside which are much longer than what you mentioned. I think what happened on you Lib is that initially scandisk got confused because of the 0b setting (it doesn't use LBA disk translation then) and screwed up the file system, including your Daemon Tools subdir. Now that you converted it to 0c, scandisk can at last do a proper job and obviously finds the file system and in particular, that subdir has been screwed up. What I found on my Lib using 0b FAT32 type is that Win98 more or less mixed up the drive letters for both FAT32 logical partitions and found wrong disk sizes. Therefore I think the damage you encountered could have been much worse... scandisk could also have wiped out entire logical partitions. I do have Ranish Daemon Tools somewhere on disk but never installed them, thank you. BTW, hint: for Win2K virtual CD-ROM you can also use the free Microsoft tool Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel v2.0.1.1 (VcdControlTools.exe/zip or so, search microsoft.com). Meant for XP but works on W2K too. Needs admin rights BTW. Philip Philip, Thought I'd 1st try a quick and easy route of addressing the problems I've been having by trying converting partition types as you had pointed out. I got Ranish Partition Manager to convert all of the 0b FAT32 partitions to 0c FAT32 LBA partitions on my 110 HDD, and made the changes. But these file/folder problems for W98 persist. I uninstalled EZD, popped the HDD out of the 110, put it in the desktop, booted from the FDD, ran Ranish part.exe and did the partition type conversion. That process was as easy as highlighting a partition, pressing the 'Ins' key, and moving the highlight bar down one notch from 0b to 0c for each partition, and saving the changes. After converting the partition types leaving EZD uninstalled, I put the HDD back in the 110, booted into W98 on C: and ran Scandisk on the G: partition above 8GB. It only took a few seconds to come up with a folder error there: --- G:\My Downloads\File Management\Virtual CD Drive\DAEMON Tools 3.47 This folder is invalid. Although it is marked as a folder, its contents do not appear to be valid. Scandisk repairs this error by converting this folder into a file. NOTE: If you choose to repair this error, make sure you recover lost file fragments later. If files in this folder were named using an international character set other than the one you are using now, click Cancel, and then refer to the Readme.txt file. --- That was the folder for the freeware virtual CD program Jim Drouillard pointed me to recently (thanks Jim!). If you have W98 as C: on your system, W2K on a logical drive 8GB, and some partition 8GB you could use, I wonder if you could do a test and try setting up a path and file like mine above. And then try running Scandisk on that 8GB partition from your W98 on C: to see if it finds the same problem. I'd guess that for test purposes it wouldn't matter if you didn't have the file daemon347.exe in the '\DAEMON Tools 3.47' as I do, but it wouldn't hurt to duplicate as much as what I've got here as possible. daemon347.exe is here: http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/portal/download.php?mode=ViewCategorycatid=5 or directly to the file download: http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/portal/download.php?mode=Downloadid=34 Thanks for your feedback on all this Philip.
Re: [LIB] slow
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:52:33 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow john wrote: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:51:33 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: slow thanks for the help in getting my linux install working again on my libby. Movies now play and very nicely except my audio and video are out of sync still--the audio is about four times fater than my video. the reason for this is my hard drive has started reading and writing very slow. It only works at about 1.3 M/s. It is much faster than that. It has a 8MB cache for starters:)!! here are the pertinant sections of my config file Does everything look right? its a toshiba 2.5 inch 60 gig GAX drive. Here is my .config, actually also for the PCMCIA floppy patch. It is for 2.4.28 kernel, but while trying to get the floppy patch in the 2.6.x kernel series I noted that esp. the IDE stuff is largely the same. I attached the entire .config file, perhaps there are more options you might want to compare to your setup. BTW how fast does your Toshiba HD rotate? My 60 GB Hitachi 7K60 = 7200rpm + 8 MB cache, I found that does make a noticable difference compared to a 15 GB Toshiba 1517GAP 4200 rpm with ?2? MB cache. Philip # =floppy.config= # # Automatically generated make config: don't edit # CONFIG_X86=y # CONFIG_SBUS is not set CONFIG_UID16=y # # Code maturity level options # CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y # # Loadable module support # CONFIG_MODULES=y CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y CONFIG_KMOD=y # # Processor type and features # # CONFIG_M386 is not set # CONFIG_M486 is not set # CONFIG_M586 is not set # CONFIG_M586TSC is not set CONFIG_M586MMX=y # CONFIG_M686 is not set # CONFIG_MPENTIUMIII is not set # CONFIG_MPENTIUM4 is not set # CONFIG_MK6 is not set # CONFIG_MK7 is not set # CONFIG_MK8 is not set # CONFIG_MELAN is not set # CONFIG_MCRUSOE is not set # CONFIG_MWINCHIPC6 is not set # CONFIG_MWINCHIP2 is not set # CONFIG_MWINCHIP3D is not set # CONFIG_MCYRIXIII is not set # CONFIG_MVIAC3_2 is not set CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK=y CONFIG_X86_INVLPG=y CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG=y CONFIG_X86_XADD=y CONFIG_X86_BSWAP=y CONFIG_X86_POPAD_OK=y # CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK is not set CONFIG_RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM=y CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT=5 CONFIG_X86_USE_STRING_486=y CONFIG_X86_ALIGNMENT_16=y CONFIG_X86_HAS_TSC=y CONFIG_X86_GOOD_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE=y # CONFIG_X86_F00F_WORKS_OK is not set CONFIG_X86_MCE=y # # CPU Frequency scaling # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_PROC_INTF=y # # CPUFreq governors # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_24_API=y # # CPUFreq processor drivers # CONFIG_X86_POWERNOW_K6=m CONFIG_X86_POWERNOW_K7=m CONFIG_X86_LONGHAUL=m CONFIG_X86_SPEEDSTEP_ICH=m CONFIG_X86_SPEEDSTEP_CENTRINO=m CONFIG_X86_P4_CLOCKMOD=m CONFIG_X86_LONGRUN=m CONFIG_X86_GX_SUSPMOD=m CONFIG_TOSHIBA=m # CONFIG_I8K is not set # CONFIG_MICROCODE is not set CONFIG_X86_MSR=m CONFIG_X86_CPUID=m CONFIG_E820_PROC=y CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM=y # CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set # CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G is not set # CONFIG_HIGHMEM is not set # CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION is not set # CONFIG_MTRR is not set # CONFIG_SMP is not set CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_UP_IOAPIC=y CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC=y CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC=y # CONFIG_X86_TSC_DISABLE is not set CONFIG_X86_TSC=y # # General setup # CONFIG_NET=y CONFIG_PCI=y # CONFIG_PCI_GOBIOS is not set # CONFIG_PCI_GODIRECT is not set CONFIG_PCI_GOANY=y CONFIG_PCI_BIOS=y CONFIG_PCI_DIRECT=y CONFIG_ISA=y CONFIG_PCI_NAMES=y # CONFIG_EISA is not set # CONFIG_MCA is not set CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y # # PCMCIA/CardBus support # CONFIG_PCMCIA=m CONFIG_CARDBUS=y CONFIG_TCIC=y CONFIG_I82092=y CONFIG_I82365=y # # PCI Hotplug Support # # CONFIG_HOTPLUG_PCI is not set CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y CONFIG_BSD_PROCESS_ACCT=y CONFIG_SYSCTL=y CONFIG_KCORE_ELF=y # CONFIG_KCORE_AOUT is not set CONFIG_BINFMT_AOUT=m CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC=m CONFIG_PM=y CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND=y # CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND_DEBUG is not set # CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND_CHECKSUM is not set CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND_COMPRESSION=y CONFIG_APM=m # CONFIG_APM_IGNORE_USER_SUSPEND is not set # CONFIG_APM_DO_ENABLE is not set # CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE is not set # CONFIG_APM_DISPLAY_BLANK is not set # CONFIG_APM_RTC_IS_GMT is not set # CONFIG_APM_ALLOW_INTS is not set # CONFIG_APM_REAL_MODE_POWER_OFF is not set CONFIG_BADRAM=y # # ACPI Support # CONFIG_ACPI=y CONFIG_ACPI_BOOT=y CONFIG_ACPI_BUS=y CONFIG_ACPI_INTERPRETER=y CONFIG_ACPI_EC=y CONFIG_ACPI_POWER=y CONFIG_ACPI_PCI=y CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP=y CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM=y CONFIG_ACPI_AC=m CONFIG_ACPI_BATTERY=m CONFIG_ACPI_BUTTON=m CONFIG_ACPI_FAN=m CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m CONFIG_ACPI_THERMAL=m # CONFIG_ACPI_ASUS is not set # CONFIG_ACPI_TOSHIBA is not set # CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG is not set CONFIG_ACPI_RELAXED_AML=y # # Memory Technology Devices (MTD) # # CONFIG_MTD is not set # # Parallel port support # CONFIG_PARPORT=m CONFIG_PARPORT_PC=m CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_CML1=m
Re: [LIB] slow
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:18:34 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow john wrote: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:31:19 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Philip Nienhuis wrote: Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:52:33 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] slow john wrote: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:51:33 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: slow thanks for the help in getting my linux install working again on my libby. Movies now play and very nicely except my audio and video are out of sync still--the audio is about four times fater than my video. the reason for this is my hard drive has started reading and writing very slow. It only works at about 1.3 M/s. It is much faster than that. It has a 8MB cache for starters:)!! here are the pertinant sections of my config file Does everything look right? its a toshiba 2.5 inch 60 gig GAX drive. Here is my .config, actually also for the PCMCIA floppy patch. It is for 2.4.28 kernel, but while trying to get the floppy patch in the 2.6.x kernel series I noted that esp. the IDE stuff is largely the same. I attached the entire .config file, perhaps there are more options you might want to compare to your setup. BTW how fast does your Toshiba HD rotate? My 60 GB Hitachi 7K60 = 7200rpm + 8 MB cache, I found that does make a noticable difference compared to a 15 GB Toshiba 1517GAP 4200 rpm with ?2? MB cache. I just checked the specs: 5400rpm, 60gig, 16MB cache. Rated at up to 100M/s top transfer rate. Its a very fast drive actually and if I can unscrewup my hard drive setup on 2.6 I'll let you know its top speed on the libby. On a equivilant laptop with dma enabled I was getting around 8 M/s, which is slow for it . On the 110CT, for some reason I am getting 1.5M/s. Faster than the IBM I was using, tho. I also seem to have a memory problem under 2.6.x. Under 2.4 I usually had about 32MB free after booting now I only have 1-2MB free. I noticed you have ACPI enabled in your .config file. When I enable it I can't get the donauboe FIR driver to find Ah that sound familiar (in VectorLinux 4.x). I get similar messages, but I don't use IR. I forgot to disable it in the kernel or in modules.conf (or is it conf.modules?). its I/O address and it doesn't create the irda0 driver plus it gives me real bad battery life. I also can't get In my case I get 2.5-3 hours (a bit less than Windows) using ACPI. Using APM it's just about 2-2.5 hours. YMMV the Neomagic framebuffer driver neofb to load using the 'libretto' parameter. Haven't found out why. Gives me a nasty error and locks up the I don't use framebuffer, I just use native XFree86 Neomagic accelerated support. computer. I also have a problem hotplugging my dvd drive from a usb port, when it is disconnected I get a glitch that says it is linked to a whole bunch of drivers, and forces me to shut down. I'm having a whole bunch of fun:))) besides not being able to play movies. I got no USB on my Lib (no EPR, no USB card either). On my desktop I find USB support (in Mandrake 10.x) a bit lacking compared to Windows and even OS/2 Warp 4.52 / ECS 1.2. But I haven't grasped enough of the USB/hotplug internals. It some ways it looks like a minefield. Cardbus events on the Lib are much easier managed than USB on my desktop. I never tried to play DVD on my Lib in Linux, but I might try someday. Here's a question for you--I've been looking for a linux pro to unscewup my linux installations ever since I started using it last year being I'm not much of a software person myself, I'm not any good at it, and don't have any time to really fix stuff plus I want to use it. Impossible to find. Nobody seems to want to work on it inspite of the fact it has a whole list of great reasons and very few defects as compared to other small and microcomputer operating systems. And get this -- from what I've been willing to offer the pay is way better. But everybody knows how to reload programs and plug in boards in windows and wants to charge an arm and a leg to do it inspite of the fact I can grab pretty much anyone off the street to do it -- takes little brains. Problem is -- an OS like that is basically useless to me. Its pretty and clickable (which are its advantages) but it just doesn't work right. So..after this long spiel why is it so hard to find a linux guy?!!? Well to run Linux on aging equipment like a Libretto 110 one must be a hobbyist and hobbyists take much of the beating. Plus, to run Linux on aging equipment like Librettos you cannot avoid diving into the software. Like you, I am not so much of a software guy. Last attempt was trying the floppy patch on 2.6.x kernels, but I had to give up when I found that the whole kernel interrupt stuff has been changed when going from 2.4.x to 2.6.x. - that is way over my head
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:28:01 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: long snip I did download the Ranish Partition Editor some time back for some reason, but never used it. I'll check it out. I guess we're still not certain about just what caused my system to go belly-up attempting to transfer files from one 8GB partition with W98 on another 8GB partition to a data partition 8GB. And whether or not the lack of overlay played any part. I've still got EZD installed at this point, and haven't experienced any crashes transferring files since. The point is, using PM and EZD and OS-specific stuff introduces too many variables. I like to keep things simple, that has helped me a lot. I am convinced that EZD and PM some partition editor should somehow work out fine together, but OTOH from your and other list members' postings I conclude this turns out to be much more complicated than the methods I have used. But I am having a very odd problem related to files on the 110. Many of my Winamp M3U ASCII playlist files just don't work on the 110 anymore. The problem files don't specify a full path to the MP3 file, but a relative one that omits the root x:\MP3s folder in the path. All MP3s and M3U files are contained in sub-folders of x:\MP3s, and are all backed up on the desktop. M3Us with relatve paths like \Pop-Rock\REM\REM_X.mp3 work fine with Winamp on the desktop. But all my MP3 programs on the 110, Winamp, Foobar2000, an the MP3 playlist/tag software Gearvolt, report errors trying to find the same files on the Libby when they load the problem M3U files. Can't help to think there's some connection to the 110 crash a few weeks back. I'm tempted to start over, but I don't know if I'm ready for another ordeal like the recent one any time very soon. And I'm not quite sure which of the many routes to follow might be the best course of action. Acknowledged. Just make sure you got good back-ups of your data. One thing I stumbled on by accident related to the long file name thing happened when the W98 OS on my desktop crashed last week. I skipped the defalt DOS scandisk procedure, and ran scandisk from Windows as I've always found it takes less time. But it discovered a folder with recovery data made quite a while back when I had to plug one of my Lib HDDs into the system and run Phoenix. Scandisk announced that it couldn't repair the FAT table for the file because the path to the file was over 259 characters. What's wit that number? 260 is the maximum path length on Windows 9x. Did you make the path in Win2K? Or, sometimes DOS gets confused and makes endlessly long path names with repeating subdir names inside, e.g., \subdir1\subdir2\subdir1\subdir2\subdir1\subdir2\subdir1\subdir2. etc I don't think I'll ever understand all the various methods the different OSs use to report and record files information. You're not quite alone Happy 2005, Philip
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:08:10 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:40:52 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations --- Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But FAT32 partitions in the extended partition beyond 8 GB need to be type 0c (Win95 FAT32 LBA in Linux terms) rather than 0b (plain FAT32). I've had lots of trouble when I did not obey this rule. I saw your FAT32 partitions were 0b. I think this might be the cause of your W98 scandisk problems. If PM made these partitions (-types) I'd definitely dump it. Yeah... PM made those while I had the the HDD was in the desktop to get around the Libby's Int13 extensions problem. The reason I keep using PM is because it's the only thing I have that can perform certain tasks like moving and resizing partitions, and converting partitions from one type to another. However I don't see where it'd be able to convert a type 0b partition to 0c I think you can use Ranish Partition Editor for that, http://www.ranish.com/part/ Perhaps Ranish is even better than PM, I've never tried either of them. I use Linux cfdisk for these sort of things, or an old (ancient) copy of Norton Disk doctor. Is there something available free that can either create or convert existing logical 0b partitions to 0c? The Ranish Partition Manager perhaps? Yes, see above. I think using Win2K to make these partitions will yield 0c types by default 8 GB. rest snipped Philip
Re: [LIB] dma
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:21:42 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] dma john wrote: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:40:32 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] dma On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Philip Nienhuis wrote: Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:35:00 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] dma John Musielewicz wrote: Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:07:48 -0800 (PST) From: John Musielewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dma I was messing around with the kernel in linux v. 2.6.9 and now when my libby 110CT boots it reports that my hard drive isn't using dma. I have a 60GB toshiba installed without overlay. I checked the kernel and I have everything selected to use dma but I had the intel driver installed for the hard drive but I don't believe it uses that. does anyone know what driver I should install? The drive is ok for speed without dma If you care to take a look on http://www.photoengineering.com/laptop/L100mm.pdf, (your own site isn't it) you'll see in Fig. 1-3 that the Libretto's internal HDD is on the 16 bit ISA bus. A 16 bit ISA bus doesn't support DMA :-( DMA is only possible on 32-bit PCI buses. 16 bit busses do support dma but for some reason its not connected on the hard drive. For example the sound chip is on the same isa mini bus and it has dma support in the bios. There are 2 dma lines in a standard 44 pin ide line (which is what the libby uses) and for some reason they are not connected which translates into half speed for the hard drive. It should be going at 5MB per sec and is only getting 2.5. You are right, I am wrong. And you found a good explanation that the Lib does not support dma: unconnected IDE lines. Which also explains heavy CPU load when doing disk I/O. If you manage to connect the dma pins, you might need to upgrade the BIOS too, as I think there might be some PnP involved to sort out dma channel selection of all devices. Or do you think it can be hard-wired? Would the famous Dr Xin have a hint? (www.fixup.net) FWIW, I usually select Generic IDE when compiling Linux kernels. Do you enable a 66MHz bus for the libby? I enabled 32 bit access and it seems to mess things up with 16bit bus and 66 MHz. No, as the ISA bus is not 66 Mhz (I think it is only 12 Mhz or so.) BTW why enable 32-bit access as the HD is on a 16-bit bus anyway? but it is too slow to play movies and I really like watching them on the libby--it has such a nice screen. I can get them to work but I have to reduce the resolution and that sucks. Thanks for any help--I'd really like to get this working!! DMA is supported on the cardbus slots (but then again I've read somewhere they use event polling rather than IRQ). In line with this, I've noticed faster I/O on the cardbus slots than on the internal HDD (but not much faster.) I tried running a movie off the cardbus slots once the hd got slow and it wouldn't do it very well. the flashcard i/o was so slow the sound was running double speed as compard to the video Ah, flash card I use a DVD player, which has a (claimed) sustained data rate (reading) of 4.5 to 10 MB/s. I can't check this figure but DVD playing is not too bad on my 110 (but not quite perfect). Using a cardbus CDRW/DVD combo (Freecom Traveler II+), DVD playback under Win2K on a L110 is a bit choppy but not so much that all fun is spoiled. (save for the noise of the combo player). I can't play movies at all under windows. neither sound nor video will run. even just sound (mp3s) is so bad--choppy, slow, hangs--nasty to listen to. Time to try Vorck's stripped Win2K? or use a less demanding MM-player (I use WMP 6.4 patched to play DVDs). I found VectorLinux 4.3 to be quite fast. However installing all required DVD playing stuff more or less defeats the purpose of such a light-weight Linux install :-( Besides, Linux doesn't recognize my Freecom DVD player, it seems Freecom has invented another proprietary protocol for cardbus/IDE. A pity as the USB interface (selected by simply exchanging the PCMCIA cable for a USB one) works very well. The OS which is by far the fastest on my Lib110 til now is OS/2, esp. with the latest kernels of last summer. However it can't use the cardbus slots very well, the OS/2 Toshiba socket driver dates back to 1994 I think :-( Philip
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:46:06 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:59:14 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations --- Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, running PM's partinfo, right off the bat I see I have a problem with the Win98 OS reporting too few cylinders fot the drive. 4863 instead of 4864. I still have EZ-Drive installed, but I've not seen that error in the past with EZ-D when things were working well. And the extended partition is type 0f. That's needed for DOS to see beyond 8 GB. Win98/ME do not need it, they can access 05 type extended partitions once their native disk drivers have taken over from the DOS boot-up environment. Anyway, 0f won't hurt - I think. But FAT32 partitions in the extended partition beyond 8 GB need to be type 0c (Win95 FAT32 LBA in Linux terms) rather than 0b (plain FAT32). I've had lots of trouble when I did not obey this rule. I saw your FAT32 partitions were 0b. I think this might be the cause of your W98 scandisk problems. If PM made these partitions (-types) I'd definitely dump it. (BTW 1B = hidden FAT32) Attached is the PM partinfo output file if it helps. Dan's server won't forward it to the list. Just a couple of footnotes here... * The partinfo.exe for this HDD mounted in the 110 with EZD removed says the system reports only 1017, but shows 4864 cylinders in the partition table, and noted the error difference. * The partinfo.exe for this HDD mounted in the desktop with EZD removed says the system reports the correct full 4864 cylinders with no errors showing in the partition table anywhere. * Again with EZD installed and in the 110, partinfo says the system reports 4863 cylinders instead of the 4864 partinfo sees in the partition table, and makes a note of the error. The one cylinder difference is due to a cylinder (cyl #0, the otherwise regular MBR cylinder) which EZD reserves for itself; it shifts the rest of the cylinders, so the system or operating systems see only 4863. While they think the MBR is on cyl. #0, it really is on #1. Make sure to always let EZD initialize before running any other partitioning program or operating system. Mixing up EZD-cooked-up and raw views of the HD will lead to interesting situations. Is there a chance that such a mix-up occurred on you Lib HDD (e.g., unattended reboot during Win2K installation)? For some reason the system was locking up in DOS the other night. Ctrl-Alt-Del didn't reboot, the power switch didn't shut it down, and tghe reboot switch didn't reboot. Had to pull the AC and battery pack numerous times. From my experiences with both the desktop w/multiple HDDs and this 110, it seems a CMOS/BIOS setting thing. Sometimes the system wouldn't boot at all. No red 'Toshiba' splash screem. No nada. Letting the system sit, and I presume the CMOS to discharge, the system with finally boot again Could it be that your Lib HW is starting to get flakey? Philip
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:24:22 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:47:49 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations I doubt that. I need help recovering the ability to boot W2K. I've been having all kinds of FAT32 file system problems after finally I was wondering why we didn't hear from you for so long :-P deciding to install W2K on a D: logical drive, and have it set up dual booting with W98 on the primary C: partition. I know how you feel about drive overlay Philip... but it appears that in order to deal with the long Oh don't worry, it's your Lib not mine ;-) file and folder names I have for my MP3 library on my E: drive after the 8GB boundary, I have to have EZ-Drive installed. I'll address that below, but at the top here, I need help recovering the ability to boot W2K on D:. Because of problems with W98 not having drive overlay installed, the C: partition files were blown apart attempting to copy folders of MP3s from D: (before 8GB) to E: (after 8GB). Suddenly I had no access to any programs in W98, and there were no folders or files in \Program Files any more. Installing EZ-Drive brought back access to many of them, but most were too corrupted to be of any use. Thing is that the boot files for W2K were on the root of the W98 C: partition, and they were totally blown away. So I've restored a W98 image to C:, but I need to repair W2K's boot data. People are telling me to run the set of 4 W2K setup floppies, and run a repair process from there. But I'm wondering if I can just run x:\i386\winnt from my E: partition, and repair things from there. Anyone know if that will work? (don't forget to run \windows\smartdrv first) Yes that will work, and even faster than when booting from floppies. You'll end up in some menu where it says something like repair a Windows 2000 installation, from then on it should be easy. BTW I just read John's post and I'm convinced he has some good suggestions there. Another issue is *how* you have formatted the FAT32 partions beyond 8 GB. I found I needed Win2K to do that, Win98 couldn't see the right partitions (or the partitions right) and I was afraid it (W98) would wreck the entire extended partition. Once Win2K had formatted all FAT32 partitions beyond 8 GB, W98 (and OS/2 / Linux / ) could access and use them w/o any problems up till now, and that's over 6 months of heavy use. Okay... Here's a list of problems that I've had relating to not having EZ-Drive installed. And I'm convinced that my problems stemmed from having enormously long file/folder names, as my nested MP3 folders were always the 1st to have problems being read in W98: The limit is 256 chars for a file name. I don't know whether that includes the path name. But if you had an enormous amount of files with long path names, I'd rather think you've simply hit some internal limits for W98. I'm thinking of memory and virtual memory: e.g., when you are on a corporate network and try to access a network drive, Explorer may need something like 10-15 MB just to be able to show you the directory tree and a listing of files. Enormously long file names and path names simply add to this memory shortage. Same happens for a drive with a lot of files and deeply nested subdir structure. Now, if there's insufficient space for W98 to accommodate its growing swap file (which it needs to accomodate Explorer's memory hunger) , it'll start overwriting it's own memory and it wil soon crash and severy trash the file system. I've had this happen several times myself. * The 1st clue was after many W98 crashes, Scandisk in windows (I skip the slow DOS process) complained about broken file chains on E:. After accepting an option to repair by deleting the files once, I aborted the next problem it found, booted to W2K and ran Chkdsk there. But Chkdisk found no problems with the file system on E: Do they (E: in W98 and E: in Win2K) refer to the same partition? Seriously, 1. If you had W98 format the 8GB partitions W98 may have referred to the wrong ones (~what I described above) or my have used wrong EMBR and/or boot sector entries and 2. Normally Win2K should, but might not, have assigned the same drive letters as W98. Remember, Win2K uses enumeration of all partitions, unlike W98, and afterwards you can change any drive letter you want. * Many file folder names on E: 8GB showed up in W98 as program characters, and Scandisk would want to delete them, and save the data in chk files. Happened to me several times: subdirs were converted to regular files :-( * Related to above, I managed to resolve some problems with 'corrupted' filenames in W98 that W2K saw fine by creating a new folder in W2K, coping the files in it to the new folder, deleting the old folder
Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:41:23 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:05:21 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] When EZ-Drive is a must for W98 * W2K installations Hey Philip... Have read through yours and John's replies and have archived them for reference. Will be very busy for the next few days, so I'm not sure if I'll get some time to do much experimentation more than getting access to W2K again. But quick... with the 256 LFN thing... I still think there may be an issue there. I know I'm supposed to have 256 character supportin W98, but even In the MSDN databse, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win9x/lfn_4je5.asp it says that the leading path may be only 246 chars long. I suppose you simply can't create longer paths in Windows? before this recent partition change and installing W2K to dual-boot with W98, I was having problems with W98 and LFNs. I'd rip a CD with EAC (Exact Audio Copy) with tag info from the free CDDA, and, esp. classical music, end up with file names above the ~110 - 120 (?) character limit that up to recently Nero couldn't burn to CD-R. Though the Nero issue is an entirely different file system issue. Aside from Nero though, W98 would balk at moving the ripped files from the rip folder to the classical sub-folder in my main MP3 folder. I'd have to shorten the file names down to, I think it was below 110-112 (can't remember excatly, but it was around there) before W98 would even let me move them. So something was going on there that challanged the 256 character thing for some reason, and may have coontributed to my recent problems no se. As for partitioning and formatting, I did that with Partition Magic in DOS with the drive set up in my desktop. So I didn't think there shouldn't have been any issues there, as the desktop hasn't had any Int13ext problems to my knowledge in the past. Tho' I did first install W98 onto the 1st primary partition C: from the \Win98 files\folder on a E: partition, and then W2K on the 1st of 4 logical drives from \i386 on E:. The partitions look like this: C: 1st primary FAT32 3GB W98 had plenty of virtual memory area. Extended 37GB D: 1st logical FAT32 2.5GB W2K E: 2nd logical FAT32 1GB Data F: 3rd logical FAT32 1.5GB W2K to slim down, never used yet ~64MB Empty at 8GB on cyls 1016-1027 that have always worked G: 4th logical FAT32 30GB MP3 and general data There was the thing with W98 seeing the last drive as G:, and W2K's Disk Management changing the drive letter to E: so MP3 M3U playlists could find the MP3s previously set to E:. But when scandisk found problems that didn't exist with chkdsk on W2K, and the file names scandisk reported were in fact MP3 file names that live on that last 30GB partition. Win2K may have reset its drive letters in the mean time, causing it to see no problems on the faulty partitions. DOS (and thus DOS-based Windows versions - Win9x Win-ME) have several bugs when it comes to (big, especially 8GB) extended partitions. Normal users seldomly hit them, but they do exist. E.g., mixing up drive letters if the last logical partition is not FAT is just one of them. You made the partitions with PM, but you did not say how you formatted them. I suspect you used DOS or Win98 (as you installed Win2K from E:\i386), that may be a candidate for cause of trouble. Try to check if the extended partition is type (hex) 0f or 05. Other info: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184006 (esp. the 4th item on DOS scandisk, noting that your cluster size on G: is probably 16 KB). Ciao too, Philip
Re: [LIB] New owner here.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:19:17 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New owner here. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:17:03 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] New owner here. In a message dated 12/16/2004 4:21:28 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:16:46 + From: Nick Banks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New owner here. Hello everyone. I've just bought a Libretto 70CT. Before I ask a whole load of questions that have been asked a dozen times before are there any websites I should be looking at with general info, faqs, etc? A few quick q's anyway :) What operating systems can I run (windows XP?)? What size hard drive can I use? Can I add a USB port? Cheers Nick Welcome, Nick. One of the listers has an excellent page at www.silverace.com/libretto. Another is http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Libretto_index.html and also www.fixup.net. The L70CT is probably limted to W95 or W98. It's 32MB RAM limit pretty much precludes anything beyond those. Linux I don't know about. For Linux, have a look at http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/toshiba.html or http://tuxmobil.org/toshiba.html (Don't forget the parent pages for additional valuable general info!) Philip
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:10:08 +0100
From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Matt Hanson wrote:
start with W98 on drive 1, and do a fresh installation
of W2K on drive 0.
But I do want to have a thinned down copy of W2K on
the system too. How did you go about accomplishing
that one Philip? I don't quite see how you got around
the conflicts with GUIds written to disk, as well as
registry conflicts etc. when you set up 2 copies of
W2K.
I simply installed Win2K on another logical drive. I didn't hesitate
that long, I just thought let's go for the hell of it.
If you try this too you'll see that it will setup its Documents
Settings, WINNT and Program Files dir on that logical partition. So it
has its very own settings and registry (in WINNT\System32\Config), and
very own program copies.
I manually edited the registries of all Windows copies on my Lib to be
able to share programs between Windows versions.
This is because I think it's nuts to have two copies of e.g., Matlab on
the same HD (2 X 300 MB, quite a waste of space) and having to update
the settings and prefs for two different copies separately, too. Same
goes for office suites, browsers (Mozilla), virus scanners, firewalls
and other SW.
I really don't know whether 2 Win2K copies share GUIDs or store them in
different places. I suspect they share it.
When I changed partitions outside of Win2K (e.g., in Linux) both Win2K
versions updated their disk info stuff separately (for example they both
assigned drive letters to OS/2 HPFS partitions which I had set to no
drive letter). But that doesn't imply they share GUIDs.
Newer OS/2 versions also store LVM info somewhere on cyl 0 track 0;
until recently their LVM info wiped the Win2K stuff. But I don't use
OS/2 LVM on my Lib, so I can't tell if it wipes the LVM info of just one
Win2K (implying separate copies) of both (implying several Win2Ks shares
one copy).
BTW Linux seems to have some LVM too (at least it recognizes Win2K LVM
info).
I just checked the Volume IDs in both Win2K versions (in the registry,
HKLM\SYSTEM\MountedDevices). The key values for the various partitions
with drive letters (keys \DosDevices\drive_letter:) are identical in
both Win2Ks, but the volume ID's referring to those key values (looking
like \??\Volume{long_hexadecimal_number}\ ) are clearly different.
H..
...snip
(I'm so used to
OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that
Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.)
Is it a limitation of FDISK, or a system's BIOS, or
both? I've been putting my Lib's 40GB HDD in my
(Just a reiteration, good for those new list members who don't read
archives)
It is a flaw resulting from a combination of a (deliberate? or clumsy?)
limitation in the Lib's BIOS and a limitation in FDISK (MS would call it
a feature).
FDISK (from DOS Win9x) always asks the BIOS how big the HD is. The Lib's
BIOS extended int13 subfunction no. 48h (report HD size) is crippled
and reports a maximum of 8 GB minus hibernation size. So FDISK, asking
the Lib's BIOS, will get an answer which is never bigger than 8 GB minus
hibernation size.
(All other ext.int13 functions are OK.)
Other disk partitioning SW bypasses the BIOS and asks it the HD itself
(using separate I/O instructions). As the HD itself supposedly doesn't
lie, this other SW can see all of it.
And: other BIOSes (viz. the one in your desktop) probably have a better
implementation of int13 extensions, so FDISK will be able to do a better
job there than in a Libretto.
In the end, what matters is what has been written in the MBR. No program
will ever ask the BIOS for HD size, nor will any operating system; they
will just accept the entries in the MBR.
That's why using other disk partitioning SW than DOS/Win9x FDISK or
partitioning the HD in another PC will very effectively bypass the
Libretto's 8 GB HD size barrier.
:.
desktop to partition after the 8GB boundry with PM.
If I booted the drive on the desktop from
a W98 boot floppy and ran FDISK /MBR from the floppy,
would FDISK still not be able to see the entire drive,
and go ahead and create a corrupted MBR?
See above: I think FDISK running on another PC equipped with a
non-crippled BIOS will see all of your HD.
...snip
Yes but Win2K's disk management combines EZ-drive +
(most of) PM. So
I can that see by browsing the menus in W2K's Disk
Managment. Guess it doesn't create partitions tho'.
Oh yes it can. Just browse the options a bit more scrutinously.
:
:
:
(Hint: right-click on an empty part of the HD layout image below in
Logical Disk Manager)
snip
Is there no way of installing W98 onto another
partition after installing W2K, and then getting
W2K to dual-boot both? I've put in so many hours
setting
(Didn't you say it's a hobby?)
Heh... Yeah... But at all to many hair raising points
it seems one God(s) has(have) plagued me with. 8-0
Must be possible. Should be something
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:31:41 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning I just realized that I may not be able to do a new installation of W2K on the 1st primary partition of this 40GB HDD, and have it dual-boot the copy of W98 that's living on the 2nd primary partition that follows it. That copy of W98 thinks it's installed on C:, as Partition Magic hid the 1st partition with W2K on it when I created that 2nd partition and made it active. No you can't install Windows each on a separate primary (not easily that is). But you can dump the other primary (the one you want W2K on) and install Win2K anew in a logical partition. Or you can install Win2K in a primary partition using NTFS rather than FAT32 (Win98 won't see it then). If I were to make both partitions visable when I re-install W2K, then W98 will find itself on a D: partition. I'm guessing W98 is not going to like Nothing wrong with that. The first booted Windows always gets C: as its drive letter. From my experience the rest goes as follows: - next, all logical partitions get drive letters assigned (D:, E:, ) - the remaining primary partitions get the first free drive letters. So Win98 would get something like F: or G: But that is of no concern, as Win2K is active. Once Win98 boots, its primary partition will be C: again and Win2K's one will be F: or G: that any more than W2K would have liked its image restored and thinned down further down the drive at E: or beyond. Or is W2K's boot manager capable of hiding W2K's partition when W98 is booted and visa versa? Can I leave the W98 partition hidden when I install W2K, and then have W2K's boot manager set things up to boot both OSs as C:? No it's not the boot manager which hides things. It's Logical Disk Manager which assigns drive letters. Once again, it is very different from Win98 drive letter stuff. To answer you question about why I hide partitions a Philip, I remembered something in the process of experimenting with Partition Magic tonight. It's something PM does automatically when you already have a primary partition with an OS on the HDD. When you create a new primary partition, PM will hide that new partition by default. If you make it active, PM will hide the existing primary partition with an OS on it by default. Through the years I guess I've just been accepting with what PM was doing automatically. Yes but again, what PM does is good for Win98 but not necessarily so for Win2K. Matt PS: Just caught your last post as I was submitting this one Philip. I see now that W2K can create partitions. However it doesn't seem to deal with hiding or unhiding partitions PM plays with, nor rezize and/or move partitions. Yes but you do not need it the way PM does. Win2K can hide partitions by simply taking away a drive letter from any partition. Win2K partitions can be hidden from Win98 by using NTFS. From what you say about FDISK running from a desktop that fully supports Int13 extensions, it would seem that running FDISK /MBR on a HDD from the Lib that way should work properly. Not while it *in* the Lib. It must be in another PC (with a non-crippled BIOS). Remember, the Lib 8 GB barrier is only a concern if ALL THREE of the following conditions are met simultaneously: 1. You want to add/delete partitions (changing bootable/active is no problem) 2. You are doing it with a HD inside a Libretto 3. You are using DOS / Win9x / WinME FDISK for it. If any of these conditions is NOT met, the 8 GB barrier is of NO concern AT ALL. (Save for hibernation space issues, of course. You must always save space for it.) I'm having problems with PM changing the order of drive letters when I insert a primary C: partition between the 1st primary, and the 33GB extended partition that straddles the 8GB boundary with logical D: and E: partitions on it. It keeps lettering the new 2nd partition F:, but I suppose that's not a major issue. It can always be re-mapped in Windows. Wonder if all partitioning software does that. Sounds identical to what I described above. It is the DOS way of drive lettering. Sounds like I can just install a 2nd copy of W2K as a logical drive without having to do further tweaks. You say you tweaked the registries of each of Yes. your 3 Windows OSs to share folders. But that's not necessary, is it? I No. can just install W2K to a logical drive, and be able to boot W2K1, W98, and W2K2 individually... yes? And then later tweak things to share folders if I get to it. Yes. Perhaps you may end up with two boot menus, if you have a FAT32 primary (C:) for W98 plus a Win2K in a logical partition, and another NTFS primary for another Win2K (also C:). But later on it is not hard to add
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:47:59 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: ...snip (On boot managers:) Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote ...snip But: why do you hide primary partitions? On my ...snip But if WinNT was doing what you describe W2K as doing, it may have been useless. Hmm... I don't know NT, but its disk management may be similar to Win2K. If so, there's your explanation. Indeed, two Windows versions (W2K full W98) share _all_ programs in C:\Programs (renamed from Program Files), incl. IE, virus scanners and Office suites, even the swap file. I read that process on your website, but thought I'd go the route I had in the past. Guess that was the beginning of my present problems. I agree this sort of hacking is not for the weak-of-heart. As I mentioned before, W2K needs to have its boot drive letter match the enumerated number of its boot partition, both in C:\boot.ini but also in the registry and in the volume GUIDs on cyl. 0 (beyond the MBR). The latter ones can be fixed (reinitialized) by running FDISK /MBR from a plain DOS prompt. Afterward, once booted in Win2K you will need to run Disk Manager to fix all drive letters. I strongly suggest to run FDISK/MBR, otherwise you run the risk that Win2K simply can't login, or perhaps even can't boot. Perhaps on a Libretto this (FDISK /MBR from DOS) is not such a good idea after all Okay... but I'm still afraid I'll loose my logical drives 8GB if I run that booted from a floppy. I'm guessing that you run that from a command prompt from within W2K, right? If I booted the system from a No! you should do that from a pure booted-into-DOS prompt - according to Microsoft's Knowledge base, that is. But! you can also do it from a Win2K Recovery Console, it may be something like FIXMBR or so. Perhaps a better option because it won't wipe the 8GB partitions. (I'm so used to OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.) FD, and ran it from the A:\ prompt, I'd guess that the Libretto's BIOS limitation would result in the partition data 8GB being totally wiped out. Yes, sorry, might very well be true. Why is that? As far as boot.ini is involved: --- If your image was from the very first primary partition on your HD, in boot.ini the relevant entry will look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition (0)\WINNT or so. But if the very first primary on your new layout was for another W2K or Win98, and the non-hidden primary you want to boot from occupies slot #2or #3 in the MBR, it should look like: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT or multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT. I've just deleted the 2 partitions I had for W2K and W98, created new ones in their place, and restored W2K W98 images to them respectively. These are approximations: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] Drive 2: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] Drive 3: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] Drive 4: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] I see W2K's Disk Manager has indeed found the W98 partition as you pointed out, so I guess that explains why the entry in boot.ini now appears like the 2nd example you gave above: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT As far as volume identifiers (GUIDs) are involved: -- Win2K puts info about all (yes ALL) partitions on your hard disk*S* +all removable media HW ever seen on your PC on HD # 1 cyl. 0 track 0, behind the MBR itself. I've noticed that. It creates a folder named System Volume Information on every drive installed to the system, as WXP does. After I lost my 30GB 8GB data partition when PM froze converting the partition to a logical one, I had to put the drive in the WXP desktop to copy my MP3s back to a newly created 8GB partition. I was wondering if the System Volume Information folder it created may have made problems when I put the drive back in the 110 and booted W2K. Sorry I wouldn't know. If something or someone pokes around in this database w/o Win2K's consent, or if Win2K finds that the database doesn't adequately refer to the current partition scheme, it will think the volume info is ruined and it will reassign new GUIDs to all partitions (...rattling HD after booting up, long delays, very irresponsive OS, and finally a message New devices are installed, reboot?). Oh boy... that sounds very familiar. I've found that merely installing or uninstalling EZ-Drive will cause W2K to go through that. (grin) yes I learned it the hard way, too. Save for that EZ-drive thing of course. Please Matt, EZ-drive may be good for Win9x systems. With Win2K, it will only complicate things. about PM Well... as I wrote earlier this year
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:31:35 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: .snip Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip What are you using as a boot manager Philip... something in W2000? OS/2 boot manager goes first, allowing me to select Win2K's boot manager, various OS/2 versions and (currently) two Linux boot managers (lilo). Then, Win2K's boot manager allows Win2K full install on C:, Win98 on E:, Win2K w/o IE / Outlook / Netmeeting / etc, from G:, and a Win2K recovery console. The two lilo bootmanagers are for Mandrake 9.2 and VectorLinux 4.3. Both include the stock kernels plus kernels patched for the PCMCIA floppy and one for NETBEUI support. All in all I got three (four) boot managers, for (...counting) 9 operating systems. If you think this is a bit overdone, you are right. My excuse is that the Lib is a hobby object rather than production machine. Nevertheless in the next weeks/ months I'm gonna clean up and simplify things. As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply restore a Win2K from one partition to another one. It is not quite enough that the drive letters are the same (as the registry is pervaded by it), but you must also restore its boot manager + boot files on C:, irrespective of where Win2K is going to end up. The entries in c:\boot.ini are not drive letters but refer to partition enumeration, and must match the physical partition layout. Okay... so tell me if you think this will work: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 1.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W2000] Drive 2: 1GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] Drive 3: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] Drive 4: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] Drive 5: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] I can't tell from this distance :-) It looks OK, although I still think you wil encounter some problems. But: why do you hide primary partitions? On my Lib all Windows versions live happily next to each other. Indeed, two Windows versions (W2K full W98) share _all_ programs in C:\Programs (renamed from Program Files), incl. IE, virus scanners and Office suites, even the swap file. If I can get BootMagic to install on the existing 1st FAT32 W2000 partition, it should hide the two partitions following it that have bootable OSs. When I 1st installed 2000, I made an image of that 1st partition when the drive was set up like this: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 Primary [Data] Drive 2: 70MB FAT32 Primary [Libretto hibernation] Drive 3: 30GB FAT32 Primary [Data] I would think that if I restore the W2000 image to Drive 1 as in the 1st example of partitions above, and have BootMagic hide Drive 0 and drive 2 when running the restored image from Drive 1, I would think the restored copy of W2000 shouldn't have any problems. I never fooled around with PM, but anyway, I fear your proposed scheme won't work. Won't work with restored Win2K's, that is. Chances are it will work only if you *install* Win2K anew on each partition. First of all, you simply do not need PM at all, and for that matter you do not need EZ-drive either. In fact these will make it only more difficult. Second, I suspect your lay-out will have some problems, in any case minor ones, perhaps big ones, because drive letters in Win2K work very very differently from the old stuff in Win9x/ME and DOS. As I mentioned before, W2K needs to have its boot drive letter match the enumerated number of its boot partition, both in C:\boot.ini but also in the registry and in the volume GUIDs on cyl. 0 (beyond the MBR). The latter ones can be fixed (reinitialized) by running FDISK /MBR from a plain DOS prompt. Afterward, once booted in Win2K you will need to run Disk Manager to fix all drive letters. I strongly suggest to run FDISK /MBR, otherwise you run the risk that Win2K simply can't login, or perhaps even can't boot. Why is that? As far as boot.ini is involved: --- If your image was from the very first primary partition on you HD, in boot.ini the relevant entry will look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(0)\WINNT or so. But if the very first primary on your new layout was for another W2K or Win98, and the non-hidden primary you want to boot from occupies slot #2 or #3 in the MBR, it should look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT or multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT. If you look in the registry HKLM\SYSTEM\MountedDevices you will see a lot of keys for all partitions (also the partitions on removable media like CD-ROM and network drives). Below are the keys for your drive letters, and the key data for each drive letter will (uhmm ... must) match one of the volume key data higher up. That is the sort of thing to deal with when you start fiddling around with Win2K's partition stuff. You can hide the partitions using PM, but Win2K's disk manager will see them nonetheless
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:02:40 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:46:56 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Question on W2000 partitioning I want to create a new partition and restore a W2000 image to it in order to test making it run faster. Will W2000 run from a logical/extended partition? Or must it be run from a primary partition? All windows versions I know of can run perfectly from any logical partition. But... they all need to *boot* from a primary partition. And that's where you must look out - Win9x/ME can't boot from a primary NTFS partition, it must a FAT type -somethingto keep in mind if multibooting W98 W2K. (BTW such a primary partion can be very small, 7.8 MB (i.e. just one cylinder) should do to keep all boot files for Win2K + Win9x.) I have Win2K on a primary (+ another IE-free on a logical 8GB) and Win98 on a logical 8GB. XOSL claims Win98 can be run *and* booted from a logical partition, I've tried a number of times on my desktop but never managed to get it together. YMMV. I doubt if Win2K's disk manager can be fooled into this. As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply restore a Win2K from one partition to another one. It is not quite enough that the drive letters are the same (as the registry is pervaded by it), but you must also restore its boot manager + boot files on C:, irrespective of where Win2K is going to end up. The entries in c:\boot.ini are not drive letters but refer to partition enumeration, and must match the physical partition layout. In addition, Win2K uses Logical Volume Management, which is an abstraction of Win9x's partitions and drive letters, and a restored Win2K might complain bitterly about missing drive letters, missing paging files, and GUIDs (=volume indicators which are on cyl. 0 track 0 somewhere in an undocumented place beyond the MBR). You also run the risk of seeing it log in and log out immediately again, a consequence of Win2K not being able to find userinit.exe, which in turn is a consequence of not finding its mount points. Maybe you are lucky, you can try to restore to a partition with the same drive letter and then do a FDSISK/ MBR from DOS (yes DOS) - this will reinit the LVM info (don't forget the boot stuff on c:\). To summarize: just give it a try, but if it proves to get even just a tiny little bit complicated, forget it. Philip
