Error writing to C - long

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.

After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any key
to continue. No other choices. Upon restart, scandisk starts interrupting
the boot process indicating there was a write error during shutdown (duh).
Scandisk can find nothing, even in thorough mode system and data areas.
Tried same in windows, same outcome. It does find a long filename error,
but the file is not consistent (see below).

Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the
registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup "Quikview
Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows 32
bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The run
section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
called from the run section of the registry.

Repeated shutdowns do not have the write error.

An image restore, prior to the videostudio installation was restored. I
chose not to register online this time, as I already did that in the prior
install. Oddly, the disk write error did not occur. Next windows session,
opened VS to check operation with my camcorder. Seemed okay. Then,
installed the Ulead updates for the program. Same disk write error was
noted as before during restart boot process.

Okay, could be an intermittent drive problem. Have a cloned copy of this
entire hard drive on another identical make/model hard drive. Tried that.
Same two problems I noted continued to occur. Checked seating of ide cable
on motherboard, its fine.

Prior to Ulead VS install, Firewire card windows installation occurred
during first boot after windows logon. It found the windows CD location,
and installed some files. Reboot was prompted immediately, which I
indicated "okay" and it did reboot. After windows booted the second time, I
turned on the digital camcorder connected to the firewire card. Windows
asked for the 98SE install CD, found it, found the files it wanted. Asked
if I wanted to keep a bunch of newer version files, and I indicated "yes".
I did nothing but restart at that point. During the reboot process, after
logon, it found new hardware again (left digital camera on). Same routine,
and I kept the new version files. No reboot was prompted.

Nothing visible in scanner/cameras in control panel area regarding the
camcorder. My HP scanner is there though.

I know how to get rid of unneeded dxdiagdll attempt to run. But the disk
write problem always reoccurs upon installation of Ulead VideoStudio. Each
installation occurrence results in loss of a long filename, one instance it
was the HP startup for the USB printer. Another instance, I couldn't find
out what it was. All happening in the disk write error to C during shutdown
after the installation.

I did find pstore (MS protected storage) running in running applications in
msconfig, not on the startup list.

I don't want to lose access to any files, how do I fix or avoid the shutdown
error to write to C?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:u6wIieIsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
> called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG. . . .
> Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the
> registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup "Quikview
> Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows 32
> bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The run
> section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
> anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
> called from the run section of the registry.

I too have DirectX v. 9 (dated 2004) but no file DXDLLDIAG.EXE
-- only DXDIAG.EXE and DXDLLREG.EXE.

> Okay, could be an intermittent drive problem. Have a cloned copy of this
> entire hard drive on another identical make/model hard drive. Tried that.
> Same two problems I noted continued to occur. Checked seating of ide
cable
> on motherboard, its fine.

You mentioned running SCANDISK -- but did not say you
have run the drive manufacturer's own diagnostics.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com>


|
| You mentioned running SCANDISK -- but did not say you
| have run the drive manufacturer's own diagnostics.
|
| --
| Don Phillipson
| Carlsbad Springs
| (Ottawa, Canada)
|

Here's a list...

Quantum/Maxtor - PowerMax
http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/powermax.htm

Western Digital - Data LifeGuard Tools (DLGDiag)
http://support.wdc.com/download/

Hitachi/IBM - Drive Fitness Test (DFT)
http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/download.htm

Seagate - SeaTools
http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/

Fujitsu - Diagnostic Tool
http://www.fcpa.com/download/hard-drives/

Samsung - Disk manager
http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/utilities/shdiag.htm


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

WMA = Windows Media Audio file: .wma

I wonder about the named file dxdlldiag.exe. I've run a semi extensive web
search for it and nada, nothing anywhere with the exception of this post at
google. Take the dll out of the file name and you have a legit file,
dxdiag.exe. What happens if you pull it from the registry run key?

I'll look a bit more to see if I can coerce something from the net.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:u6wIieIsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
> called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.
>
> After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
> process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any key
> to continue.

Hey Dave..

Disable fast shutdown?


You might also try "Disable Virtual HD IRQ" on the same sheet in
msconfig, if that doesn't help. Not a totally desirable setting, but
it might give you some clues.


Just some ideas...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Haven't read your replies yet. Corrections, my bad.
That was MS WMF, not WMA
The filename is dxdllreg.exe, not dxdlldiag.exe
I did a 98SE clean install recently and apps. Forgot about the MS Office 2K
mdm.exe thing. Betting she's the culprit, or at least a contributor.

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:u6wIieIsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
> called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.
>
> After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
> process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any
key
> to continue. No other choices. Upon restart, scandisk starts
interrupting
> the boot process indicating there was a write error during shutdown (duh).
> Scandisk can find nothing, even in thorough mode system and data areas.
> Tried same in windows, same outcome. It does find a long filename error,
> but the file is not consistent (see below).
>
> Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the
> registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup "Quikview
> Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows 32
> bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The run
> section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
> anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
> called from the run section of the registry.
>
> Repeated shutdowns do not have the write error.
>
> An image restore, prior to the videostudio installation was restored. I
> chose not to register online this time, as I already did that in the prior
> install. Oddly, the disk write error did not occur. Next windows
session,
> opened VS to check operation with my camcorder. Seemed okay. Then,
> installed the Ulead updates for the program. Same disk write error was
> noted as before during restart boot process.
>
> Okay, could be an intermittent drive problem. Have a cloned copy of this
> entire hard drive on another identical make/model hard drive. Tried that.
> Same two problems I noted continued to occur. Checked seating of ide
cable
> on motherboard, its fine.
>
> Prior to Ulead VS install, Firewire card windows installation occurred
> during first boot after windows logon. It found the windows CD location,
> and installed some files. Reboot was prompted immediately, which I
> indicated "okay" and it did reboot. After windows booted the second time,
I
> turned on the digital camcorder connected to the firewire card. Windows
> asked for the 98SE install CD, found it, found the files it wanted. Asked
> if I wanted to keep a bunch of newer version files, and I indicated "yes".
> I did nothing but restart at that point. During the reboot process, after
> logon, it found new hardware again (left digital camera on). Same
routine,
> and I kept the new version files. No reboot was prompted.
>
> Nothing visible in scanner/cameras in control panel area regarding the
> camcorder. My HP scanner is there though.
>
> I know how to get rid of unneeded dxdiagdll attempt to run. But the disk
> write problem always reoccurs upon installation of Ulead VideoStudio.
Each
> installation occurrence results in loss of a long filename, one instance
it
> was the HP startup for the USB printer. Another instance, I couldn't find
> out what it was. All happening in the disk write error to C during
shutdown
> after the installation.
>
> I did find pstore (MS protected storage) running in running applications
in
> msconfig, not on the startup list.
>
> I don't want to lose access to any files, how do I fix or avoid the
shutdown
> error to write to C?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Trying the disable fast shutdown.

"Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message
news:%23KUzmyLsFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:u6wIieIsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> > also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and
something
> > called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> > packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.
> >
> > After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
> > process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any
key
> > to continue.
>
> Hey Dave..
>
> Disable fast shutdown?
>
>
> You might also try "Disable Virtual HD IRQ" on the same sheet in
> msconfig, if that doesn't help. Not a totally desirable setting, but
> it might give you some clues.
>
>
> Just some ideas...
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:01:35 -0400, "Lil' Dave"
<spamyourself@virus.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
>also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
>called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
>packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.
>
>After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
>process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any key
>to continue. No other choices. Upon restart, scandisk starts interrupting
>the boot process indicating there was a write error during shutdown (duh).
>Scandisk can find nothing, even in thorough mode system and data areas.
>Tried same in windows, same outcome. It does find a long filename error,
>but the file is not consistent (see below).
>
>Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the
>registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup "Quikview
>Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows 32
>bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The run
>section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
>anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
>called from the run section of the registry.

R-click on the file and view its Properties, ie version, description,
etc. Does it look like a DirectX file?


-- Franc Zabkar

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ueJ03zSsFHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> Haven't read your replies yet. Corrections, my bad.
> That was MS WMF, not WMA
> The filename is dxdllreg.exe, not dxdlldiag.exe
> I did a 98SE clean install recently and apps. Forgot about the MS Office
2K
> mdm.exe thing. Betting she's the culprit, or at least a contributor.

OK, we now understand better -- you
1. Requested help,
2. concerning at least two file names you misstated,
3. and then did not read the help offered.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Good idea. Ran Dldiag, no physical errors on drive
Its a 80GB WD. 98SE partition is just under 8GB.

Removed the mdm.exe from run section in registry. It still shows up, but
not immediately. Removed the office thing startup, mdm.exe still shows up
eventually. Mdm is trying to access the internet when I use dialup, with
rpc on its heels per ZA Pro. Think its when I open Outlook to get the
email, not sure though.

Won't drag the group through the remaining stuff. But gave up on loading VS
7.0 SE on 98SE. Put in on a ME partition, only run a couple of MS games
there. Works great, no overhead. Ran into a problem later associated with
saving files on a WD 200GB drive though. Rendered some video from camera,
it does it in the bloated AVI natively. Two full stints from the camera,
about 40 minutes total video time. All worked out. I combined the two
session in VS to make one video, then told it to create a DVD that worked
out okay. Found all the DVD associated files, AVI files and other VL stuff
on the I: partition. This is the second FAT32 partition on the WD 200GB
drive. Booted to 98SE, to make a copy of the DVD in Nero. Used the DVD
files left behind as source, and it worked out okay.

Here's where the trouble started. While still in 98SE, I decided to get rid
of all the video file stuff on the I: partition. I started with all the AVI
files, then the DVD source files, and other associated subfolders and files.
This seemed to go okay, but took quite some time for a pure delete. Then,
the PC locked up. Explorer window wasn't responding, nor Explorer itself
per ctrl-alt-del. I canceled, and gave it a few more minutes. Same
response. Did a PC reset button fix. All seemed okay in next boot. No
scandisk response during the boot.

Decided to backup some of my DI image files to DVD via Nero. These files
are contained on the H: drive, 99.9GB (1st partition WD 200GB). The
subfolders for these were there, but the files were all gibberish. And the
gibberish filenames had file dates in the future and some back as far as
'92. Have associated this with the 98/98Se problem with HD exceeding 128GB.
And, I believe I may have exceeded the 98/98SE storage limit during the VS
session. The deletions in 98SE caused the problem, the deletions were
successful I might add in the I: partition. Have been a bad boy, was told
this may happen.

My idea is to try to continue use of a shrunk partition to 60GB in 98SE on
the WD 200GB, the remainder would be NTFS for use in XP. Will this work, as
98SE has no idea what, how much or anything in NTFS? PC's Bios has 48 bit
LBA, no DDO.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:uyTSB5JsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> From: "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com>
>
>
> |
> | You mentioned running SCANDISK -- but did not say you
> | have run the drive manufacturer's own diagnostics.
> |
> | --
> | Don Phillipson
> | Carlsbad Springs
> | (Ottawa, Canada)
> |
>
> Here's a list...
>
> Quantum/Maxtor - PowerMax
> http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/powermax.htm
>
> Western Digital - Data LifeGuard Tools (DLGDiag)
> http://support.wdc.com/download/
>
> Hitachi/IBM - Drive Fitness Test (DFT)
> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/download.htm
>
> Seagate - SeaTools
> http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/
>
> Fujitsu - Diagnostic Tool
> http://www.fcpa.com/download/hard-drives/
>
> Samsung - Disk manager
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/utilities/shdiag.htm
>
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No.
I replied to my own post with corrections of the filenames that I did not
state correctly in the intitial post. Then, I read and tried to heed the
advice of all concerned if it still applied in lieu of those corrections.

"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:eWJV8sXsFHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
> news:ueJ03zSsFHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> > Haven't read your replies yet. Corrections, my bad.
> > That was MS WMF, not WMA
> > The filename is dxdllreg.exe, not dxdlldiag.exe
> > I did a 98SE clean install recently and apps. Forgot about the MS
Office
> 2K
> > mdm.exe thing. Betting she's the culprit, or at least a contributor.
>
> OK, we now understand better -- you
> 1. Requested help,
> 2. concerning at least two file names you misstated,
> 3. and then did not read the help offered.
>
> --
> Don Phillipson
> Carlsbad Springs
> (Ottawa, Canada)
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Lil' Dave wrote:
> Good idea. Ran Dldiag, no physical errors on drive
> Its a 80GB WD. 98SE partition is just under 8GB.
>
> Removed the mdm.exe from run section in registry. It still shows up, but
> not immediately. Removed the office thing startup, mdm.exe still shows
> up eventually. Mdm is trying to access the internet when I use dialup,
> with rpc on its heels per ZA Pro. Think its when I open Outlook to get
> the email, not sure though.
>
> Won't drag the group through the remaining stuff. But gave up on
> loading VS
> 7.0 SE on 98SE. Put in on a ME partition, only run a couple of MS games
> there. Works great, no overhead. Ran into a problem later associated
> with saving files on a WD 200GB drive though. Rendered some video from
> camera, it does it in the bloated AVI natively. Two full stints from
> the camera, about 40 minutes total video time. All worked out. I
> combined the two session in VS to make one video, then told it to create
> a DVD that worked out okay. Found all the DVD associated files, AVI
> files and other VL stuff on the I: partition. This is the second FAT32
> partition on the WD 200GB drive. Booted to 98SE, to make a copy of the
> DVD in Nero. Used the DVD files left behind as source, and it worked
> out okay.
>
> Here's where the trouble started. While still in 98SE, I decided to get
> rid of all the video file stuff on the I: partition. I started with all
> the AVI files, then the DVD source files, and other associated
> subfolders and files. This seemed to go okay, but took quite some time
> for a pure delete. Then, the PC locked up. Explorer window wasn't
> responding, nor Explorer itself per ctrl-alt-del. I canceled, and gave

Here is where mostlikely you ran into the W98x IE6x file delete hang
problem I'm sure since you're a regular here you've seen spoke about often.

> it a few more minutes. Same response. Did a PC reset button fix. All
> seemed okay in next boot. No scandisk response during the boot.
>
> Decided to backup some of my DI image files to DVD via Nero. These

I really like DI

Just wanted to jump in and have no further comments but have been following
your tread with interest.

Best of

Rick

> files are contained on the H: drive, 99.9GB (1st partition WD 200GB).
> The subfolders for these were there, but the files were all gibberish.
> And the gibberish filenames had file dates in the future and some back
> as far as '92. Have associated this with the 98/98Se problem with HD
> exceeding 128GB. And, I believe I may have exceeded the 98/98SE storage
> limit during the VS session. The deletions in 98SE caused the problem,
> the deletions were successful I might add in the I: partition. Have
> been a bad boy, was told this may happen.
>
> My idea is to try to continue use of a shrunk partition to 60GB in 98SE
> on the WD 200GB, the remainder would be NTFS for use in XP. Will this
> work, as 98SE has no idea what, how much or anything in NTFS? PC's Bios
> has 48 bit LBA, no DDO.
>
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:uyTSB5JsFHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> From: "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com>
>>
>>
>> |
>> | You mentioned running SCANDISK -- but did not say you
>> | have run the drive manufacturer's own diagnostics.
>> |
>> | --
>> | Don Phillipson
>> | Carlsbad Springs
>> | (Ottawa, Canada)
>> |
>>
>> Here's a list...
>>
>> Quantum/Maxtor - PowerMax
>> http://www.maxtor.com/en/support/downloads/powermax.htm
>>
>> Western Digital - Data LifeGuard Tools (DLGDiag)
>> http://support.wdc.com/download/
>>
>> Hitachi/IBM - Drive Fitness Test (DFT)
>> http://www.hgst.com/hdd/support/download.htm
>>
>> Seagate - SeaTools
>> http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools/
>>
>> Fujitsu - Diagnostic Tool
>> http://www.fcpa.com/download/hard-drives/
>>
>> Samsung - Disk manager
>> http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/utilities/shdiag.htm
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:ONfOGpgsFHA.332@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Good idea. Ran Dldiag, no physical errors on drive
> Its a 80GB WD. 98SE partition is just under 8GB.
>
> Removed the mdm.exe from run section in registry. It still shows up, but
> not immediately. Removed the office thing startup, mdm.exe still shows up
> eventually. Mdm is trying to access the internet when I use dialup, with
> rpc on its heels per ZA Pro. Think its when I open Outlook to get the
> email, not sure though.

Or IE? "Disable Script Debugging" in internet options/Advanced.


> Decided to backup some of my DI image files to DVD via Nero. These files
> are contained on the H: drive, 99.9GB (1st partition WD 200GB). The
> subfolders for these were there, but the files were all gibberish. And the
> gibberish filenames had file dates in the future and some back as far as
> '92. Have associated this with the 98/98Se problem with HD exceeding 128GB.
> And, I believe I may have exceeded the 98/98SE storage limit during the VS
> session. The deletions in 98SE caused the problem, the deletions were
> successful I might add in the I: partition. Have been a bad boy, was told
> this may happen.
>
> My idea is to try to continue use of a shrunk partition to 60GB in 98SE on
> the WD 200GB, the remainder would be NTFS for use in XP. Will this work, as
> 98SE has no idea what, how much or anything in NTFS? PC's Bios has 48 bit
> LBA, no DDO.


That should work. 48-bit lba hardware support is "backward compatible" with
28-bit access code, and 9x won't try to access an "unknown type" at all. All
pointers in the FAT, dir, and boot sector will be within 28 bit addresses.

Re: XP; 48-bit support wasn't added until SP1, so it may be neccesary to
slipstream SP1 or SP2 before the XP install. Either that, or limit
the initial size to end below 128GB, install the SP, then resize
the volume.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Lil' Dave wrote:

> Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and something
> called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.

Not WMA (Windows Medai Audio), but as we now know WMF (Windows Media
Format). Anyhow, i've seen both WMA and WMF as redistributable Windows
Media sub-components installed from /inside/ other installers when needed.

> After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
> process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any key
> to continue. No other choices. Upon restart, scandisk starts interrupting
> the boot process indicating there was a write error during shutdown (duh).
> Scandisk can find nothing, even in thorough mode system and data areas.
> Tried same in windows, same outcome. It does find a long filename error,
> but the file is not consistent (see below).
>
> Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the

Or as we now know, 'DXDLLReg.exe'.

> registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup "Quikview
> Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows 32
> bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The run
> section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
> anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
> called from the run section of the registry.

Below i quote the last two lines of a 'DirectX.log' i've saved.
According to that log DXDLLReg.exe is put into the run-key and does its
deed after a [forced] reboot and then at the end the following is happening:

01/09/04 22:25:13: dxdllreg: DxDllReg.exe is removed from RUN key in the
registry.
01/09/04 22:25:13: dxdllreg: ----- end DxDllReg -----

So, because of your BSOD problems, DXDLLReg.exe should be there at first
run and 'register' a number of other files. Do you say that it doesn't
do its registring stuff and then delete itself from the run-key, but
remain boot after boot?

There are a few versions of DirectX 9; a, b & c. I suppose you have
checked that you have the same or a higher version installed beforehand,
to try to not have the VideoStudio DirectX installer run more then an
initial version-sniffing. (The same goes for the WMF installer.) May be
that there is a switch to have it run an overinstall anyway i suppose.

> I know how to get rid of unneeded dxdiagdll attempt to run. But the disk
> write problem always reoccurs upon installation of Ulead VideoStudio. Each

Per above, it should be allowed to run once.


.... Maybe the VideoStudio installer, or one of the sub-installers are
corrupt? ... Testinstalling on another computer? ... If the DirectX and
WMF installers are present separately on the CD (assuming VideoStudio is
on a CD) or if found on the HDD after the install, you can do a
binary-compare if you can locate same versions elswhere. ... If
VideoStudio it is an downloaded installer ask Ulead for a checksum, or
redownload if feasible. ...


--
Please followup in newsgroup.
E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message
news:OhSsMkisFHA.4044@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:ONfOGpgsFHA.332@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Good idea. Ran Dldiag, no physical errors on drive
> > Its a 80GB WD. 98SE partition is just under 8GB.
> >
> > Removed the mdm.exe from run section in registry. It still shows up,
but
> > not immediately. Removed the office thing startup, mdm.exe still shows
up
> > eventually. Mdm is trying to access the internet when I use dialup,
with
> > rpc on its heels per ZA Pro. Think its when I open Outlook to get the
> > email, not sure though.
>
> Or IE? "Disable Script Debugging" in internet options/Advanced.
>
>
> > Decided to backup some of my DI image files to DVD via Nero. These
files
> > are contained on the H: drive, 99.9GB (1st partition WD 200GB). The
> > subfolders for these were there, but the files were all gibberish. And
the
> > gibberish filenames had file dates in the future and some back as far as
> > '92. Have associated this with the 98/98Se problem with HD exceeding
128GB.
> > And, I believe I may have exceeded the 98/98SE storage limit during the
VS
> > session. The deletions in 98SE caused the problem, the deletions were
> > successful I might add in the I: partition. Have been a bad boy, was
told
> > this may happen.
> >
> > My idea is to try to continue use of a shrunk partition to 60GB in 98SE
on
> > the WD 200GB, the remainder would be NTFS for use in XP. Will this
work, as
> > 98SE has no idea what, how much or anything in NTFS? PC's Bios has 48
bit
> > LBA, no DDO.
>
>
> That should work. 48-bit lba hardware support is "backward compatible"
with
> 28-bit access code, and 9x won't try to access an "unknown type" at all.
All
> pointers in the FAT, dir, and boot sector will be within 28 bit addresses.
>
> Re: XP; 48-bit support wasn't added until SP1, so it may be neccesary to
> slipstream SP1 or SP2 before the XP install. Either that, or limit
> the initial size to end below 128GB, install the SP, then resize
> the volume.
>
>
>
>
Disabled the script debugging, I forgot about it. Thanks.

98SE isn't "seeing" the NTFS partition, but is working okay on the shrunk to
60GB FAT32 partition on the WD. Just hope there's nothing low level going
on that relates the amount of space used by NTFS files in 98SE. And I blew
it again relaying you info, all my boot partitions are on a WD 80GB. The H:
and I: are on a WD 200GB. The former sizes of H: and I: were 99.9GB and
think/not sure 83.5GB..Think my age is showing.

Didn't concentrate on the XP details. Have SP2 update CD installed. SP1 is
slimstreamed in the XP install CD.

Did a DI 2002 separate images of all my partitions on my WD 80GB, except the
XP partition. XP was done with DI 7.0 in XP. Nero burned those images to
dvd-rw (ISO format) for safekeeping.

Found something else odd, if not immediately alarming as I didn't know the
cause right away. After all the partitioning rearrangments were done on the
WD 200GB, booted to 98SE. Got a windows protection error followed by safe
mode on reboot. Did it 3 times selecting normal mode when it came up, with
same error. Removed the DI 7.0 install/boot Cd, and all was fine. I
installed isobuster previously, and believe its the file associations etc.
that's doing it. If I can't fix it, I'll make another long post as to how I
attempted to fix it seeking the group's advice. New thread of course.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:eA6eSftsFHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> 98SE isn't "seeing" the NTFS partition, but is working okay on the shrunk to
> 60GB FAT32 partition on the WD. Just hope there's nothing low level going
> on that relates the amount of space used by NTFS files in 98SE.

There shouldn't be. Once it sees the ntfs type in the table, it'll just
ignore it. OTOH of course, you ahve to be careful with disk utils.

> And I blew
> it again relaying you info, all my boot partitions are on a WD 80GB. The H:
> and I: are on a WD 200GB. The former sizes of H: and I: were 99.9GB and
> think/not sure 83.5GB..

I missed the significance of that in your previous post. So, the file ops on
I: "wrapped around" and trashed the first volume H: ?


> Think my age is showing.

Eat more fish )


btw.. if you're running 98SE and your chipset supports it:
http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bill Blanton wrote:
[...]
> btw.. if you're running 98SE and your chipset supports it:
> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/

If I may humbly interject here Bill, the last thing you would want to do is
install AA irregardless. 20x better is instead to install an Ultra133 TX2
PCI Controller in place of that giving you all the benefits of AA but with
even more ability, and, performance increase than what AA does - but
without all the side affects & limitations..

Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:uZHjAmysFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
> [...]
>> btw.. if you're running 98SE and your chipset supports it:
>> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
>
> If I may humbly interject here Bill, the last thing you would want to do is
> install AA irregardless. 20x better is instead to install an Ultra133 TX2
> PCI Controller in place of that giving you all the benefits of AA but with
> even more ability, and, performance increase than what AA does - but
> without all the side affects & limitations..


Yes, that's another and a possibly more desirable option, though there may
be considerations if the boot drive is to be on the card. IMOO, limiting
9x, (whether by drive jumper or partitioning), to less than 128GB is the
best (and safest) option.

I'm curious,, what "side effects"? Dave mentioned that his BIOS supported
48-bit LBA, and had no DDO installed. Data loss? In either case, it would
be a good idea to have a full backup before proceeding. Perhaps it's more
imperative with the iAA, but there's still a chance the card or drivers
will translate wrongly or differently than the mobo controller.

(an hour later (..was sidetracked to the real world))

Thinking about it,, I can see there'd also be a problem when booting
to DOS. But doesn't that limitation also apply to the controller card?
(and as another side effect of both, so to, real-mode scandisk running
after a "bad exit" will not be able to handle it). What about scandskw
and defrag?


I change my vote 😉 I vote "nay" on both workarounds.. 9x should be
limited to 128GB.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"... et al." <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ol4Te.145738$dP1.502047@newsc.telia.net...
> Lil' Dave wrote:
>
> > Installed Ulead VideoStudio version 7.0 SE, to a 98SE platform. Process
> > also installs DirectX 9, even though its already installed, and
something
> > called MS WMA. There is no alternative installation choice. It was
> > packaged with a firewire (TI chip) PCI card from SIIG.
>
> Not WMA (Windows Medai Audio), but as we now know WMF (Windows Media
> Format). Anyhow, i've seen both WMA and WMF as redistributable Windows
> Media sub-components installed from /inside/ other installers when needed.
>
> > After the installation, I attempt to shutdown and reboot. During this
> > process there is a blue screen indicating error writing to c, press any
key
> > to continue. No other choices. Upon restart, scandisk starts
interrupting
> > the boot process indicating there was a write error during shutdown
(duh).
> > Scandisk can find nothing, even in thorough mode system and data areas.
> > Tried same in windows, same outcome. It does find a long filename
error,
> > but the file is not consistent (see below).
> >
> > Another error is the dxdlldiag.exe is place in the run section of the
>
> Or as we now know, 'DXDLLReg.exe'.
>
> > registry. A program, which does not open by default at startup
"Quikview
> > Plus", opens. QVP indicates that the file "dxdlldiag.exe" is a windows
32
> > bit file (duh). Ctrl-alt-del does not show dxdlldiag is running. The
run
> > section in the registry simply indicates the path name. No switches or
> > anything unusual. Other "exe"s open without QVP opening at startup as
> > called from the run section of the registry.
>
> Below i quote the last two lines of a 'DirectX.log' i've saved.
> According to that log DXDLLReg.exe is put into the run-key and does its
> deed after a [forced] reboot and then at the end the following is
happening:
>
> 01/09/04 22:25:13: dxdllreg: DxDllReg.exe is removed from RUN key in the
> registry.
> 01/09/04 22:25:13: dxdllreg: ----- end DxDllReg -----
>
> So, because of your BSOD problems, DXDLLReg.exe should be there at first
> run and 'register' a number of other files. Do you say that it doesn't
> do its registring stuff and then delete itself from the run-key, but
> remain boot after boot?
>
> There are a few versions of DirectX 9; a, b & c. I suppose you have
> checked that you have the same or a higher version installed beforehand,
> to try to not have the VideoStudio DirectX installer run more then an
> initial version-sniffing. (The same goes for the WMF installer.) May be
> that there is a switch to have it run an overinstall anyway i suppose.
>
> > I know how to get rid of unneeded dxdiagdll attempt to run. But the
disk
> > write problem always reoccurs upon installation of Ulead VideoStudio.
Each
>
> Per above, it should be allowed to run once.
>
>
> ... Maybe the VideoStudio installer, or one of the sub-installers are
> corrupt? ... Testinstalling on another computer? ... If the DirectX and
> WMF installers are present separately on the CD (assuming VideoStudio is
> on a CD) or if found on the HDD after the install, you can do a
> binary-compare if you can locate same versions elswhere. ... If
> VideoStudio it is an downloaded installer ask Ulead for a checksum, or
> redownload if feasible. ...
>
>
> --
> Please followup in newsgroup.
> E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.

Yep, its WMA and its the redistribute version. Dxdllreg.exe it was.
They're forcefed along with the VS install all own the same session.

Restored a previous image file of 98SE partition, already has DX 9.0. What
I did was selectively locate and find WMA and VS installs. Ran separately,
WMA first.

The problem during the original install appears to be mdm.exe from Office.
I finally fixed all that. Disk write error appeared after the VS install
and reboot attempt again. Installed VS in a ME installation, works fine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bill Blanton wrote:
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:uZHjAmysFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>> [...]
>>> btw.. if you're running 98SE and your chipset supports it:
>>> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
>>
>> If I may humbly interject here Bill, the last thing you would want to
>> do is install AA irregardless. 20x better is instead to install an
>> Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller in place of that giving you all the
>> benefits of AA but with even more ability, and, performance increase
>> than what AA does - but without all the side affects & limitations..

>
> Yes, that's another and a possibly more desirable option, though there
> may be considerations if the boot drive is to be on the card. IMOO,
> limiting 9x, (whether by drive jumper or partitioning), to less than
> 128GB is the best (and safest) option.

I find all positive considerations for the boot drive to be on the card.
imho the only thing that should be on the controller card anyway is the
HD(s) ..and using the regular controller for the normal CD-ROM's,
CD-DVD, Zip, Floppy ..etc, Using the Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller
Card gives you two separate ports for two HD's connected if one wants, as
well those connections even give you the option of secondaries off of each
of those too but IMO preferable absolutely keeping it simple and just run
the HD off the card.

Having the boot drive on the card is exactly preferable and where it excels
in it's ability out-performing the limited AA method in it's intended use
as a performance Acceleration apparatus overcoming the known subsystem
bottleneck, especially useful when you start using GB/s of RAM coupled with
1, 2 or now the current 3+ GHz processors which exacerbate that bottle neck
problem - That's one of the reasons why Intel made the AA program but it
has proprietary forced limitations that an Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller Card
is totally clear of. However, no matter what you do you will still have
the known fact that W98 is limited to any max partition size it sees to 137
decimal GB or known better as 128 binary GB; I like to even stay well away
from that and just make them 121 GB..for storage partitions, and of course
while all OS partitions are under 8 GB for efficient FAT32 4K cluster
operation.

> I'm curious,, what "side effects"?

AA offers many proprietary limitations that I had noticed where using a
Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller Card had none. I have worked with AA and
tested it before on all OS's, it wasn't a humungus big deal but 'for me' it
was a ..no contest and no brainer.. to not use AA and to use a Ultra133 TX2
PCI Controller Card instead. I use it for all three SE/2K/XP

> Dave mentioned that his BIOS supported 48-bit LBA, and had
> no DDO installed. Data loss? In either case, it would

I wanted to mention never was/is my intention to overcome that 128 GB
'partition size' limitation with 9x (besides stock defrag and scandisk wont
work anyway above that) Yes it's true if your onboard MB bios does not
have Large HD support then the Controller Card mentioned gives your Large
HD support where exampled you can have a 700 GB hard drive if you want with
9x but the point is as long as you partition it up and not have Any
partitions more than the 128GB limit. Yes there are program(s) that let you
go above the 128GB limitation and one of them is called Patch137, but I
have absolutely No personal interest in doing so; anyway which would lend
itself to some non-stock problems.

Also, as a Side Benefit - this controller card also has the inherent
ability to outperform the increase with what the AA gives to boost overall
system performance. For instance, lets say someone has an older P3
@500MHz running with W98x w/no AA ..if they install this controller card
to run the HD then they will instantly see a minimum 30% increase in
'overall system performance' ..and from there stepping up using P4 @ 3 GHz
+ the performance increase is just plain remarkable... This performance
increase is not limited to just W9x, but with W2K & WXP as well.. AA gives
less than that.

> be a good idea to have a full backup before proceeding.

Absolutely, in all cases preferably a partition image backup.

> Perhaps it's more imperative with the iAA, but there's still a chance the
> card or drivers will translate wrongly or differently than the mobo
> controller.

? notta.. I never had any problems whatsoever for 9x/2K/XP using it,
actually just the oposite.

> (an hour later (..was sidetracked to the real world))
>
> Thinking about it,, I can see there'd also be a problem when booting
> to DOS. But doesn't that limitation also apply to the controller card?
> (and as another side effect of both, so to, real-mode scandisk running
> after a "bad exit" will not be able to handle it). What about scandskw
> and defrag?
>
> I change my vote 😉 I vote "nay" on both workarounds.. 9x should be
> limited to 128GB.

You are referring to the 128 GB 'partition' limitation for 9x here and yes
I agree. I think thoughts may have intermingled both the W98x partition
size limitation and normal Large HD Support issues, but my explanation in
my previous paragraphs clarify where I'm coming from anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:%23jMxFe8sFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
>> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
>> news:uZHjAmysFHA.2748@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> btw.. if you're running 98SE and your chipset supports it:
>>>> http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/iaa/
>>>
>>> If I may humbly interject here Bill, the last thing you would want to
>>> do is install AA irregardless. 20x better is instead to install an
>>> Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller in place of that giving you all the
>>> benefits of AA but with even more ability, and, performance increase
>>> than what AA does - but without all the side affects & limitations..

>> Yes, that's another and a possibly more desirable option, though there
>> may be considerations if the boot drive is to be on the card. IMOO,
>> limiting 9x, (whether by drive jumper or partitioning), to less than
>> 128GB is the best (and safest) option.
>
> I find all positive considerations for the boot drive to be on the card.

What I meant was.. (afaik) not all older BIOSs will support a boot from
a PCI device.

> imho the only thing that should be on the controller card anyway is the
> HD(s) ..and using the regular controller for the normal CD-ROM's,
> CD-DVD, Zip, Floppy ..etc, Using the Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller
> Card gives you two separate ports for two HD's connected if one wants, as
> well those connections even give you the option of secondaries off of each
> of those too but IMO preferable absolutely keeping it simple and just run
> the HD off the card.
>
> Having the boot drive on the card is exactly preferable and where it excels
> in it's ability out-performing the limited AA method in it's intended use
> as a performance Acceleration apparatus overcoming the known subsystem
> bottleneck,

Actually, I think "App-Accelerator" is just a marketing name. FWIU it's
just an ATA windows disk driver that's optimized for certain intel
chipsets.


> especially useful when you start using GB/s of RAM coupled with
> 1, 2 or now the current 3+ GHz processors which exacerbate that bottle neck
> problem -

Yet, we still have to wait for the disk 😉 Is the performance increase
that great, or does the card employ a large cache to make it appear
faster than it is?


> That's one of the reasons why Intel made the AA program but it
> has proprietary forced limitations that an Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller Card
> is totally clear of. However, no matter what you do you will still have
> the known fact that W98 is limited to any max partition size it sees to 137
> decimal GB or known better as 128 binary GB; I like to even stay well away
> from that and just make them 121 GB..for storage partitions, and of course
> while all OS partitions are under 8 GB for efficient FAT32 4K cluster
> operation.
>
>> I'm curious,, what "side effects"?
>
> AA offers many proprietary limitations that I had noticed where using a
> Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller Card had none.

That's what I'm wondering about. What "side effects" and "limitations"
specifically? I can see that the dedicated PCI BIOS and its bus archetecture
would probably be better performance-wise, but I got the impression from
your post that you saw some specific bugs with the iAA, and I was curious
as to what.
Maybe I read it wrong. ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bill Blanton wrote:
> "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message

<sorry for snips but needed to trim>

>>> Yes, that's another and a possibly more desirable option, though there
>>> may be considerations if the boot drive is to be on the card. IMOO,
>>> limiting 9x, (whether by drive jumper or partitioning), to less than
>>> 128GB is the best (and safest) option.
>>
>> I find all positive considerations for the boot drive to be on the card.
>
> What I meant was.. (afaik) not all older BIOSs will support a boot from
> a PCI device.

Okay but I've not seen any yet but maybe you mean many years older.
Most currently operating computers are within 5ish years old though,
anything before that is performance wise out of any worthy loop anyway.

>> imho the only thing that should be on the controller card anyway is the
>> HD(s) ..and using the regular controller for the normal CD-ROM's,
>> CD-DVD, Zip, Floppy ..etc, Using the Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller
>> Card gives you two separate ports for two HD's connected if one wants,
>> as well those connections even give you the option of secondaries off
>> of each of those too but IMO preferable absolutely keeping it simple
>> and just run the HD off the card.
>>
>> Having the boot drive on the card is exactly preferable and where it
>> excels in it's ability out-performing the limited AA method in it's
>> intended use as a performance Acceleration apparatus overcoming the
>> known subsystem bottleneck,
>
> Actually, I think "App-Accelerator" is just a marketing name. FWIU it's
> just an ATA windows disk driver that's optimized for certain intel
> chipsets.

Understood, and it does work very well in that optimization for sure and
does give a significant increase in overall system performance, however as
I said before I personally prefer to use a controller card instead as it's
so much less software intrusive, and simpler, and has important options AA
cannot possibly give.

>> especially useful when you start using GB/s of RAM coupled with
>> 1, 2 or now the current 3+ GHz processors which exacerbate that bottle
>> neck problem -
>
> Yet, we still have to wait for the disk 😉 Is the performance increase

Well these days in the last few years all ATA HD's sold with machines are
ATA133 7200 rpm some with 8mb buffer cache's but the last 2 years have gone
to 16mb so they can move right along; before that they were 5400rpm, but as
you know ATA133 is spec'd to be capable of 133MB/s and even ATA100 is
@ 100MB/sec ...now yes as we all know all Marketing specs are
just hype and burst rates (kinda like amplifier wattage given in Peak to
Peak ratings instead of the true RMS) ..but I can say I've proven, tested,
I get over 40MB/s in real life situations with the card which is screamin'
...without the card it's waaay less than that..

> that great, or does the card employ a large cache to make it appear
> faster than it is?

Across the board it gives a performance increase even for boot times. For
instance even in DOS 'Disk to Disk' operations running two hard drives off
of each of the cards two ports as 'Masters' ..and disregarding bloated
specs, in real life I've documented 2.3 GB per minute transfer rates and
even once took a screenshot of that and I just uploaded that now here to
show you: http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4189/disktodisk1uc.jpg
No way you would get that transfer rate without the card otherwise.
Now its operation in Windows whether on 9x/2K/XP but especially on 9x, I've
personally tested and have seen a remarkable increase in overall
performance and I'd say minimum of 30% better (from stock no AA) ..whether
is was an old Biostar MB with a P3 processor with only 256MB of ram, etc,
to any of the modern MB's and P4 processors.

>> That's one of the reasons why Intel made the AA program but it
>> has proprietary forced limitations that an Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller
>> Card is totally clear of. However, no matter what you do you will
>> still have the known fact that W98 is limited to any max partition size

>> it sees to 137 decimal GB or known better as 128 binary GB; I like to
>> even stay well away from that and just make them 121 GB..for storage
>> partitions, and of course while all OS partitions are under 8 GB for
>> efficient FAT32 4K cluster operation.
>>
>>> I'm curious,, what "side effects"?
>>
>> AA offers many proprietary limitations that I had noticed where using a
>> Ultra133 TX2 PCI Controller Card had none.
>
> That's what I'm wondering about. What "side effects" and "limitations"
> specifically? I can see that the dedicated PCI BIOS and its bus
> archetecture would probably be better performance-wise, but I got the
> impression from your post that you saw some specific bugs with the iAA,
> and I was curious as to what.
> Maybe I read it wrong. ?

Well it was in my view and imho called them 'proprietary limitations' that
I did not like, meaning when installing it changed things and disconnected
operations I did not like. I'm sure others have no problem or knew with
AA, and even at my first install I was impressed with specifically the
performance which was great! AA has exceptional performance
qualifications, but a CC gives you all that too! ..but more flexibility!
...and no cumbersome install & confliction issues - you only need an open
pci slot. ..and so when given a choice I'll take the CC no question.

Besides, you don't need an Intel Chipset to use a CC to get its benefits!!!

When I tested AA it was a few years ago and at the moment I'm searching for
all my notes I made about it.. but first going from memory there
were many issues I did not like of which for 9x it disabled DMA permanently
on all my drives and that was a decision I wanted to make, as well it
interfered with my cdrw burning applications, and it limited me on others.
When I had I tracked and observed all the registry and file changes it
made - I said forget it and found an alternative option in a CC. A CC
gives similar if not better across the board performance increase WithOut
having to make such a deep reaching software install that changes many
operations and limits other softwares from a stock OS install which was
important to me. Also on the other hand a ControllerCard gives new extra
dual Master ports to run HD's and inherently bypasses all bottleneck
problems in standard controllers and so therefore needs no software
enhanced means to increase performance. As I type trying
to remember some more important details I'm surely forgetting, I keep
looking for my notes from when I did the install and testing and realize it
must be in my stored backup partition images from back then, and I don't
have the time now to remount them and seek my notes out. I had saved
tracking logs and detailing everything as I always do but at this moment I
don't see them in finger reach darnit, and have to get back to my interior
house painting which wife has me doing o😉 all this long weekend ..I'd
rather be working on the computer though <g>

Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:ejmeehVtFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
>> "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
>
> <sorry for snips but needed to trim>

NP. That's expected. I was almost done replying to this post
yesterday and the power went out. My neighbor said the util co.
is doing "rolling blackouts" in the area. Great!

>>> I find all positive considerations for the boot drive to be on the card.
>>
>> What I meant was.. (afaik) not all older BIOSs will support a boot from
>> a PCI device.
>
> Okay but I've not seen any yet but maybe you mean many years older.
> Most currently operating computers are within 5ish years old though,
> anything before that is performance wise out of any worthy loop anyway.

Not sure that's true in a 98 group.


> Well these days in the last few years all ATA HD's sold with machines are
> ATA133 7200 rpm some with 8mb buffer cache's but the last 2 years have gone
> to 16mb so they can move right along; before that they were 5400rpm, but as
> you know ATA133 is spec'd to be capable of 133MB/s and even ATA100 is
> @ 100MB/sec ...now yes as we all know all Marketing specs are
> just hype and burst rates (kinda like amplifier wattage given in Peak to
> Peak ratings instead of the true RMS) ..but I can say I've proven, tested,
> I get over 40MB/s in real life situations with the card which is screamin'
> ..without the card it's waaay less than that..

> Across the board it gives a performance increase even for boot times. For
> instance even in DOS 'Disk to Disk' operations running two hard drives off
> of each of the cards two ports as 'Masters' ..and disregarding bloated
> specs, in real life I've documented 2.3 GB per minute transfer rates and
> even once took a screenshot of that and I just uploaded that now here to
> show you: http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4189/disktodisk1uc.jpg
> No way you would get that transfer rate without the card otherwise.
> Now its operation in Windows whether on 9x/2K/XP but especially on 9x, I've
> personally tested and have seen a remarkable increase in overall
> performance and I'd say minimum of 30% better (from stock no AA) ..whether
> is was an old Biostar MB with a P3 processor with only 256MB of ram, etc,
> to any of the modern MB's and P4 processors.

That is impressive.


> When I tested AA it was a few years ago and at the moment I'm searching for
> all my notes I made about it.. but first going from memory there
> were many issues I did not like of which for 9x it disabled DMA permanently
> on all my drives and that was a decision I wanted to make, as well it
> interfered with my cdrw burning applications, and it limited me on others.

That's odd. The docs suggest that you have to run a specific
switch to do that, and that it's not permanent. Though they do list
issues with "seeing" devices correctly. Perhaps it had a problem
recognizing your controller and defaulted to "safe" PIO mode.

Thanks for the details.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bill Blanton wrote:
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:ejmeehVtFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Bill Blanton wrote:
>>> "Rick Chauvin" wrote in message
>>
>> <sorry for snips but needed to trim>
>
> NP. That's expected. I was almost done replying to this post
> yesterday and the power went out. My neighbor said the util co.
> is doing "rolling blackouts" in the area. Great!
>
>>>> I find all positive considerations for the boot drive to be on the
>>>> card.
>>>
>>> What I meant was.. (afaik) not all older BIOSs will support a boot from
>>> a PCI device.
>>
>> Okay but I've not seen any yet but maybe you mean many years older.
>> Most currently operating computers are within 5ish years old though,
>> anything before that is performance wise out of any worthy loop anyway.

> Not sure that's true in a 98 group.

Yeah lots of old-timers here have some vintage setups. Actually I still
have my old BSR from the 80's ...The case and drives etc on it are built
like a tank; I even fire'd it up the other day because I needed to use it's
51/4" floppy drive to copy some old WordStar files over.

[...]

>> When I tested AA it was a few years ago and at the moment I'm searching
>> for all my notes I made about it.. but first going from memory there
>> were many issues I did not like of which for 9x it disabled DMA
>> permanently on all my drives and that was a decision I wanted to make,
>> as well it interfered with my cdrw burning applications, and it limited
>> me on others.
>
> That's odd. The docs suggest that you have to run a specific
> switch to do that, and that it's not permanent. Though they do list
> issues with "seeing" devices correctly. Perhaps it had a problem
> recognizing your controller and defaulted to "safe" PIO mode.

An inaccessible removed DMA on all drives is by-product with AA on all
W98x and it just wasn't in my own experience. I'm sure they even tell you
that on the release notes along with the list of other nits too - and I had
plenty; but that's not saying AA is not a good thing because it is, however
the CC is so much way better with no nits and no deep seated software
installs/changes and so is an easy choice. I'm no expert about it per-se
really but am always very enthusiastic with the times I've tested and even
now always see the across the board increase in all aspects of overall
system performance, DOS's to Windows, on different computer hardware setups
(new & old) and sometimes the increase is dramatic - even on different OS's
like W2K & WXP as well which I was surprised in seeing that - but pleased
about it and till this day won't run anything without one plug'd in.
(all tests were non-iAA setups, stock vrs CC)

If you get a chance try one for gp, preferably a Promise $37 ATA Ultra133
TX2 model. ..installs in minutes, and do a 'timed' before/after on some
various demanding bench test tasks to see. Let me know if you do.

Anyway, back to the painting I go ): Wish I could hook up a CC or even AA
to my painting task

Take care Bill,
Rick

>
> Thanks for the details.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:O$092zutFHA.1472@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

> If you get a chance try one for gp, preferably a Promise $37 ATA Ultra133
> TX2 model. ..installs in minutes, and do a 'timed' before/after on some
> various demanding bench test tasks to see. Let me know if you do.

I'll keep it in mind. On a side note; I installed a small 10k rpm
wd raptor as my primary boot/OS drive. It's fairly amazing the difference
in performance from the clone twin 7200 rpm maxtor.