Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
At 20:10 02/05/2007, you wrote: Could that be useful to you too ... ? Very poor, tho' good for killing startop progs, the DEFRAG is pathetic, it left 200 files in 1800 pieces for XP to clean up. The graphic was utterly deceptive. You have to register, when installed, which just means you then get emails for the next version, etc. All a part of marketing. The word is dont register, they dont leave you alone even when you opt out. AND it is too full of it's own bloat ! Who needs SKINS for a utility ? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/785 - Release Date: 02/05/2007 14:16 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: didn't it have 1 word, 2 bytes per sector: the file number in one byte ($f8 = sector map, $fd = free, $ff = dead) plus the block number within the file in the othe byte? I can't remember :o( Note tpp, every file fragmented of necessity by the interleave factor That begs the question of what one means by fragmented? I remember this. If I'm not mistaken the default interleave for floppies is three so when one bit of file has been read and processed the next bit *should* be arriving at the heads ready to be read. Now, a fragmented file will not have the 'next chunck' in the correct sectors as defined by the interleave, but will be elsewhere - hence, technically, fragmented. Simon N Goodwin (I thnk) did a fast loader as part of the DIY Toolkit (assuming that it was Simon) which allowed the changing of the interleave to speed up loading on faster systems. (Or something like that - note how accurate I'm being this morning!) would be passing the read head...did it take into account scatter[1] loading? Here we go again, scaning the Organic RAM for info that's not quite there, or may have parity errors, but : LOAD and SAVE load and saves files in order (ie SuperBasic files). SBYTES and LBYTES does the scatter loading. So the interleave is good for LOAD/SAVE but meaningless for SBYTES/LBYTES. (or is it the other way around?) I suspect I have got it right this time as a SuperBasic program being loaded would have each line parsed and tokenised whihc takes a bit of time. Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
At 16:54 01/05/2007, you wrote: Try www.gtopala.com Very useful [and free for private use] :-) Searched in vain for a download. THis is a better link: http://www.shareup.com/SIW-download-23742.html Tony It was a struggle to find the download, and when done just loads of info but no power. Saw REGCURE in same locale, also [and free for private use] , pointed up some 1300 problems, only 4 removed by FREE version. I am always on the lookout for things that will strip out some of the bloat, have used XPLITE, Remove features and end up with more files and less space ! Anybody know something that works PS, Number of directories ! - at the C:\ prompt type:- tree :c:\forest.txt Then load into an editor that shows number of lines, frightening ! -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 01/05/2007 14:57 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Tubbs wrote: At 16:54 01/05/2007, you wrote: Try www.gtopala.com Very useful [and free for private use] :-) Searched in vain for a download. THis is a better link: http://www.shareup.com/SIW-download-23742.html Tony It was a struggle to find the download, and when done just loads of info but no power. Yes - but a great deal of very good info. It is alarming, for instance, to see all ones passwords stored unencoded. Tony - -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGOHa9M3RzOs8+btoRAmwdAJ9igDG4nvIvCcMYF66hEC+3UzChQACdG0P8 xPM8APQdufijDNjXpuc/2mA= =Nh9h -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
At 12:32 02/05/2007, you wrote: Yes - but a great deal of very good info. It is alarming, for instance, to see all ones passwords stored unencoded. More use in cracking open someone else's machine -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 01/05/2007 14:57 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... LOAD and SAVE load and saves files in order (ie SuperBasic files). SAVE was the equivalent of OPEN#channel,file:LIST#channel:CLOSE#channel? SBYTES and LBYTES does the scatter loading. So the interleave is good for LOAD/SAVE but meaningless for SBYTES/LBYTES. It'd be good for each, but for LOAD, a large interleave to allow for tape stop-start would be good (as the tokenization was [relatively] slow). With LBYTES, scatter loading would use whatever happened to pass the head; interleave would possibly mean that it would be the next logical block. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Tubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Clip I am always on the lookout for things that will strip out some of the bloat, have used XPLITE, Remove features and end up with more files and less space ! Anybody know something that works I recently got a copy of the free version of Ashampoo WinOptimiser, from a magazine DVD, which has lots of features to tidy up Windows, hard drive including fragmentation. Could that be useful to you too ... ? You have to register, when installed, which just means you then get emails for the next version, etc. All a part of marketing. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Morning Ade, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must admit, I was assuming Sinclair had used 1024 byte blocks on his microdrives - I may need to be corrected on that. I suspect that 1024 is correct. Although, the freespace/total space numbers (on a DIR or STAT) was reported in sectors with a sector being 512 bytes if I remember correctly. I think each file had a 64 byte overhead on the first sector for the file header which was also the directory entry. However, having said that, I have never been able to read the 64 byte file header, or seen it, directly from the file - even though I've seen it written down that it can be done. I'm pretty sure I even used a disc sector editor program to check it out - still no joy. I remain to be convinced of the actual existense of this phantom 64 byte header per file actually 'in' the file. Stephen Usher's description of the perils of formatting is amongst the best I've ever seen. It's true that you can lose staggering amounts of disk space to a bad file format... Yes. I remember the old days when as you added a bigger disc to DOS/Windows, you didn't get as much extra space as you thought. The bigger the disc, the bigger the cluster size so the bigger your small files actually were in reality. This was due to FAT16 (the forerunner to FAT32) only having 16 bit numbers - so if you got too many MB on the new drive, it 'adjusted' the cluster size to allow the whole disc (subject to some other limit) into a 16 bit number. Very helpful indeed - not! However, I think anything in the 3 to 4 million microdrive equivalents will probably last most of us for a while yet (unlike a 400GB PC disk, which at current rates will be obsolete in 18 minutes and 23 seconds). Hmmm. I'm just wondering how long it would take to feed the afore mentions 3.x million cartridges into Dilwyn's Super Disc Indexer/Labeller program to catalogue the contents of them all. Let's see : * assume 30 seconds per scan (that's optimistic!) * assume 3.5 m illion cartridges. So, that's 1.75 million seconds, not including run up/run down and swapping over time. That works out at 29,166 minutes and 40 seconds. That is 486 hours, 6 minutes and 40 seconds or 20 days 6 hours 6 minutes and 40 seconds of continual time. That's a hell of a lot of cartridge labels too :o) Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must try and write a program to see just how many directories there are. Assuming Linux (because you mentioned it) how about : cd \ ls -Rl | grep ^d | wc -l I got 2,889 on a test system I have here at work - and that's not from the root of the drive. Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must try and write a program to see just how many directories there are. Assuming Linux (because you mentioned it) how about : cd \ ls -Rl | grep ^d | wc -l I got 2,889 on a test system I have here at work - and that's not from the root of the drive. You'd be better off with cd / find ./ -type d -print | wc -l :-) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Norman, investigation ist simple: * ls -lR | grep ^d | wc -l 11.735 seconds of real time to find 2,889 directories This will put a directory of _all_ files on your harddisk into the pipe, grep will search through it and throw away most of it. * find ./ -type d -print | wc -l 1.133 seconds to find 3,451 directories. This will only put directory names into the pipe. Command I has produced a whole lot more data that needed to be handled (and most of it thrown away afterwards), whereas command II only produced the data you wanted. But all that is probably way off-topic. Tobias So, not only is find much faster, it finds more directories too. Hmmm. Further investigation required methinks. Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
David Tubbs wrote: At 15:10 30/04/2007, you wrote: I must admit, I was assuming Sinclair had used 1024 byte blocks on his microdrives - I may need to be corrected on that. 512 byte seectors. one map sector, one byte for each potential sector, I had a few mdvs of 250 sectors. didn't it have 1 word, 2 bytes per sector: the file number in one byte ($f8 = sector map, $fd = free, $ff = dead) plus the block number within the file in the othe byte? Note tpp, every file fragmented of necessity by the interleave factor allowing the QL to digest the data from one sector before reading the next, some 11 or 13 further on. If the file were contiguous it would require a full revolution between sector reads. That begs the question of what one means by fragmented? If the sector allocation is such that some are deliberately skipped (interleave) then surely a fragmented file would be one that doesn't use the preferred sector(s), which for DOS users (with hard disks) would be the next contiguous sector (apparently). I had some of the Psion package which were Turbo Load, laid out for optimum pickup speed, they had to be copied by special procedure equivalent to a DOS DISCOPY. I never did that, but I had heard of it being done - the file laid out so that when the QL had digested the current sector, the next required one would be passing the read head...did it take into account scatter[1] loading? [1] As each sector has a file number and block number, it's position in the file is instantly recognised when read and if a later block happens past the read head before an earlier one, it is loaded first, into the correct memory. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Actually. I'd like the proper answer to that as well. I guessed that unformatted capacity represents the total amount of data that can be stored on the disk. Formatting added extra information (like an [un]allocated sector/cluster map, root directory, boot info and program, etc) that needs to be stored somewhere and so comes out of that unformatted capacity. It's worse than that Jim. Basically, the unformatted capacity is the total amount of sectors on the disk, including those used by the disk drive itself to store the defect list and, on newer disks, a pool of sectors which can be mapped in to replace defective sectors. There's also usually a couple of sectors used for the drive's configuration settings. Quite often, for ease of use, basically two cylinders are reserved by the firmware for all this. You should also remember that the metric for K, M and G used by hard disk manufacturers is based on powers of 10, i.e. 1000, 100 and 10 and multiples of 1024. Now, that's the amount of user available space. Now you have to add the overhead for the boot sector, partition table before even thinking about the data space used by the filesystem. The filesystem's overhead differs with the type but it can be quite large, especially if there are huge numbers of small files. Now, we've not finished yet. Although the raw disk works in sectors the filesystem works in blocks, which may or may not be the same size as a sector. Most filesystems have blocksizes starting at 4K, which is either 8 sectors or 4 sectors on the newer large capacity disks. Some filesystems, such as FAT32, will increase the block size (MS calls it the cluster size) up to 32KB. The problem with this is that the minimum amount of disk space able to be allocated is 1 block, which means that if you have 1024 1 byte long files they will take up a massive 32 megabytes (plus space in the FAT) on a large FAT32 partition instead of the 1KB you thought it would. I hope that gives you some idea about this thorny issue and helps you discover where all that disk space you thought you had has gone to. Steve -- --- Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David McCann wrote: All this has prompted me to look at my own 40GB disk. It is reported to have a capacity of 35.5GB (just 5.5GB used!), showing that Seagate used factors of 1000 and Linux of 1024. Looking at unused directories shows that every one occupies 64KB. Considering the complexity of the filing system, quite a few MB must go in directory information. I must try and write a program to see just how many directories there are. To put it all in perspective, you would get just one directory entry on an average microdrive and just one FAT32 file (8-)# Tony - -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGNgUuM3RzOs8+btoRAiCDAJwMeL+QklNOcsiYVwzz/fmAYgRycQCeP7Nb VMynaJaXqJfDiNwsjR9EcOM= =2EVR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Ade Vickers wrote: ... I must admit, I was assuming Sinclair had used 1024 byte blocks on his microdrives - I may need to be corrected on that. Sinclair used 512 byte blocks/sectors on the mdvs. ^_^ (AFAIK) When a cartridge was formatted, the blocks were written with decreasing block numbers; thus the highest block still valid gave the max capacity of that format - duff sectors and the [root] directory would decrease the available blocks. The space available in K is simply half the number of free sectors. For floppies, it depends upon the capacity of the disk as to how many sectors = 1 block. eg for ED, it was 3 sectors/block. Of course, the capacity decreases when you format the disc as well (how did they work out the unformatted capacity, because, if it is unformatted then you cannot store anything on it !) Stephen Usher's description of the perils of formatting is amongst the best I've ever seen. It's true that you can lose staggering amounts of disk space to a bad file format... My ED disks are described as 4M unformatted. Under DOS (fat) they provide 2.88M, on the QL, I get 3.2M. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Robert Newson wrote: I must admit, I was assuming Sinclair had used 1024 byte blocks on his microdrives - I may need to be corrected on that. Sinclair used 512 byte blocks/sectors on the mdvs. ^_^ Of course I'd forgotten that. It's been too long since I used a QL in anger -- even though I have one set up right here in the office :-/ So... My estimate of 3.5million MDVs is, in fact, wrong; it should be nearly 7million MDVs. Wow. Of course, formatting will remove a lot of that; if one assumes 50%, my original figure comes out conveniently accurate, for some inexplicable reason :) Cheers, Ade. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Ade Vickers wrote: ... Sinclair used 512 byte blocks/sectors on the mdvs. ^_^ Of course I'd forgotten that. It's been too long since I used a QL in anger -- even though I have one set up right here in the office :-/ So... My estimate of 3.5million MDVs is, in fact, wrong; it should be nearly 7million MDVs. Mdvs had a [theoretical] max capacity of 128K, though in practice, it was slightly less: I used to get around 220 sectors on a formatted cartridge giving about 110K. ... Of course, formatting will remove a lot of that; if one assumes 50%, my original figure comes out conveniently accurate, for some inexplicable reason :) On a MDV, 2 sectors were taken at the start: sector 0 is the sector map and another sector was the start of file 0 - the directory for the mdv. The data for each sector had a header which contained the filenumber and block number within that file - the sector map contains a copy of these bytes for all 255 possible data sectors, along with a note of the most recently allocated sector.[1] Other than those 2 sectors, all formatted sectors are available for use for files. Each file has a 64 byte header containing things like name, file type, etc, and this takes the first 64 bytes of the first sector allocated to the file. The directory file (file 0) holds a duplicate copy of these 64 byte headers, the offset within its sector(s) the file number*64. Thus File 0 (the directory) has its header starting at the first byte of first sector of File 0 (this is the only file to have a single copy of this data); File 1 has its header copy starting at offset 64, etc. File 8 has its header starting at offset 512 which is the start of a second sector which is added to the directory file when needed. [1] According to Adrian Dickens: QL Advanced User Guide (with my sumarizing) Bit of a stupid question: Why does each file contain its header in its first 64 bytes (meaning that a file can only hold up to 448 bytes before a second sector is needed for bytes 449-960, etc): why not just use the one in the directory? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Robert Newson wrote: Ade Vickers wrote: ... Sinclair used 512 byte blocks/sectors on the mdvs. ^_^ Of course I'd forgotten that. It's been too long since I used a QL in anger -- even though I have one set up right here in the office :-/ So... My estimate of 3.5million MDVs is, in fact, wrong; it should be nearly 7million MDVs. Mdvs had a [theoretical] max capacity of 128K, though in practice, it was slightly less: I used to get around 220 sectors on a formatted cartridge giving about 110K. Mea culpa - a senior moment; I'd already converted it into K, instead of blocks. You're right of course - my original QL gave anywhere between 220 and 230 free blocks, generally; i.e. 110 to 115K approx. Cheers, Ade. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
At 15:10 30/04/2007, you wrote: I must admit, I was assuming Sinclair had used 1024 byte blocks on his microdrives - I may need to be corrected on that. 512 byte seectors. one map sector, one byte for each potential sector, I had a few mdvs of 250 sectors. Note tpp, every file fragmented of necessity by the interleave factor allowing the QL to digest the data from one sector before reading the next, some 11 or 13 further on. If the file were contiguous it would require a full revolution between sector reads. I had some of the Psion package which were Turbo Load, laid out for optimum pickup speed, they had to be copied by special procedure equivalent to a DOS DISCOPY. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/780 - Release Date: 29/04/2007 06:30 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Of course, the capacity decreases when you format the disc as well (how did they work out the unformatted capacity, because, if it is unformatted then you cannot store anything on it !) I'd like the proper answer to that as well. I guessed that unformatted capacity represents the total amount of data that can be stored on the disk. Formatting added extra information (like an [un]allocated sector/cluster map, root directory, boot info and program, etc) that needs to be stored somewhere and so comes out of that unformatted capacity. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Norman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? Using 400 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 bytes and dividing by 110 * 1024 bytes we get a grand total of 3,813,003.6363 (recurring) microdrive cartridges. Except that a hard-drive kilobyte is 1000 bytes, and a megabyte is 1000 kilobytes... So, in fact, it's 400 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 / (110 * 1024) = 3,551,136.3636 recurring That's nearly 250,000 microdrive capacities lost :) Cheers, Ade. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 24/04/2007 17:43 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just = can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? Using 400 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 bytes and dividing by 110 * 1024 bytes we get a grand total of 3,813,003.6363 (recurring) microdrive cartridges. Is that enough ? I guess we'll see Malcolm back here in about 10 years - after he's finished backing up his 400GB hard disk to microdrive ;-) And I'd like to know the whereabouts of his warehouse to hold all those cartridges. Or does he just have several garden sheds like Tony Firshman. Though my experience of things suggests that if left in a cupboard for 10 years, the microdrives may well prove to be more readable than the hard disk or floppy disk or CD or DVD! Most of the microdrives I still have are perfectly readable. Many of the floppy disks from that period ain't - sadly, including disks with sources to old programs like Page Designer 2. -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Gilpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes According to my calculations and assuming a modest 210 sectors on a microdrive it works out at nearly 4 million microdrives. That's even more than Quanta has in stock for resale!! Regards to all, John Gilpin. Wow ! ... I guess the technology moves on ... :-) Imagine cataloguing 4 million microdrives ... :-( Although Sinclair Research was involved in Wafer Scale Integration too, if I remember correctly. Which was promising things like very large storage of data. Whatever became of that promise for the future ? - Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] new hard disk In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just = can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? Using 400 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 bytes and dividing by 110 * 1024 bytes we get a grand total of 3,813,003.6363 (recurring) microdrive cartridges. Is that enough ? I guess we'll see Malcolm back here in about 10 years - after he's finished backing up his 400GB hard disk to microdrive ;-) Umm ... don't joke Dilwyn. Although not on to QL microdrive I expect that we will all get to the stage where we will be backing up larger and larger amounts of data. And I'd like to know the whereabouts of his warehouse to hold all those cartridges. Or does he just have several garden sheds like Tony Firshman. Though my experience of things suggests that if left in a cupboard for 10 years, the microdrives may well prove to be more readable than the hard disk or floppy disk or CD or DVD! Most of the microdrives I still have are perfectly readable. Many of the floppy disks from that period ain't - sadly, including disks with sources to old programs like Page Designer 2. I've not experienced losing data through an unreadable floppy disk - always found them reliable. Of course, if stored well. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
According to my calculations and assuming a modest 210 sectors on a microdrive it works out at nearly 4 million microdrives. That's even more than Quanta has in stock for resale!! Regards to all, John Gilpin. - Original Message - From: Malcolm Cadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:32 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] new hard disk In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. Yes, I am toying with getting a 400GB hard drive ... I guess we just can't get enough of it ... :-) I wonder how many QL microdrives that is the equivalent of ? -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Last week I was pestering you all with questions about formatting a new Hitachi Deskstar 250GB hard disk I was having problems with. I sent it back, the company quickly sent me a replacement and it worked first time when set up today, exactly how all the helpful replies suggested it ought to. Thank you all, I've given Windoze 40GB to do with as it pleases (since the second hard drive has enough space to do a full backup of the C: drive), and the other 200GB partition will hold my music and QL files. Hopefully Windoze will do less damage to it than the couriers did! Incidentally, my first impressions of this hard disk are excellent. About £45 including VAT and carriage for the 250GB IDE133 T7K250, and it's pretty fast and quiet. Thank you everyone for your kind help. -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... like the new and useless NHS project or Trident etc. What I find extremely funny is that the first two episodes of Yes, Prime Minister! (originally broadcase Jan '86) were about scrapping Polaris and replacing it with Trident; and the comments given - eg when Jim Hacker PM asks Sir Humphrey who runs Britain - that cabinet or the American President?, Sir Humphrey replies I'm a bit of a herectic and in the minority: I believe it's the Cabinet... (or words to that effect) - are just as appropriate today... ... I'm sure under Win 3.1 the defrag tool had an 'advanced' option where a graphic (lots of squares) appeared. You could, if I remember, hover over a square and it would tell you the file and highlight all the other fragments of thet file too. Not any more. I didn't realise Win 3.1 had a defrag program - I used a DOS defragger (speedisk) that allowed you to look at a cluster and told you to which file(s) the data belonged... ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Tubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The Defrag with DOS/Windows packs the data together, removing the fragments that got separated to be a whole continuous area of data. This is correct. Or is it ? Defrag as done by Windows only attempts to stitch FILES back together, can still leave chunks of free space between data. No attempt to keep directories together. The quickest and most efficient defrag is to XCOPY all to another drive.volume - format - and copy all back again. Der ... der ... DOS strikes back ! Yes, I recall that trick with XCOPY ... because it destroys data before it writes back ... so the X was an appropriate prefix. Internally I don't know how the QXL.WIN holds its directions to information. Yet it will not be affected by defragmenting. It can be. If the QXL.WIN file is spread of lots and lots of diosc area, in multiple fragments, These days you will never know if QXL_WIN is in bits or where it is. You could ensure a contiguous file if you copied them into a virgin partition, you could create more than one, renaming them and keeping them in hand for later use. Back in days of DOS and W311 Central point had some great tools for seeing exactly where files were located and if fractured. As to whether or not QXL needs the treatment, less than likely, QDOS lacks the engine of fragmentation - an MS OS. So many files a silently extended, even in the root, and the whole system of temp files and swap/page file. But within QXL_WIN there comes a time when the space made available by deletion is not large enough to accommodate the next file to be saved there. Just do as Per suggested, WCOPY all to a new one, or a contiguous one you have been smart enough to prepare beforehand. Yes, I guess a QXL.WIN does not get messed up with scattered files and spaces like a PC hard drive. Interestingly, though I have found with WIN95 and QPC2 that a QXL.WIN of 500Mb is slow to read ... and therefore better to stick to 150Mb. -- Malcolm Cadman ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
But after all the trauma, I wish I'd known about the 'Manage' window before, it makes life so easy. It has always been there ... :-) ... although now hidden from casual use. What comes of having such a simple life on a QL I suppose. Want to format something? Just enter a FORMAT command :-( BTW, I just ran a Defrag on my C: drive, the difference it's made is amazing. Makes me wonder how I put up with the sluggishness recently - it's months since I last defragmented the hard disk. You can check with a graphical view of the hard drive as to whether it needs a Defrag - use the Analyse option. Every time I use it I get the reassuring answer that the hard drive does not need a Defrag. So, what have you been doing to in recent months ... deleting or moving a lot of files around ... ? Yes. I'm normally conscientious about things like Defrag and backups, but it's months since I last remember defragmenting. Which has made me think - do QL hard disks (QXL.WIN or QUBIDE) ever need defragmenting? If so, how do we do it? (Never thought about that!) As far as Windows is concerned it is just one large file, so it cannot itself be defragmented - which is what happens to the hard drive surface area having gaps between areas of occupied data and areas not occupied by data. The Defrag with DOS/Windows packs the data together, removing the fragments that got separated to be a whole continuous area of data. I could see that happening as Defrag reported its process. It takes a while to do it, but you can see how much better the layout is afterwards. I have a 512MB QXL.WIN with my QPC2, and about 75% of that is used, which is why I wondered about QL files within the QXL.WIN becoming fragmented or not. Internally I don't know how the QXL.WIN holds its directions to information. Yet it will not be affected by defragmenting. I guess someone can look all this up in the manuals . Be interesting to know the answer. But, I suppose, if fragmentation of QL files is a problem in the long run, I guess someone would have written about it by now. -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Try fdisk d: in a command line and see what transpires. I wouldn't expect that (fdisk d:) to work as d: wouldn't exist. IIRC when you run fdisk on a PC under [some form of] DOS, you select the drive number you wish to partition from a prompt [somewhere]. Although there's a Command Prompt equating to some form of DOS box, fdisk is not recognised there. There is some form of equivalent somewhere in the Windows XP CD startup (I forget exactly where). But after all the trauma, I wish I'd known about the 'Manage' window before, it makes life so easy. BTW, I just ran a Defrag on my C: drive, the difference it's made is amazing. Makes me wonder how I put up with the sluggishness recently - it's months since I last defragmented the hard disk. Which has made me think - do QL hard disks (QXL.WIN or QUBIDE) ever need defragmenting? If so, how do we do it? (Never thought about that!) -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Dilwyn Jones writes: Which has made me think - do QL hard disks (QXL.WIN or QUBIDE) ever need defragmenting? If so, how do we do it? (Never thought about that!) I dont know for sure whether QXL.WIN files ever need defragging. However, if they do, the easiest method currently available (I find) is to simply create a new, blank QXL.WIN file and copy all the files from the old disk on to that. A few lines of SBasic is all it takes. Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Thanks everyone. Since this advice has worked on all but this new drive, it's on its way back to the retailer. By coincidence, someone at work had just bought a hard drive, which he hadn't used yet. He brought it over after I told him about this, as he didn't know how to set it inside a PC (I thought I was thick with PCs!). We set it up as a slave drive on this heap and it worked first time. I also noticed that my 250GB drive was getting extremely hot to the touch, it was so hot I could barely hold it for more than a few seconds. All told, best to get it returned and replaced. The 40MB old drive and my colleague's 80GB drive worked first time, so it's highly likely it wasn't my lack of PC knowledge to blame after all. -- Dilwyn Jones - Original Message - From: Roy wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [ql-users] new hard disk OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? The answer is simple if not very intuitive. Windows hides the Device manger because ;yer casual user' can easily destroy the system from there. Go to the start menu, right click anywhere and choose 'properties', In the Start Menu tab choose 'advanced', In that choose 'advanced' again. Scroll down to 'System Administrative Tools' and choose 'Display on the All programs menu and the start menu'. Click OK. Then go to the start menu choose 'Administrative Tools', Choose Computer Management, Choose Disk Management You will see you unformatted and uninitiated .Drive there. First Initiate it and then format or partition it. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 skype : royqbranch web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.2.0/756 - Release Date: 10/04/2007 22:44 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
You really can't blame MS or Uncle Bill if you don't bother with what is on your PC (XP I presume). OK, hands up, I didn't know about this Manage utility (and it's great now I do). But I had been along the FDISK and FORMAT path which was a much clumsier way of doing it. After all that, it seems the disk is faulty and has been returned, since another disk was successfully formatted. This is OK first time, but if you ever want to change or resize partitions Windows is destructive of all data, much better is PowerQuest's Magic, moves the data as it works. Yes, someone else told me about this. While you are venting your spleen at Seattle, think a little deeper, how could you afford to buy such a large HDD ? How come I was offered 1Gig RAM for £50 yesterday - the half meg Expanderram I got in 1980 cost £70 ! ! ! ! The reason is Gates ever larger operating systems have created the market for hardware thet bulk production has brought the price crashing down. I'm nowhere near as mad with Windows or PCs now as I was a few years ago. It just seems that the greater complexity of PCs makes it harder to sort out problems like this. Anyway, it turned out to be a faulty drive in the end. No I am not an out and out lover of MS, but credit where it is due, and gratitude. Many people say that - not great lovers of PCs, but accept what Bill Co have done is mostly good even if you dislike market dominance generally. (that way Windoze can do what it likes with the C:\ drive.) Now there I think you are right, I look on it as Bill's sandpit, let him play there and create and create his defrag-needing mess in one place. ;-)) -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I suspect that you need to partition the drive before Windows can use it. I beleieve that fdisk (fdisc maybe) is your 'friend'. Try fdisk d: in a command line and see what transpires. I'd been along this line and managed to format an old 40MB drive (plus a drive belonging to someone at work), but all told I'm glad in a way I now know it was a faulty drive - it worked well enough to identify itself, but fdisk and format didn't want to know. The fact it was getting so hot and making an awful racket when the PC case was open convinced me to send it back - when I put it back into its packaging I noticed a bump hole in the box, maybe someone played football with it en route to me. No doubt this subject will rear its head again when the replacement arrives, although yesterday shoulkd be fresh in my memory to tackle it when it arrives! Newcomers on this list - take note! We're all here to help each other, you've seen how ready to help people have been with my problem, so don't be afraid to ask something if the need arises! -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Morning Dilwyn, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I suspect that you need to partition the drive before Windows can use it. I beleieve that fdisk (fdisc maybe) is your 'friend'. Try fdisk d: in a command line and see what transpires. Cheers, Norman. Unfortunately, fdisk doesn't work under WindowsXP because the command line is only emulated. You need to: Right Click on the My Computer icon on the desktop. Select Manage from the menu that pops up The computer management console pops up. On the left select the Disk Management options and the right hand pane changes to display the disks attached to your PC. Look for the one with no drive letter assigned and then right click and Create Partition. Follow the wizards - defaults are fine - and there you go! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Rick Chagouri-Brindle wrote: ... Try fdisk d: in a command line and see what transpires. I wouldn't expect that (fdisk d:) to work as d: wouldn't exist. IIRC when you run fdisk on a PC under [some form of] DOS, you select the drive number you wish to partition from a prompt [somewhere]. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Dilwyn Jones wrote: OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I uninstalled the old drive D:\, switched off, restarted, the New Hardware Wizard found the new drive and it's now listed as drive D:\ in Device Manager. Now, how do I format it? It doesn't appear in My Computer etc. - normally you can right click on a drive name and get the context menu to offer a format command. It's almost as if it's not recognised because it's not formatted, but of course that gives a catch 22 of not being able to format a new hard disk because it's not already formatted, so I guess I'm missing some simple course of action here??? Also tried from DOS command line, FORMAT D: just gives drive not recognised error F***ing Windoze! (That stood for Flaming, by the way, in case anyone thought otherwise!) This new 250GB drive is to be the home for all my QL stuff, a full backup of drive C:\ and my music (that way Windoze can do what it likes with the C:\ drive.) In windows XP, right click on 'My Computer' (Either on the start menu or on the desktop if you have the icon there), from the menu click on manage. A new window will appear, on the left click on Disk Management, there you'll see your new drive (probably without a partition), right click on the drive 'bar' on the right and select 'Create new partition', then follow the prompts. Your new drive will then be partitioned and formatted for you and should then be usable. Hope that helps! Phil ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
From the DOS Command line, have you tried FDisk? I think it is self explanatory but be careful to format the right disk - Formatting your C Drive would be disastrous. If in doubt, most basic DOS books will walk you through the procedure or the Help facility in Windows (if you search FDisk) will give you the info. Hope this helps, John Gilpin. - Original Message - From: Dilwyn Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: QL Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: [ql-users] new hard disk OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I uninstalled the old drive D:\, switched off, restarted, the New Hardware Wizard found the new drive and it's now listed as drive D:\ in Device Manager. Now, how do I format it? It doesn't appear in My Computer etc. - normally you can right click on a drive name and get the context menu to offer a format command. It's almost as if it's not recognised because it's not formatted, but of course that gives a catch 22 of not being able to format a new hard disk because it's not already formatted, so I guess I'm missing some simple course of action here??? Also tried from DOS command line, FORMAT D: just gives drive not recognised error F***ing Windoze! (That stood for Flaming, by the way, in case anyone thought otherwise!) This new 250GB drive is to be the home for all my QL stuff, a full backup of drive C:\ and my music (that way Windoze can do what it likes with the C:\ drive.) -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Gilpin wrote: From the DOS Command line, have you tried FDisk? I think it is self explanatory but be careful to format the right disk - Formatting your C Drive would be disastrous. If in doubt, most basic DOS books will walk you through the procedure or the Help facility in Windows (if you search FDisk) will give you the info. Hope this helps, You have to ignore all these messages about the command line! XP does it from administrative tools, and the easiest route to that from My COmputer has already been described. This method is *so* much better than the old command line tools, as it would be very hard indeed to format the wrong disk (8-)# Laurence Reeves wrote a great scam program, for DOS (when that was *real* and not emulated). It looked just like a real format, including disk access. Tony - -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJI4eM3RzOs8+btoRAgxqAJ0aERjBUd4rwBcmyqCje4RONE+HOACcDQpB 1xGnsmlu/oSQXckP/jL7Slw= =0yZ0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
At 09:27 17/04/2007, you wrote: OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I uninstalled the old drive D:\, switched off, restarted, the New Hardware Wizard found the new drive and it's now listed as drive D:\ in Device Manager. Now, how do I format it? It doesn't appear in My Computer etc. - normally you can right click on a drive name and get the context menu to offer a format command. It's almost as if it's not recognised because it's not formatted, but of course that gives a catch 22 of not being able to format a new hard disk because it's not already formatted, so I guess I'm missing some simple course of action here??? Also tried from DOS command line, FORMAT D: just gives drive not recognised error F***ing Windoze! (That stood for Flaming, by the way, in case anyone thought otherwise!) You really can't blame MS or Uncle Bill if you don't bother with what is on your PC (XP I presume). Use the HELP provided - type Format into search box then Format basic volume:- this comes up :- Notes * To open Computer Management, click Start, point to Settings, and then click Control Panel. Double-click Administrative Tools, and then double-click Computer Management. * In the console tree, click Disk Management. * ms-its:C:\WINDOWS\Help\diskmgmt.chm::/ms-its:C:\WINDOWS\Help\diskmgmt.chm::/dm_format_partition.htm# [] ms-its:C:\WINDOWS\Help\diskmgmt.chm::/ms-its:C:\WINDOWS\Help\diskmgmt.chm::/dm_format_partition.htm#Where? * Computer Management (Local) * Storage * Disk Management This is OK first time, but if you ever want to change or resize partitions Windows is destructive of all data, much better is PowerQuest's Magic, moves the data as it works. While you are venting your spleen at Seattle, think a little deeper, how could you afford to buy such a large HDD ? How come I was offered 1Gig RAM for £50 yesterday - the half meg Expanderram I got in 1980 cost £70 ! ! ! ! The reason is Gates ever larger operating systems have created the market for hardware thet bulk production has brought the price crashing down. No I am not an out and out lover of MS, but credit where it is due, and gratitude. (that way Windoze can do what it likes with the C:\ drive.) Now there I think you are right, I look on it as Bill's sandpit, let him play there and create and create his defrag-needing mess in one place. My first 'puter was a Grundy Newbrain, had two cassette ports, then the QL with 2 Mdvs and the convention of prog's on one and data the other. I have carried that logic to the PC. Partitions for each - Progs, Data, Install packages, Page/Swap file - a major cause and obstruction of defregging. Btw, if you dont wish ever to boot from the new drive wrap all volumes in and extended partition. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/764 - Release Date: 17/04/2007 04:43 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/764 - Release Date: 17/04/2007 04:43 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/764 - Release Date: 17/04/2007 04:43 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] new hard disk
Dilwyn Jones wrote: OK, I give up. How do you get Windows XP to format a new second hard disk? I uninstalled the old drive D:\, switched off, restarted, the New Hardware Wizard found the new drive and it's now listed as drive D:\ in Device Manager. Now, how do I format it? It doesn't appear in My Computer etc. - normally you can right click on a drive name and get the context menu to offer a format command. It's almost as if it's not recognised because it's not formatted, but of course that gives a catch 22 of not being able to format a new hard disk because it's not already formatted, so I guess I'm missing some simple course of action here??? Also tried from DOS command line, FORMAT D: just gives drive not recognised error F***ing Windoze! (That stood for Flaming, by the way, in case anyone thought otherwise!) This new 250GB drive is to be the home for all my QL stuff, a full backup of drive C:\ and my music (that way Windoze can do what it likes with the C:\ drive.) didnt see anyone ask this, have you checked in the BIOS setup if the computer is seeing the new HD and is reporting its correct size?? On some PC's you need to get into the BIOS First, let it determine that there is a HD present, then save settings THEN Fdisk and most any other utility way of messing with the drive should work. MOST newly bought retail packeages HD's should be recognizable by winderze ONCE its allowed to see the drive I recall -- Paul Holmgren 2 57 300-C's in Indy Hoosier Corps L#6 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
