Ghost 9 Problem

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Finally, exhausted from recent numerous reinstallations of windows and
all programs due to corruptions caused by Windows updates, I am ready
to try Ghost.

After installation of Ghost 9.0 and Microsoft Net Framework 1.1 on my
Windows 2000 (SP3) system with a 250 GB Hard Drive in 3 NTFS
partitions of about 80GB each , Ghost resides in my taskbar in a
"Ready" state.

When I right click on the icon and select "Run Norton Ghost" I get a
window and the following error message:
"The data necessary to complete this operation is not yet available."
The icon in the task bar then declares:
"Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system.

I have unsinstalled and reinstalled Ghost and rebooted several times,
but the same error messages come up. Each time, the installation
appears to be successful and I reboot after installation.

I haven't found these particular error messages discussed in my on
line and knowledge base searches.

What could the matter be?

Is the hard drive too big?
Do I need a FAT32 partition?
Have I done or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks,
MHenry

 

[joeP]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"MHenry" <MHenry@blank.net> wrote in message
news:dq05o05dbli3tbnu9dmkl76eh7ug4b3pjq@4ax.com...
> Finally, exhausted from recent numerous reinstallations of windows and
> all programs due to corruptions caused by Windows updates, I am ready
> to try Ghost.
>
> After installation of Ghost 9.0 and Microsoft Net Framework 1.1 on my
> Windows 2000 (SP3) system with a 250 GB Hard Drive in 3 NTFS
> partitions of about 80GB each , Ghost resides in my taskbar in a
> "Ready" state.
>
> When I right click on the icon and select "Run Norton Ghost" I get a
> window and the following error message:
> "The data necessary to complete this operation is not yet available."
> The icon in the task bar then declares:
> "Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
> last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system.
>
> I have unsinstalled and reinstalled Ghost and rebooted several times,
> but the same error messages come up. Each time, the installation
> appears to be successful and I reboot after installation.
>
> I haven't found these particular error messages discussed in my on
> line and knowledge base searches.
>
> What could the matter be?
>
> Is the hard drive too big?
> Do I need a FAT32 partition?
> Have I done or am I doing something wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> MHenry

I don't know the answer to this one, but when an error says:

"> "Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
> last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system."

The don't you think it's a good idea to describe all storage devices
attached to your system?

--
Joep

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"MHenry" wrote:
> Finally, exhausted from recent numerous reinstallations
> of windows and all programs due to corruptions caused
> by Windows updates, I am ready to try Ghost.
>
> After installation of Ghost 9.0 and Microsoft Net Framework 1.
> on my Windows 2000 (SP3) system with a 250 GB Hard Drive
> in 3 NTFS partitions of about 80GB each , Ghost resides in my
> taskbar in a "Ready" state.
>
> When I right click on the icon and select "Run Norton Ghost"
> I get a window and the following error message:
> "The data necessary to complete this operation is not yet available."
> The icon in the task bar then declares:
> "Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
> last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system.
>
> I have unsinstalled and reinstalled Ghost and rebooted several times,
> but the same error messages come up. Each time, the installation
> appears to be successful and I reboot after installation.
>
> I haven't found these particular error messages discussed in my on
> line and knowledge base searches.
>
> What could the matter be?
>
> Is the hard drive too big?
> Do I need a FAT32 partition?
> Have I done or am I doing something wrong?


Does Disk Management report the proper size for the hard
disk? How old is your PC? Have you installed ("flashed")
the latest version of its BIOS?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:32:36 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"MHenry" wrote:
Cut...
>>
>> After installation of Ghost 9.0 and Microsoft Net Framework 1.
>> on my Windows 2000 (SP3) system with a 250 GB Hard Drive
>> in 3 NTFS partitions of about 80GB each , Ghost resides in my
>> taskbar in a "Ready" state.
>>
>> When I right click on the icon and select "Run Norton Ghost"
>> I get a window and the following error message:
>> "The data necessary to complete this operation is not yet available."
>> The icon in the task bar then declares:
>> "Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
>> last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system.
>>
Cut
>
> Does Disk Management report the proper size for the hard
> disk? How old is your PC? Have you installed ("flashed")
> the latest version of its BIOS?
>
>*TimDaniels*

Hi, Tim,

Device Manager indicates the proper hard drive.
I am not familiar with Disk Management, but I found it by right
clicking My Computer and got to Storage Management where it said all
my partitions and CD ROM drives are healthy and displays the proper
partition information, and reports the correct size for my Hard Drive.

My PC is about 2.5 years old.

When I reinstalled Windows (over and over again), I updated something
or other with my Mainboard Utility Disk. I don't know if this is the
equivalent of "flashing" my BIOS, and if it is, if the version on the
CD is the latest version.

I am in unfamiliar territory here.

What else should I try?

I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
Is that the correct setting?

Thanks,
MHenry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"MHenry" wrote:
> Device Manager indicates the proper hard drive.
> I am not familiar with Disk Management, but I found it by right
> clicking My Computer and got to Storage Management where it said all
> my partitions and CD ROM drives are healthy and displays the proper
> partition information, and reports the correct size for my Hard Drive.
>
> My PC is about 2.5 years old.
>
> When I reinstalled Windows (over and over again), I updated something
> or other with my Mainboard Utility Disk. I don't know if this is the
> equivalent of "flashing" my BIOS, and if it is, if the version on the
> CD is the latest version.
>
> I am in unfamiliar territory here.
>
> What else should I try?
>
> I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
> Is that the correct setting?


Leave S.M.S.R.T. disabled. It's just to report diagnostic
information about the HDs' physical health. Was .NET
Framework installed before you installed Ghost? It might
be worth uninstalling both Ghost and .NET Framework
and then re-installing .NET Framework before re-installig
Ghost.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted NDD
to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete all
the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I have
three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the problem
with Norton Ghost on my system.
Windows recognizes and uses all three partitions.
I don't want to mess with a working system, but I still want to make a
backup image.

Still looking for help on this.

Thanks,
MHenry

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:54:54 GMT, MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:32:36 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
><TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
>>"MHenry" wrote:
>Cut...
>>>
>>> After installation of Ghost 9.0 and Microsoft Net Framework 1.
>>> on my Windows 2000 (SP3) system with a 250 GB Hard Drive
>>> in 3 NTFS partitions of about 80GB each , Ghost resides in my
>>> taskbar in a "Ready" state.
>>>
>>> When I right click on the icon and select "Run Norton Ghost"
>>> I get a window and the following error message:
>>> "The data necessary to complete this operation is not yet available."
>>> The icon in the task bar then declares:
>>> "Error: [High Priority] Unable to succesfully reconcile changes since
>>> last session. Unable to enumerate the current driives on this system.
>>>
>Cut
>>
>> Does Disk Management report the proper size for the hard
>> disk? How old is your PC? Have you installed ("flashed")
>> the latest version of its BIOS?
>>
>>*TimDaniels*
>
>Hi, Tim,
>
>Device Manager indicates the proper hard drive.
>I am not familiar with Disk Management, but I found it by right
>clicking My Computer and got to Storage Management where it said all
>my partitions and CD ROM drives are healthy and displays the proper
>partition information, and reports the correct size for my Hard Drive.
>
>My PC is about 2.5 years old.
>
>When I reinstalled Windows (over and over again), I updated something
>or other with my Mainboard Utility Disk. I don't know if this is the
>equivalent of "flashing" my BIOS, and if it is, if the version on the
>CD is the latest version.
>
>I am in unfamiliar territory here.
>
>What else should I try?
>
>I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
>Is that the correct setting?
>
>Thanks,
>MHenry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:rpedndeUzYpmOhncRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> "MHenry" wrote:

> > I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
> > Is that the correct setting?
>
No, make sure it is enabled.
>
> Leave S.M.S.R.T. disabled. It's just to report diagnostic
> information about the HDs' physical health. Was .NET
> Framework installed before you installed Ghost? It might
> be worth uninstalling both Ghost and .NET Framework
> and then re-installing .NET Framework before re-installig
> Ghost.

Doesn't make a difference.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Eric Gisin" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> "MHenry" wrote:
>
>> > I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
>> > Is that the correct setting?
>>
> No, make sure it is enabled.



Why?



>> Leave S.M.S.R.T. disabled. It's just to report diagnostic
>> information about the HDs' physical health. Was .NET
>> Framework installed before you installed Ghost? It might
>> be worth uninstalling both Ghost and .NET Framework
>> and then re-installing .NET Framework before re-installig
>> Ghost.
>
> Doesn't make a difference.



PowerQuest's Drive Image 7 guidebook clearly states:
"The latest version of the Microsoft .NET Framework must
be installed *prior* to installing and using Drive Image."

Norton's Ghost 9.0 is a rebadged Drive Image 7.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:Afqdnc77qIfqvhjcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> "Eric Gisin" wrote:
> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >
> >> > I notice on boot up that S.M.A.R.T is disabled.
> >> > Is that the correct setting?
> >>
> > No, make sure it is enabled.
>
> Why?
>
You want to know when you start up your system if the drive might die, so you
can interrupt the boot and run diagnostics.
>
> >> Leave S.M.S.R.T. disabled. It's just to report diagnostic
> >> information about the HDs' physical health. Was .NET
> >> Framework installed before you installed Ghost? It might
> >> be worth uninstalling both Ghost and .NET Framework
> >> and then re-installing .NET Framework before re-installig
> >> Ghost.
> >
> > Doesn't make a difference.
>
> PowerQuest's Drive Image 7 guidebook clearly states:
> "The latest version of the Microsoft .NET Framework must
> be installed *prior* to installing and using Drive Image."
>
> Norton's Ghost 9.0 is a rebadged Drive Image 7.

I have CladDVD .net, which says the same thing. It worked fine the other way.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:

>I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
>partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted NDD
>to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete all
>the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I have
>three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the problem
>with Norton Ghost on my system.

Find a friend who has a copy of Powerquest's "Partition Magic" product.
(Note that Powerquest has been bought by Symantec. Also, while I've
seen PM8 on store shelves with a $60 price tag, it's routinely sold
at computer shows for $28 -- and a good buy.)

The reason I'm pointing you to someone who owns PM is that the product
includes a partition structure checker PARTINFO.EXE, which posts on
its output a statement that it can be freely shared. The output is
quite verbose (you'll want to redirect the output to a file and
then view that file with a viewer or editor) but it may explain
what's wrong with the partition chain.

Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't have
one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.

Question: have you ever used Linux to rearrange the partition
structure on your disk? I've seen the Linux 'fidsk' program build
a partition structure in which the partition start sectors are not
in ascending order (e.g., the start sector of partition 3 might
be lower than that of partition 2); while I've never seen an
authoratative Microsoft document which requires that they be in
ascending order that's the way that the Microsoft 'fdisk' will
always create them. In production Windows may have no problems
using the out-of-order partitions, but system maintenance tools
may barf.

Joe Morris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Joe Morris wrote:
> MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:
>
>> I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
>> partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted
>> NDD to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete
>> all the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I
>> have three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the
>> problem with Norton Ghost on my system.
>
> Find a friend who has a copy of Powerquest's "Partition Magic"
> product. (Note that Powerquest has been bought by Symantec. Also,
> while I've seen PM8 on store shelves with a $60 price tag, it's
> routinely sold
> at computer shows for $28 -- and a good buy.)
>
> The reason I'm pointing you to someone who owns PM is that the product
> includes a partition structure checker PARTINFO.EXE, which posts on
> its output a statement that it can be freely shared. The output is
> quite verbose (you'll want to redirect the output to a file and
> then view that file with a viewer or editor) but it may explain
> what's wrong with the partition chain.
>
> Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't have
> one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.
>
> Question: have you ever used Linux to rearrange the partition
> structure on your disk? I've seen the Linux 'fidsk' program build
> a partition structure in which the partition start sectors are not
> in ascending order (e.g., the start sector of partition 3 might
> be lower than that of partition 2); while I've never seen an
> authoratative Microsoft document which requires that they be in
> ascending order that's the way that the Microsoft 'fdisk' will
> always create them. In production Windows may have no problems
> using the out-of-order partitions, but system maintenance tools
> may barf.
>
> Joe Morris

Norton Ghost 9.0 comes with the Windows version of the PARTINFO tool (what
the OP actually needs since the problems occur in Windows). Open the SUPPORT
folder on the program CD and start the tool called PartInNT.exe (save the
output file by either clicking on the "Save As..." button or on the "Copy to
Clipboard" button and pasting the contents in e.g. Notepad).

--
M.f.G.
Michael Kimmer

"Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
"Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:53:19 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

> Leave S.M.S.R.T. disabled. It's just to report diagnostic
> information about the HDs' physical health. Was .NET
> Framework installed before you installed Ghost? It might
> be worth uninstalling both Ghost and .NET Framework
> and then re-installing .NET Framework before re-installig
> Ghost.

Hi, Tim,

Thanks for the further suggestions.

I did install Net Framework 1.1 and the service pack first.
So, that should not be the problem.

Since there seems to be differing opinions on use of S.M.A.R.T.,
I can try enabling and disabling S.M.A.R.T. and see what happens.

Thanks,
MHenry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:12:24 +0000 (UTC), Joe Morris
<jcmorris@mitre.org> wrote:

>MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:
>
>>I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
>>partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted NDD
>>to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete all
>>the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I have
>>three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the problem
>>with Norton Ghost on my system.
>
>Find a friend who has a copy of Powerquest's "Partition Magic" product.
>(Note that Powerquest has been bought by Symantec. Also, while I've
>seen PM8 on store shelves with a $60 price tag, it's routinely sold
>at computer shows for $28 -- and a good buy.)
>
>The reason I'm pointing you to someone who owns PM is that the product
>includes a partition structure checker PARTINFO.EXE, which posts on
>its output a statement that it can be freely shared. The output is
>quite verbose (you'll want to redirect the output to a file and
>then view that file with a viewer or editor) but it may explain
>what's wrong with the partition chain.

I will try this, either with Partition Magic diagnostic tool you
recommend, or the Norton version as recommended by Michael Kimmer.
Maybe I will try both if necessary or helpful.
>
>Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't have
>one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.

I definitely need to do this. Thanks.
>
>Question: have you ever used Linux to rearrange the partition
>structure on your disk? I've seen the Linux 'fidsk' program build
>a partition structure in which the partition start sectors are not
>in ascending order (e.g., the start sector of partition 3 might
>be lower than that of partition 2); while I've never seen an
>authoratative Microsoft document which requires that they be in
>ascending order that's the way that the Microsoft 'fdisk' will
>always create them. In production Windows may have no problems
>using the out-of-order partitions, but system maintenance tools
>may barf.
>
Interesting. I have never used Linux, but the start sectors out of
order issue seems possible. After one of my recent system crashes
(caused by an attempted Windows 2000 SP4 update), I removed the C
partition on which I had the operating system and reformatted it. It
showed up as partition C again, along with D and E previously existing
and left untouched. I did not want to reformat and partition the
entire drive again because I had a lot of data on the D and E
partitions. I probably should get another hard drive just to store the
data in between reformats. But maybe the partitions are not the right
order because of the procedure I used.

Thanks for your suggestions,
MHenry

>Joe Morris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:46:12 +0100, "Michael Kimmer"
<michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Joe Morris wrote:
>> MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:
>>
>>> I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
>>> partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted
>>> NDD to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete
>>> all the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I
>>> have three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the
>>> problem with Norton Ghost on my system.
>>

>>
>> Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't have
>> one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.
>>
>
>Norton Ghost 9.0 comes with the Windows version of the PARTINFO tool (what
>the OP actually needs since the problems occur in Windows). Open the SUPPORT
>folder on the program CD and start the tool called PartInNT.exe (save the
>output file by either clicking on the "Save As..." button or on the "Copy to
>Clipboard" button and pasting the contents in e.g. Notepad).


I ran PartinNT.exe and got errors, including disk geometry errors.
I don't understand what all of this means in terms of what I should
do.

Here is the output in case someone can help me interpret the results
and draw the proper conclusions. That is, what now?

PowerQuest PartitionInfo 8.0 -- Windows NT/2000 Version
Date Generated: 10/31/04 12:29:16
Copyright (c)1994-2002, PowerQuest Corporation
Permission is granted for this utility to be freely copied so long
as it is not modified in any way. All other rights are reserved.

PowerQuest, makers of PartitionMagic(r), Drive Image(tm), and
DriveCopy(tm), can be reached at:
Voice: 801-437-8900
Fax: 801-226-8941
Web site: http://www.powerquest.com/support/
E-mail: magic@powerquest.com

General System Information:
Total Physical Memory (bytes): 536,330,240
Used Physical Memory: (bytes): 174,247,936
Maximum Page File Size: (bytes): 1,306,468,352
Current Page File Size: (bytes): 160,260,096



===========================================================================================================
Disk Geometry Information for Disk 1: 16709 Cylinders, 255 Heads,
63 Sectors/Track
System PartSect # Boot BCyl Head Sect FS ECyl Head
Sect StartSect NumSects
===========================================================================================================
0 0 80 0 1 1 07 1023 254
63 63 163,846,872
Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Actual values are:
0 0 80 0 1 1 07 10198 254 63 63
163846872
0 1 00 1023 0 1 0F 1023 254
63 163,846,935 324,496,935
Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Actual values are:
0 1 00 10199 0 1 0F 30397 254 63 163846935
324496935
Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
ucEndCylinder (30397) must be less than 16709.
163,846,935 0 00 1023 1 1 07 1023 254
63 163,846,998 163,830,807
Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Actual values are:
163846935 0 00 10199 1 1 07 20396 254 63 163846998
163830807
Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
ucEndCylinder (20396) must be less than 16709.
163,846,935 1 00 1023 0 1 05 1023 254
63 327,677,805 160,633,935
Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Actual values are:
163846935 1 00 20397 0 1 05 30395 254 63 327677805
160633935
Error #107: Partition begins after end of disk.
ucBeginCylinder (20397) must be less than 16709.
Warning #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
ucEndCylinder (30395) must be less than 16709.
327,677,805 0 00 1023 1 1 07 1023 254
63 327,677,868 160,633,872
Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
Actual values are:
327677805 0 00 20397 1 1 07 30395 254 63 327677868
160633872
Error #107: Partition begins after end of disk.
ucBeginCylinder (20397) must be less than 16709.
Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
ucEndCylinder (30395) must be less than 16709.



===========================================================================================================
Partition Information for Disk 1: 131,069.4 Megabytes
Volume PartType Status Size MB PartSect #
StartSect TotalSects
===========================================================================================================
C: NTFS Pri,Boot 80,003.4 0 0
63 163,846,872
ExtendedX Pri 158,445.8 0 1
163,846,935 324,496,935
EPBR Log 79,995.5 None --
163,846,935 163,830,870
D: NTFS Log 79,995.5 163,846,935 0
163,846,998 163,830,807
EPBR Log 78,434.5 163,846,935 1
327,677,805 160,633,935
E: NTFS Log 78,434.5 327,677,805 0
327,677,868 160,633,872
Unallocated Log 15.7 None --
488,311,740 32,130


===========================================================================================================
Boot Record for drive C: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 63, Type: NTFS)
===========================================================================================================
1. Jump: EB 52 90
2. OEM Name: NTFS
3. Bytes per Sector: 512
4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
5. Reserved Sectors: 0
6. Number of FATs: 0
7. Root Dir Entries: 0
8. Total Sectors: 0
9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
10. Sectors per FAT: 0
11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
15. Unused: 0x80008000
16. Total NTFS Sectors: 163846871
17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10240429
19. Clusters per FRS: 246
20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
21. Serial Number: 0x4274591674590E53
22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55

===========================================================================================================
Boot Record for drive D: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 163,846,998,
Type: NTFS)
===========================================================================================================
1. Jump: EB 52 90
2. OEM Name: NTFS
3. Bytes per Sector: 512
4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
5. Reserved Sectors: 0
6. Number of FATs: 0
7. Root Dir Entries: 0
8. Total Sectors: 0
9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
10. Sectors per FAT: 0
11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
15. Unused: 0x80008000
16. Total NTFS Sectors: 163830806
17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10239425
19. Clusters per FRS: 246
20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
21. Serial Number: 0x1E74CF9274CF6ADB
22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55

===========================================================================================================
Boot Record for drive E: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 327,677,868,
Type: NTFS)
===========================================================================================================
1. Jump: EB 52 90
2. OEM Name: NTFS
3. Bytes per Sector: 512
4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
5. Reserved Sectors: 0
6. Number of FATs: 0
7. Root Dir Entries: 0
8. Total Sectors: 0
9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
10. Sectors per FAT: 0
11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
15. Unused: 0x80008000
16. Total NTFS Sectors: 160633871
17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10039616
19. Clusters per FRS: 246
20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
21. Serial Number: 0xC2A07F75A07F6F33
22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume that you
have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit Logical Block
Addressing error fixed).

"MHenry" <MHenry@blank.net> wrote in message
news:usiao05rt90gg7i40hddpktn2lihe2pbaq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:46:12 +0100, "Michael Kimmer"
> <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >Joe Morris wrote:
> >> MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The extended
> >>> partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if I wanted
> >>> NDD to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it would delete
> >>> all the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes, C and D, but I
> >>> have three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like this may be the
> >>> problem with Norton Ghost on my system.
> >>
>
> >>
> >> Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't have
> >> one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.
> >>
> >
> >Norton Ghost 9.0 comes with the Windows version of the PARTINFO tool
(what
> >the OP actually needs since the problems occur in Windows). Open the
SUPPORT
> >folder on the program CD and start the tool called PartInNT.exe (save the
> >output file by either clicking on the "Save As..." button or on the "Copy
to
> >Clipboard" button and pasting the contents in e.g. Notepad).
>
>
> I ran PartinNT.exe and got errors, including disk geometry errors.
> I don't understand what all of this means in terms of what I should
> do.
>
> Here is the output in case someone can help me interpret the results
> and draw the proper conclusions. That is, what now?
>
> PowerQuest PartitionInfo 8.0 -- Windows NT/2000 Version
> Date Generated: 10/31/04 12:29:16
> Copyright (c)1994-2002, PowerQuest Corporation
> Permission is granted for this utility to be freely copied so long
> as it is not modified in any way. All other rights are reserved.
>
> PowerQuest, makers of PartitionMagic(r), Drive Image(tm), and
> DriveCopy(tm), can be reached at:
> Voice: 801-437-8900
> Fax: 801-226-8941
> Web site: http://www.powerquest.com/support/
> E-mail: magic@powerquest.com
>
> General System Information:
> Total Physical Memory (bytes): 536,330,240
> Used Physical Memory: (bytes): 174,247,936
> Maximum Page File Size: (bytes): 1,306,468,352
> Current Page File Size: (bytes): 160,260,096
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
===============================
> Disk Geometry Information for Disk 1: 16709 Cylinders, 255 Heads,
> 63 Sectors/Track
> System PartSect # Boot BCyl Head Sect FS ECyl Head
> Sect StartSect NumSects
>
============================================================================
===============================
> 0 0 80 0 1 1 07 1023 254
> 63 63 163,846,872
> Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Actual values are:
> 0 0 80 0 1 1 07 10198 254 63 63
> 163846872
> 0 1 00 1023 0 1 0F 1023 254
> 63 163,846,935 324,496,935
> Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Actual values are:
> 0 1 00 10199 0 1 0F 30397 254 63 163846935
> 324496935
> Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
> ucEndCylinder (30397) must be less than 16709.
> 163,846,935 0 00 1023 1 1 07 1023 254
> 63 163,846,998 163,830,807
> Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Actual values are:
> 163846935 0 00 10199 1 1 07 20396 254 63 163846998
> 163830807
> Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
> ucEndCylinder (20396) must be less than 16709.
> 163,846,935 1 00 1023 0 1 05 1023 254
> 63 327,677,805 160,633,935
> Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Actual values are:
> 163846935 1 00 20397 0 1 05 30395 254 63 327677805
> 160633935
> Error #107: Partition begins after end of disk.
> ucBeginCylinder (20397) must be less than 16709.
> Warning #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
> ucEndCylinder (30395) must be less than 16709.
> 327,677,805 0 00 1023 1 1 07 1023 254
> 63 327,677,868 160,633,872
> Info: Begin C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Info: End C,H,S values were large drive placeholders.
> Actual values are:
> 327677805 0 00 20397 1 1 07 30395 254 63 327677868
> 160633872
> Error #107: Partition begins after end of disk.
> ucBeginCylinder (20397) must be less than 16709.
> Error #109: Partition ends after end of disk.
> ucEndCylinder (30395) must be less than 16709.
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
===============================
> Partition Information for Disk 1: 131,069.4 Megabytes
> Volume PartType Status Size MB PartSect #
> StartSect TotalSects
>
============================================================================
===============================
> C: NTFS Pri,Boot 80,003.4 0 0
> 63 163,846,872
> ExtendedX Pri 158,445.8 0 1
> 163,846,935 324,496,935
> EPBR Log 79,995.5 None --
> 163,846,935 163,830,870
> D: NTFS Log 79,995.5 163,846,935 0
> 163,846,998 163,830,807
> EPBR Log 78,434.5 163,846,935 1
> 327,677,805 160,633,935
> E: NTFS Log 78,434.5 327,677,805 0
> 327,677,868 160,633,872
> Unallocated Log 15.7 None --
> 488,311,740 32,130
>
>
>
============================================================================
===============================
> Boot Record for drive C: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 63, Type: NTFS)
>
============================================================================
===============================
> 1. Jump: EB 52 90
> 2. OEM Name: NTFS
> 3. Bytes per Sector: 512
> 4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
> 5. Reserved Sectors: 0
> 6. Number of FATs: 0
> 7. Root Dir Entries: 0
> 8. Total Sectors: 0
> 9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
> 10. Sectors per FAT: 0
> 11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
> 12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
> 13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
> 14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
> 15. Unused: 0x80008000
> 16. Total NTFS Sectors: 163846871
> 17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
> 18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10240429
> 19. Clusters per FRS: 246
> 20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
> 21. Serial Number: 0x4274591674590E53
> 22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
> 23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55
>
>
============================================================================
===============================
> Boot Record for drive D: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 163,846,998,
> Type: NTFS)
>
============================================================================
===============================
> 1. Jump: EB 52 90
> 2. OEM Name: NTFS
> 3. Bytes per Sector: 512
> 4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
> 5. Reserved Sectors: 0
> 6. Number of FATs: 0
> 7. Root Dir Entries: 0
> 8. Total Sectors: 0
> 9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
> 10. Sectors per FAT: 0
> 11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
> 12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
> 13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
> 14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
> 15. Unused: 0x80008000
> 16. Total NTFS Sectors: 163830806
> 17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
> 18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10239425
> 19. Clusters per FRS: 246
> 20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
> 21. Serial Number: 0x1E74CF9274CF6ADB
> 22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
> 23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55
>
>
============================================================================
===============================
> Boot Record for drive E: (Drive: 1, Starting sector: 327,677,868,
> Type: NTFS)
>
============================================================================
===============================
> 1. Jump: EB 52 90
> 2. OEM Name: NTFS
> 3. Bytes per Sector: 512
> 4. Sectors per Cluster: 8
> 5. Reserved Sectors: 0
> 6. Number of FATs: 0
> 7. Root Dir Entries: 0
> 8. Total Sectors: 0
> 9. Media Descriptor: 0xF8
> 10. Sectors per FAT: 0
> 11. Sectors per Track: 63 (0x3F)
> 12. Number of Heads: 255 (0xFF)
> 13. Hidden Sectors: 63 (0x3F)
> 14. Total Sectors (>32MB): 0 (0x0)
> 15. Unused: 0x80008000
> 16. Total NTFS Sectors: 160633871
> 17. MFT Start Cluster: 4
> 18. MFT Mirror Start Clust: 10039616
> 19. Clusters per FRS: 246
> 20. Clusters per Index Blk: 1
> 21. Serial Number: 0xC2A07F75A07F6F33
> 22. Checksum: 0 (0x0)
> 23. Boot Signature: 0xAA55
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

You have a 240GB disk, but the BIOS only sees 137GB.

No DOS tools will work properly. Windows needs a IDE driver with large drive
support.

"MHenry" <MHenry@blank.net> wrote in message
news:usiao05rt90gg7i40hddpktn2lihe2pbaq@4ax.com...
>
> I ran PartinNT.exe and got errors, including disk geometry errors.
> I don't understand what all of this means in terms of what I should
> do.
>
> Here is the output in case someone can help me interpret the results
> and draw the proper conclusions. That is, what now?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

MHenry wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:46:12 +0100, "Michael Kimmer"
> <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Joe Morris wrote:
>>> MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I ran Norton Disk Doctor from DOS and it reported that "The
>>>> extended partition chain on hard disk 1 is invalid. It asked me if
>>>> I wanted NDD to fix it, but I declined, because I was afraid it
>>>> would delete all the data on the disk. NDD recognizes two volumes,
>>>> C and D, but I have three partitions, C, D and E. It seems like
>>>> this may be the problem with Norton Ghost on my system.
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Note that PARTINFO needs to be run from a DOS boot. If you don't
>>> have one handy, check http://www.bootdisk.com for downloads.
>>>
>>
>> Norton Ghost 9.0 comes with the Windows version of the PARTINFO tool
>> (what the OP actually needs since the problems occur in Windows).
>> Open the SUPPORT folder on the program CD and start the tool called
>> PartInNT.exe (save the output file by either clicking on the "Save
>> As..." button or on the "Copy to Clipboard" button and pasting the
>> contents in e.g. Notepad).
>
>
> I ran PartinNT.exe and got errors, including disk geometry errors.
> I don't understand what all of this means in terms of what I should
> do.
>
> Here is the output in case someone can help me interpret the results
> and draw the proper conclusions. That is, what now?
> <cut>
> ...

Guess 48 bit LBA has not been enabled (first thought) as the system cannot
detect the end of the partitions as they end beyond the magic 128 GB
boundary!
Your systems detects 16709 cylinders (131,069.4 MB), but the D: partition
ends way beyond this end (30397 cylinders), same for the E: partition (20396
cylinders).

Solution: Visit:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;305098

--
M.f.G.
Michael Kimmer

"Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
"Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Peter wrote:
> Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume
> that you have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit
> Logical Block Addressing error fixed).
>
OP has a Windows 2000 SP3 system

--
M.f.G.
Michael Kimmer

"Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
"Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Sorry, I have missed that.

In case of Windows 2000 SP3, the following Q305098 applies:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305098

To enable 48-bit LBA large-disk support in the registry:
1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).
2. Locate and then click the following key in the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters
3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry
value:
Value name: EnableBigLba
Data type: REG_DWORD
Value data: 0x1
4. Quit Registry Editor.

Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first
corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.Important Although support for
48-bit LBA is included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and later, it is
still necessary to create the registry change that is described in the
"Resolution" section of this article.

"Michael Kimmer" <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:41856721$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Peter wrote:
> > Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume
> > that you have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit
> > Logical Block Addressing error fixed).
> >
> OP has a Windows 2000 SP3 system
>
> --
> M.f.G.
> Michael Kimmer
>
> "Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
> "Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Thank you all so much.
It looks like this is at least part of my problem.
I have a couple of preliminary questions before I attempt this fix.

1. The KB article 305098 states:

The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of
48-bit LBA ATAPI support: • A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible
Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) installed.

Where do I look in my BIOS to verify this condition?
In my system board user guide, I see that I have an NT70 system board.
I am not sure at this moment if it is SA/SC or SL/SR.
The booklet says nothing about 48-bit LBA large-disk support.
I installed the Intel 850 INF Update Utility for Windows 98/2000/ME
which (the booklet says) allos the Intel 850 chipset to be recognized
and configured properly in the system.

The KB continues by giving this ominous warning...

NOTE: If you enable 48-bit LBA ATAPI support by editing the preceding
registry key, but your system does not meet the minimum requirements,
you may observe the following behaviors:

....Long list of horrors ensues...

Obviously, I do not want to change my registry until I verify my BIOS.


2. The instructions for updating the registry indicate:

>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry
>value:

My edit menu provides different choices.

Instead of Add Value, when I click on edit, the closest choice to Add
Value\ is New.

When I click on New, my choices are Key, String Value, Binary Value,
and DWord Value.

I am not sure which of these to choose.

Thanks again for everyone's help.

MHenry



On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:17:44 -0500, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>Sorry, I have missed that.
>
>In case of Windows 2000 SP3, the following Q305098 applies:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305098
>
>To enable 48-bit LBA large-disk support in the registry:
>1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).
>2. Locate and then click the following key in the registry:
>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters
>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry
>value:
>Value name: EnableBigLba
>Data type: REG_DWORD
>Value data: 0x1
>4. Quit Registry Editor.
>
>Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
>that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first
>corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.Important Although support for
>48-bit LBA is included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and later, it is
>still necessary to create the registry change that is described in the
>"Resolution" section of this article.
>
>"Michael Kimmer" <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:41856721$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Peter wrote:
>> > Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume
>> > that you have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit
>> > Logical Block Addressing error fixed).
>> >
>> OP has a Windows 2000 SP3 system
>>
>> --
>> M.f.G.
>> Michael Kimmer
>>
>> "Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
>> "Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:40:14 GMT, MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> wrote:

>Thank you all so much.
>It looks like this is at least part of my problem.
>I have a couple of preliminary questions before I attempt this fix.
>
>1. The KB article 305098 states:
>
>The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of
>48-bit LBA ATAPI support: • A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible
>Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) installed.
>
>Where do I look in my BIOS to verify this condition?
>In my system board user guide, I see that I have an NT70 system board.
>I am not sure at this moment if it is SA/SC or SL/SR.
>The booklet says nothing about 48-bit LBA large-disk support.
>I installed the Intel 850 INF Update Utility for Windows 98/2000/ME
>which (the booklet says) allos the Intel 850 chipset to be recognized
>and configured properly in the system.
>
>The KB continues by giving this ominous warning...
>
>NOTE: If you enable 48-bit LBA ATAPI support by editing the preceding
>registry key, but your system does not meet the minimum requirements,
>you may observe the following behaviors:
>
>...Long list of horrors ensues...
>
>Obviously, I do not want to change my registry until I verify my BIOS.

I found a program called BIOSAgent that examines BIOS.
Here is what it reported:

Program: eSupport.com BIOS Agent Version 3.34
BIOS Date: 11/14/01
BIOS Type: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
BIOS ID: 11/14/2001-i850-W83627-6A69SD4CC
OEM Sign-On: None
Chipset: Intel 2530 rev 4
Superio: Winbond 627F/HF rev 7 found at port 2Eh
OS: Win2000 SP4
CPU: Intel Pentium(R) 4 2200 Mhz MAX: 2000 Mhz
BIOS ROM In Socket: Yes
BIOS ROM Size: 256K
Memory Installed: 512 MB
Memory Maximum: 1024 MB
Memory Slot 01: 128 MB
Memory Slot 02: 128 MB
Memory Slot 03: 128 MB
Memory Slot 04: 128 MB

I am confused about this, because it says I have an Intel 2530 rev 4
chipset and my system board update installed an Intel 850 INF Update.
Are these two different things?

The reason I ask is because I also found on Western Digital's website
this driver...

Intel: Intel Application Accelerator
48-bit LBA driver for Intel 8xx chipsets

I thought that might be a solution if my chipset does not support
48-bit LBA.

Here is more information on this subject found here
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-009281.htm

Intel® Application Accelerator
48-bit LBA BIOS Support

Some motherboards may have an updated BIOS available that enables
48-bit support. At this time however, 48-bit BIOS support is only
needed if you are using Windows* Me, Windows 98 SE, or Windows 98.
Additional information on why the BIOS may limit FDISK when
partitioning hard drives can be found at this Microsoft* Knowledge
Base article †. While 48-bit LBA BIOS support is not needed for
Windows XP or Windows 2000, it may add certain 48-bit BIOS
functionality. This is limited to items such as the BIOS setup menu,
Power-On Self Test (POST) screen, and operation in a MS-DOS*-based
environment.

Windows XP or Windows 2000 Users
48-bit LBA BIOS support is not necessary. You simply need to follow
the Large Hard Drive Installation Instructions. If your system
currently has 48-bit LBA BIOS support, no additional changes are
needed; you can still follow these instructions.

and here
http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-009297.htm

Intel® Application Accelerator
Large Hard Drive Installation Instructions



In order for your system to recognize hard drives that are larger than
137GB, we recommend the following steps** (select one option depending
on your desired configuration):

Large Drive as Primary Drive (Boot Drive)

Note: If you are using Windows* Me, Windows 98 SE, or Windows 98,
please see the 48-bit LBA BIOS Support page for an important notice
regarding BIOS support.



Install operating system


Install the Intel® Application Accelerator
2a. Use a 3rd party hard drive partitioning software such as
PartitionMagic* or Partition Commander* and increase the partition
size to the hard drive's full capacity.

- or -

2b. Create additional partitions to take up the full capacity of the
drive (e.g. one partition setup as 128GB and one extended logical
partition setup as 24GB)
Caution: Read Important Notice with Uninstalling the Intel Application
Accelerator

(cut)

This suggests that I cannot fix my LBA situation without wiping out my
hard drive. I'd be happy to do that next time I reformat, but I have
reformatted and reinstalled programs and windows updates so many times
in the past two weeks, I am numb.

By the way, I did install all the Windows Updates for my system today
and I am now Windows 2000 SP4.

Note:
I also found a program HDInfo here http://www.48bitlba.com/tools.htm
that says it can test for 48-bit LBA. Unfortunately, the freeware
version does not do that, and I don't know yet if I need to purchase
their program to get this information.

(This hard drive, BIOS stuff is all very new to me.)

MHenry
>
>
>2. The instructions for updating the registry indicate:
>
>>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry
>>value:
>
>My edit menu provides different choices.
>
>Instead of Add Value, when I click on edit, the closest choice to Add
>Value\ is New.
>
>When I click on New, my choices are Key, String Value, Binary Value,
>and DWord Value.
>
>I am not sure which of these to choose.
>
>Thanks again for everyone's help.
>
>MHenry
>
>
>
>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:17:44 -0500, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I have missed that.
>>
>>In case of Windows 2000 SP3, the following Q305098 applies:
>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305098
>>
>>To enable 48-bit LBA large-disk support in the registry:
>>1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).
>>2. Locate and then click the following key in the registry:
>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters
>>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following registry
>>value:
>>Value name: EnableBigLba
>>Data type: REG_DWORD
>>Value data: 0x1
>>4. Quit Registry Editor.
>>
>>Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
>>that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first
>>corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.Important Although support for
>>48-bit LBA is included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and later, it is
>>still necessary to create the registry change that is described in the
>>"Resolution" section of this article.
>>
>>"Michael Kimmer" <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>news:41856721$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>> Peter wrote:
>>> > Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume
>>> > that you have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit
>>> > Logical Block Addressing error fixed).
>>> >
>>> OP has a Windows 2000 SP3 system
>>>
>>> --
>>> M.f.G.
>>> Michael Kimmer
>>>
>>> "Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
>>> "Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"
>>>
>>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"MHenry" wrote:
> I found a program called BIOSAgent that examines BIOS.
> Here is what it reported:
>
> Program: eSupport.com BIOS Agent Version 3.34
> BIOS Date: 11/14/01
> BIOS Type: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
> BIOS ID: 11/14/2001-i850-W83627-6A69SD4CC
> OEM Sign-On: None
> Chipset: Intel 2530 rev 4
> Superio: Winbond 627F/HF rev 7 found at port 2Eh
> OS: Win2000 SP4
> CPU: Intel Pentium(R) 4 2200 Mhz MAX: 2000 Mhz
> BIOS ROM In Socket: Yes
> BIOS ROM Size: 256K
> Memory Installed: 512 MB
> Memory Maximum: 1024 MB
> Memory Slot 01: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 02: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 03: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 04: 128 MB
>
> I am confused about this, because it says I have an Intel 2530 rev 4
> chipset and my system board update installed an Intel 850 INF Update.
> Are these two different things?


Now is the time to contact your system's manufacturer (assuming
*you* are not the manufacturer). Ask them if your version of their
BIOS supports "large capacity hard drives". They should know
what that means. If your version of the BIOS can't handle "large
capacity hard drives", ask where you can download one that does,
and then ask them the procedure for "flashing" your BIOS.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy,

I hope I have time to do this tomorrow.

Thank you very very much for your help.

And thank to all the others who also helped.

MHenry

P.S.,
I don't suppose there is any chance I won't have to reformat and start
all over?

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:05:27 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>Now is the time to contact your system's manufacturer (assuming
> *you* are not the manufacturer). Ask them if your version of their
> BIOS supports "large capacity hard drives". They should know
> what that means. If your version of the BIOS can't handle "large
> capacity hard drives", ask where you can download one that does,
> and then ask them the procedure for "flashing" your BIOS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"MHenry" wrote:
> P.S.,
> I don't suppose there is any chance I won't have to reformat and start
> all over?


If the problem is the elderly BIOS, I *believe* you won't have to
re-install your software. Your manufacturer's tech rep should
be able to answer that. If you flash the BIOS, be careful to do
it exactly according to directions since it's like brain stem
surgery on the PC.

*TimDaniels*

 

[peter]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

You have to find out which board you have.
Integrated RAID, LAN or Sound.
Then, get BIOS newer than 01/16/2002

: T75D2116.bin
BIOS Date : 01/16/2002
Release :
ECR Note :1. Add to support HDD size larger than 137 GB
2.Fixed that can't resume from S3 mode for ATI 128 Pro AGP
card

That could be (for SA board):
http://www.dfi.com.tw/Upload/BIOS/NT70SA0524.ZIP


"MHenry" <MHenry@blank.net> wrote in message
news:lbhbo0htffcvn12j06jtk1b2hkmg16ok44@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:40:14 GMT, MHenry <MHenry@blank.net> wrote:
>
> >Thank you all so much.
> >It looks like this is at least part of my problem.
> >I have a couple of preliminary questions before I attempt this fix.
> >
> >1. The KB article 305098 states:
> >
> >The following conditions are necessary for the correct functioning of
> >48-bit LBA ATAPI support: . A computer with a 48-bit LBA-compatible
> >Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) installed.
> >
> >Where do I look in my BIOS to verify this condition?
> >In my system board user guide, I see that I have an NT70 system board.
> >I am not sure at this moment if it is SA/SC or SL/SR.
> >The booklet says nothing about 48-bit LBA large-disk support.
> >I installed the Intel 850 INF Update Utility for Windows 98/2000/ME
> >which (the booklet says) allos the Intel 850 chipset to be recognized
> >and configured properly in the system.
> >
> >The KB continues by giving this ominous warning...
> >
> >NOTE: If you enable 48-bit LBA ATAPI support by editing the preceding
> >registry key, but your system does not meet the minimum requirements,
> >you may observe the following behaviors:
> >
> >...Long list of horrors ensues...
> >
> >Obviously, I do not want to change my registry until I verify my BIOS.
>
> I found a program called BIOSAgent that examines BIOS.
> Here is what it reported:
>
> Program: eSupport.com BIOS Agent Version 3.34
> BIOS Date: 11/14/01
> BIOS Type: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG
> BIOS ID: 11/14/2001-i850-W83627-6A69SD4CC
> OEM Sign-On: None
> Chipset: Intel 2530 rev 4
> Superio: Winbond 627F/HF rev 7 found at port 2Eh
> OS: Win2000 SP4
> CPU: Intel Pentium(R) 4 2200 Mhz MAX: 2000 Mhz
> BIOS ROM In Socket: Yes
> BIOS ROM Size: 256K
> Memory Installed: 512 MB
> Memory Maximum: 1024 MB
> Memory Slot 01: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 02: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 03: 128 MB
> Memory Slot 04: 128 MB
>
> I am confused about this, because it says I have an Intel 2530 rev 4
> chipset and my system board update installed an Intel 850 INF Update.
> Are these two different things?
>
> The reason I ask is because I also found on Western Digital's website
> this driver...
>
> Intel: Intel Application Accelerator
> 48-bit LBA driver for Intel 8xx chipsets
>
> I thought that might be a solution if my chipset does not support
> 48-bit LBA.
>
> Here is more information on this subject found here
> http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-009281.htm
>
> Intel® Application Accelerator
> 48-bit LBA BIOS Support
>
> Some motherboards may have an updated BIOS available that enables
> 48-bit support. At this time however, 48-bit BIOS support is only
> needed if you are using Windows* Me, Windows 98 SE, or Windows 98.
> Additional information on why the BIOS may limit FDISK when
> partitioning hard drives can be found at this Microsoft* Knowledge
> Base article ?. While 48-bit LBA BIOS support is not needed for
> Windows XP or Windows 2000, it may add certain 48-bit BIOS
> functionality. This is limited to items such as the BIOS setup menu,
> Power-On Self Test (POST) screen, and operation in a MS-DOS*-based
> environment.
>
> Windows XP or Windows 2000 Users
> 48-bit LBA BIOS support is not necessary. You simply need to follow
> the Large Hard Drive Installation Instructions. If your system
> currently has 48-bit LBA BIOS support, no additional changes are
> needed; you can still follow these instructions.
>
> and here
> http://support.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/sb/CS-009297.htm
>
> Intel® Application Accelerator
> Large Hard Drive Installation Instructions
>
>
>
> In order for your system to recognize hard drives that are larger than
> 137GB, we recommend the following steps** (select one option depending
> on your desired configuration):
>
> Large Drive as Primary Drive (Boot Drive)
>
> Note: If you are using Windows* Me, Windows 98 SE, or Windows 98,
> please see the 48-bit LBA BIOS Support page for an important notice
> regarding BIOS support.
>
>
>
> Install operating system
>
>
> Install the Intel® Application Accelerator
> 2a. Use a 3rd party hard drive partitioning software such as
> PartitionMagic* or Partition Commander* and increase the partition
> size to the hard drive's full capacity.
>
> - or -
>
> 2b. Create additional partitions to take up the full capacity of the
> drive (e.g. one partition setup as 128GB and one extended logical
> partition setup as 24GB)
> Caution: Read Important Notice with Uninstalling the Intel Application
> Accelerator
>
> (cut)
>
> This suggests that I cannot fix my LBA situation without wiping out my
> hard drive. I'd be happy to do that next time I reformat, but I have
> reformatted and reinstalled programs and windows updates so many times
> in the past two weeks, I am numb.
>
> By the way, I did install all the Windows Updates for my system today
> and I am now Windows 2000 SP4.
>
> Note:
> I also found a program HDInfo here http://www.48bitlba.com/tools.htm
> that says it can test for 48-bit LBA. Unfortunately, the freeware
> version does not do that, and I don't know yet if I need to purchase
> their program to get this information.
>
> (This hard drive, BIOS stuff is all very new to me.)
>
> MHenry
> >
> >
> >2. The instructions for updating the registry indicate:
> >
> >>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following
registry
> >>value:
> >
> >My edit menu provides different choices.
> >
> >Instead of Add Value, when I click on edit, the closest choice to Add
> >Value\ is New.
> >
> >When I click on New, my choices are Key, String Value, Binary Value,
> >and DWord Value.
> >
> >I am not sure which of these to choose.
> >
> >Thanks again for everyone's help.
> >
> >MHenry
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:17:44 -0500, "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry, I have missed that.
> >>
> >>In case of Windows 2000 SP3, the following Q305098 applies:
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;305098
> >>
> >>To enable 48-bit LBA large-disk support in the registry:
> >>1. Start Registry Editor (Regedt32.exe).
> >>2. Locate and then click the following key in the registry:
> >>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Atapi\Parameters
> >>3. On the Edit menu, click Add Value, and then add the following
registry
> >>value:
> >>Value name: EnableBigLba
> >>Data type: REG_DWORD
> >>Value data: 0x1
> >>4. Quit Registry Editor.
> >>
> >>Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
> >>that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first
> >>corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.Important Although support for
> >>48-bit LBA is included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and later,
it is
> >>still necessary to create the registry change that is described in the
> >>"Resolution" section of this article.
> >>
> >>"Michael Kimmer" <michaelkimmer@NOSPAM.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> >>news:41856721$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>> Peter wrote:
> >>> > Boot your system to BIOS setup and verify settings. I also assume
> >>> > that you have WindowsXP SP1 installed (>137GB Hard Disk 48-bit
> >>> > Logical Block Addressing error fixed).
> >>> >
> >>> OP has a Windows 2000 SP3 system
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> M.f.G.
> >>> Michael Kimmer
> >>>
> >>> "Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
> >>> "Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>