 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / General Topics / April 2007A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message
A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? | A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid | System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a | total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? What OSes are we discussing? What OS does not boot? What boot manager are you using? What configuration are we discussing?  SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ Saw this message in an XP newsgroup yesterday. I asked for details. None in this post either. Maybe a troll? SignatureNoncompliant Money don't wag the dog's tail. >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid > System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there > are a > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? | Saw this message in an XP newsgroup yesterday. I asked for details. None | in this post either. Maybe a troll? Hard to say, offtimes someone posts, and either fixes the problem on their own, or realizes that the problem was not what it appeared to be or what they posted. Placing the proper questions actually answers their question, as they failed to think of them for self-diagnostics before posting. What would the troll be anyway,, to drag someone into what??? | >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid | > System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there | > are a | > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ > | Saw this message in an XP newsgroup yesterday. I asked for details. > None [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What would the troll be anyway,, to drag someone into what??? Maybe "troll" is not the fitting word. I'm thinking of numerous replies that digress all over the place. All due to the fact of purposely limited information by the OP. At least that's been the history of b11 that I've seen. SignatureNoncompliant Money don't wag the dog's tail. > | >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message > "Invalid > | > System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot > (there > | > are a > | > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? | > | Saw this message in an XP newsgroup yesterday. I asked for details. | > None [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | information by the OP. At least that's been the history of b11 that I've | seen. AAAAHHH, okay, I rarely monitor the postings of others for such activities. So pursuant the intent of your post: b11 somehow starts discussions for misleading reasons. Well, I suppose theoretical issues in general discussion groups would not be overly intrusive, though one would need to at least provide logical basis and/or sufficient information around which to compose such discussion. Failing that I see no real purpose. Hmm, not quite true. I have noted in various news groups, that parties may start discussions to retrieve information, that later appears on their website or within their own forums. Frankly that grates upon me, but then who am I to control that situation. Major posters, such as in this group, surely expect as much. | > | >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message | > "Invalid [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | > | > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? | > SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ Rather, I believe this particular OP presents a post to see the replies, however digressive, however inappropriate. As, there is no appropriateness. Am not talking about an OP that leads to discussions out of unintended nature. Rather, this OP's originator, does that intentionally. And, words the OP for that specific purpose. And this particular OP's originator seldom replies with specific information requested. At best, does a partial of a request to forment his desires. Just to see where it goes. SignatureNoncompliant Money don't wag the dog's tail. > | > | Saw this message in an XP newsgroup yesterday. I asked for details. > | > None [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > | > | > are a > | > | > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? | Rather, I believe this particular OP presents a post to see the replies, | however digressive, however inappropriate. As, there is no appropriateness. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | requested. At best, does a partial of a request to forment his desires. | Just to see where it goes. Well, perhaps. There was no response from the poster. And we did give it "air time". The USENET sliders seem to pop-up everywhere... carrying some grudge from some perceived hurt, or just cruising for a convo or a fight... Dropped dozens of groups over the years when they degraded to flames, whams, scams, and such... so we move on... SignatureMEB _______________ > A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid > System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a > total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? If the partition was being used to start a Windows 98 system, go to http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm and create a Windows 98 boot floppy. Start the computer with the boot floppy, use fdisk to activate the partition, then restart the computer with the floppy still in the drive, type "dir /p c:\" to confirm the correct drive letter assignment, then type "sys c:" and press "Enter". If this doesn't help or can't be done, please repost with more information, including the method you are using to boot different partitions. Ben >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid >System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a >total of 3 partitions on the harddrive). What do you recommend? Can you see the file system on this partition from one of your other bootable partitions? - Franc Zabkar SignaturePlease remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. If I boot one of the bootable partitions, I can see the files in the unbootable partition. Should I run scandisk? _______________________________________________________________ > >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid > >System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Franc Zabkar >If I boot one of the bootable partitions, I can see the files in the >unbootable partition. Should I run scandisk? It looks to me like you partition table is OK but something may be wrong with the boot record and/or critical system files in the unbootable partition. I'd check the root directory for the hidden msdos.sys and io.sys files. The fix may be as simple as refreshing the above components by typing "SYS d:" from a DOS prompt where d is the drive letter. Just be sure you are SYSing from the same OS version as was originally on the unbootable partition. I'd also follow this up with a malware scan, and a surface scan using Scandisk. _______________________________________________________________ >> >A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The message "Invalid >> >System Disk" appeared. There are still 2 partitions that do boot (there are a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> - Franc Zabkar - Franc Zabkar SignaturePlease remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. Copied the 2 files plus command.com from a bootable partition to the non-booting partition plus ran scandisk but the partition still does not boot. ______________________________________________________________ > >If I boot one of the bootable partitions, I can see the files in the > >unbootable partition. Should I run scandisk? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Franc Zabkar Using Acronis to boot. _______________________________________________________ > Copied the 2 files plus command.com from a bootable partition to the > non-booting partition plus ran scandisk but the partition still does not boot. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > - Franc Zabkar > Using Acronis OS Selector to boot. > _______________________________________________________ [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > > > > - Franc Zabkar > Copied the 2 files plus command.com from a bootable partition to the > non-booting partition plus ran scandisk but the partition still does not boot. > ______________________________________________________________ <snip> After copying io.sys and then msdos.sys, then command.com files one has to also do fdisk /mbr function to get the boot sector linked to boot through to the io.sys file. Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ partitions other than C:\, so you will have to use a 3rd party app like http://www.aefdisk.com to do aefdisk /mbr linking to a drive/ partition other than C:\. Used to be with earlier versions of MSDOS one had to copy io.sys file first and then msdos.sys file second as they had to be one-two in the root directory listing order, or the drive/partition would never boot. I suspect that with MSDOS 7 and higher those two slots are reserved for those two files exclusively in every root so that whenever they are copied, they get first billing as it were. The /mbr linking is always a neccessary part of the process and is something that the sys command does also. The fdisk /mbr switch is known as an undocumented switch thus MS is relieved of explaining it's full use and purpose to anyone. I have no experiance with Acronis, you are on your own there, but surely their website/helpfile would have information on making a partition bootable? | > Copied the 2 files plus command.com from a bootable partition to the | > non-booting partition plus ran scandisk but the partition still does not boot. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | like http://www.aefdisk.com to do aefdisk /mbr linking to a drive/ | partition other than C:\. First, I'll state as I have before, there are better tools than MS fdisk and format to use, one of which is aefdisk; I should point out though, the original querier was requested to post information related to the referenced compter, OS, and other information necessary to properly provide help/advise. The querier has never done so. NOTE Lee, this was not to discredit, but to point out variables which might need addressed pursuant to your presentation, no ability to MBR a second drive/partition {though that what that actually achieves is debatable}. Beyond that, perhaps its time to redo/repost some of these old links to documented and found switches/commands and related: http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/FDISK.htm - provides some information on the various versions of fdisk, and what this party found they did. http://www.computerhope.com/fdiskhlp.htm - provides information related to various switches that can be used with fdisk. http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/switches.htm - mirror of Starman's - some undocumented switches and what they do. http://bharucha.com/tp701/fdiskSecrets.html - another take on {un}documented switches http://mirror.href.com/thestarman/asm/mbr/FDISK98.htm - What Does Microsoft'sT (Win 9x/ME) FDISK.EXE Program do to a Hard Disk? - Starman's take on these particular versions http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm - MDGX - MS-DOS 5.00 - 8.00 Undocumented + Hidden Secrets http://www.kisser.net.au/tontodan/secrets.html - mirror of Axcel216 DOS/Windows Secrets http://members.aol.com/axcel216/secrets.htm - original Axcel216 site http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kevtronics/undoc.txt - Shhh! The Undocumented DOS Commands - older DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DOS_commands - Wikipedia's version From: "MEB" Subject: Re: Problems with additional RAM aand NIC Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:52:14 -0400 Keywords: MS-DOS mode configuration,Windows 98 memory settings,MS-DOS tips,net card - memory conflict,autoexec.bat config,sys configuration,undocumented DOS Message-ID: <uxMCkFNzGHA.2036@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl> This group had an excellent (in my opinion) discussion of *standard* hard drive issues and info which would be worthy of locating called: COLLECTED hard drive usage after XP NTFS Start Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:28:12 -0400 Keywords: XP NTFS hard drives,tools used to test and/or recover hard drives,NTFS recovery tools,forensic tools for analysis of hard drives,securely deleting hard drives,removing XP NTFS from hard drives - don't let the heading throw you off, most relevent issues generally related to IDE/EIDE [PATA] hard drives were addressed, regretfully we {as a group} never finished it.. | Used to be with earlier versions of MSDOS one had to copy io.sys file | first and then msdos.sys file second as they had to be one-two in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | surely their website/helpfile would have information on making a | partition bootable? SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ BLOG - http://peoplescounsel.spaces.live.com/ Public Notice or the "real world" http://groups.google.com/group/the-peoples-law?hl=en - discussion group for general aspects of Law verses the Peoples' of the world "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happen." Winston Churchill Or to put it another way: Morpheus can offer you the two pills; but only you can choose whether you take the red pill or the blue one. _______________ | Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't | do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ | partitions other than C:\ It works on a per hard drive basis, not per partition. /MBR (& /CMBR) puts code into the MBR (Master Boot Record) that BIOS loads into RAM (Random Access Memory) during boot. BIOS is done after that, & control passes to the code. The code then will look for a partition to boot-- the one that is marked Active. "FDISK /MBR"....... does HDD0 -- The Primary Master (the master hard drive on the primary IDE connector to the motherboard. "FDISK /cmbr 2"... does HDD1 -- ?? The Primary Slave (slave to HDD0) or the Secondary Master (master on the secondary IDE connector) ?? "FDISK /cmbr 3"... does HDD2 -- ?? The Primary Slave (slave to HDD0) or the Secondary Master (master on the secondary IDE connector) ?? "FDISK /cmbr 4"... does HDD3 -- (The Secondary Slave, most likely.) But too bad I can't be more definitive which hard drive is which-- & neither was Blanton or I would be! Although you can get that code onto various hard drives, it's up to BIOS which copy will get loaded into RAM to do the work-- only one will. And I do believe my own BIOS will ONLY take the copy that is on HDD0. Furthermore, I'm not sure the standard code will look beyond HDD0 for an Active partition to boot. (I can & should test that last point. I do have an OS in a partition on my primary slave hard drive.) Thanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee" <melee5@my-deja.com> Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 02:58 AM Subject: Re: A partition, which previouly booted, no longer boots. The mess | > Copied the 2 files plus command.com from a bootable partition to the | > non-booting partition plus ran scandisk but the partition still does not boot. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | surely their website/helpfile would have information on making a | partition bootable? >| Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't > | do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > But too bad I can't be more definitive which hard drive is which-- & > neither was Blanton or I would be! BIOS enumeration order should be- PM PS SM SS AYK, Fdisk (as opposed to the BIOS) enumerates fixed disk starting from 1. fdisk /cmbr 1 = fdisk /mbr Assuming the drives are not identical in size, you can do an "fdisk /status" to see how fdisk is enumerating the drives, and use that number with the /cmbr parameter. > Although you can get that code onto > various hard drives, it's up to BIOS which copy will get loaded into RAM > to do the work-- only one will. Right, there is rarely a need to install fdisk boot code (or clean the first sector) on any drive other than the booting drive. > And I do believe my own BIOS will ONLY > take the copy that is on HDD0. BIOS HDD0 (fixed disk 80h) will change if your BIOS allows booting from drives other than the primary master. The fdisk MBR standard boot code requires bootstrapping off of 80h. > Furthermore, I'm not sure the standard > code will look beyond HDD0 for an Active partition to boot. No, it won't. If there's no active partition on 80h, the system won't boot. |>| Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't |> | do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |> "FDISK /MBR".... does HDD0 -- The Primary Master (the master |> hard drive on the primary |> IDE connector to |> the motherboard. |> |> "FDISK /cmbr 2".. does HDD1 -- ?? The Primary Slave (slave to |> HDD0) or the Secondary |> Master (master on |> the secondary IDE |> connector) ?? |> |> "FDISK /cmbr 3".. does HDD2 -- ?? The Primary Slave (slave to |> HDD0) or the Secondary |> Master (master on |> the secondary IDE [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | SM | SS I see-- Primary Slave should be 2nd; Secondary Master, third. Thanks. | AYK, Fdisk (as opposed to the BIOS) enumerates fixed disk starting | from 1. | fdisk /cmbr 1 = fdisk /mbr Yea. They should have been consistent about that-- everything should start with zero! That's what the Big Bang supposedly did! | Assuming the drives are not identical in size, you can do an "fdisk | /status" | to see how fdisk is enumerating the drives, and use that number with | the /cmbr parameter. Ah, that makes sense. Yea, that should be definitive. |> Although you can get that code onto |> various hard drives, it's up to BIOS which copy will get loaded into [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | the first sector) | on any drive other than the booting drive. I suppose -- if a BIOS can boot from a Secondary Slave, for instance -- it probably uses the boot code from it. I don't suppose standard boot code will search for an Active partition on a different hard drive. |> And I do believe my own BIOS will ONLY |> take the copy that is on HDD0. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | boot code | requires bootstrapping off of 80h. Hmm. Is there a separate field for 80h that works on a hard drive basis? I've been thinking the one in the BPB (Boot Partition Block) operates on a partition basis. That can be changed using SYS, & SYS will always put 80h into there. For instance SYS D: will put 80h into it, even if D:\partition is on HDD1. |> Furthermore, I'm not sure the standard |> code will look beyond HDD0 for an Active partition to boot. | | No, it won't. If there's no active partition on 80h, the system won't | boot. I did just run a little test. FDISK wouldn't allow me to make a partition Active on a drive other than HDD0... .....Quote............... Set Active Partition Current fixed disk drive: 2 Only partitions on Drive 1 can be made active. .....EOQ................. Also, there was no way for it to turn off Active on Drive 1, except by making another one the Active one. It did allow me to set my Extended Partition on there Active, though, which really it shouldn't. An Extended can't boot! SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >>>> Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't >>>> do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ >>>> partitions other than C:\ <snip> > .....Quote............... > Set Active Partition [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Partition on there Active, though, which really it shouldn't. An > Extended can't boot! Which reminds me, I've never found a way booting up in BING (on the floppy disk)to turn off the Active Flag, once it's been set. You would think there would be a switch for that. Or maybe I've missed something. |>>>> Standard MS fdisk.exe program won't |>>>> do the master boot sector restore (/mbr) function for drives/ [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | would think there would be a switch for that. Or maybe I've missed | something. I was unaware even BING couldn't do it. But apparently it isn't necessary to do it, because standard MS boot code won't go looking for an Active partition on another hard drive anyway-- even IF there could be none on HDD0 or Drive 1. >> Also, there was no way for it to turn off Active on Drive 1, except by >> making another one the Active one. It did allow me to set my Extended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > disk)to turn off the Active Flag, once it's been set. You would think > there would be a switch for that. Or maybe I've missed something. Yea, that does seem like a missing feature. As PCR notes though, it doesn't really matter for non-boot drives. You could use ptedit32 (formerly of PQ) to change the "boot" field" of the partition. Change it from 80(h) to 00. Save. ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/tools/pq/utilities/ Excuse me gentlemen if I might butt in, Urge has again raised his issue of using Partition Magic on his disk in: Dealing with special hard drive partitions I could recite materials, others findings, etc.. but I have no personal experience with this particular program. Would any of you care to answer his question that have used the program? SignatureMEB _______________ | Excuse me gentlemen if I might butt in, Urge has again raised his | issue of using Partition Magic on his disk in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | personal experience with this particular program. Would any of you | care to answer his question that have used the program? I haven't used it. I almost jumped into the thread three times anyhow. Maybe I will next time, if it seems absolutely no one else will ever enter it who can actually solve it. | -- | MEB | _______________ SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net | ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/tools/pq/utilities/ BTW, thanks for the direction to the PowerQuest versions of PartitionMagic tools, interesting programs.. SignatureMEB _______________ > | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:ObtzvyueHHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > BTW, thanks for the direction to the PowerQuest versions of PartitionMagic > tools, interesting programs.. NP. Yea, there are a few good utilities. The partin*, ptedit*, and ptcalc in particular. I'm surprised synmantec never pulled them. Maybe they don't know they're there. | > | "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message | > news:ObtzvyueHHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | NP. Yea, there are a few good utilities. The partin*, ptedit*, and ptcalc in particular. | I'm surprised synmantec never pulled them. Maybe they don't know they're there. Well they certainly do now, should increase their download logs considerably.. As for the tools,, yeah something new to play with,, seem to be somewhat limited though useful for the specific task intended.. any idea what version they came from? SignatureMEB _______________ > | "MEB" <meb@not real@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:u%231n1SRfHHA.1816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > | > | ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/tools/pq/utilities/ > | > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > limited though useful for the specific task intended.. any idea what version > they came from? Probably whatever version was out when they sold to Symantec. I don't think they've been updated since, nor expect them to be in the future. Rick Chauvin may know what version was current when that happened. "Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message [...] > Probably whatever version was out when they sold to Symantec. I don't > think they've been updated since, nor expect them to be in the future. > Rick Chauvin may know what version was current when that happened. [...] > NP. Yea, there are a few good utilities. The partin*, ptedit*, and > ptcalc in particular. > I'm surprised synmantec never pulled them. Maybe they don't know they're > there. fwiw just a little tibit about ptcalc http://www.njaf.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22918 Joep worked at PQ back then too, was very good, and he now has his own business at DIY DataRecovery http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/ He has some really nifty stuff Bill that I know at times would interest you. As for the other tools versions that are at the link you gave are old 1999 versions like for instance partin* given there is back from DriveCopy v3, but fwiw was updated & included within some of their products continually through the latest (powerquest) versions of not only DriveCopy but DriveImage & Partition Magic as well; ptedit* similarly the same answer. I have all the version of their products and so have all the version builds of each tool as well. Rick > "Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fwiw just a little tibit about ptcalc > http://www.njaf.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22918 That is interesting. > Joep worked at PQ back then too, was very good, and he now has his own > business at DIY DataRecovery http://www.diydatarecovery.nl/ > He has some really nifty stuff Bill that I know at times would interest > you. Yes, I know of Joep, though not personally. I've refered more than a few to his site. > As for the other tools versions that are at the link you gave are old 1999 > versions like for instance partin* given there is back from DriveCopy v3, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have all the version of their products and so have all the version builds > of each tool as well. So they're still being updated, just not copied to the ftp://.../public/.. directory. [...] > So they're still being updated, just not copied to the > ftp://.../public/.. directory. Yes that appears to be the case for sure, since all those at that FTP are mostly 1999 versions, and I can see looking through my powerquest programs collection that each new program version has new tool versions too, for instance let's just take one to focus on... Ptedit32.exe, the one on that ftp is v1.0, but I also have v1.02, v1.1, and v8.0 ...but I note that v8 had 4 internal build changes which I have each but they all carry the same v8 title (some of the v1's did that too) The latest Ptedit32.exe (that I have anyway) is v8.0 499KB 9/10/2005 As you now know though that ptcalc version is the only one available. Any others you wanted to know about? I finally stopped following what Symantec was doing after 1995 though since the reputation they have earned after taking over Powerquest in 1990 is not very good to say the least - to say the most, the word would be, pathetic o:) Rick | [...] | [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | | Rick I too have direct some to the diy site,, did not realise that came from a Power Quest background though.. Though you directed the query to Bill, I'm interested [let me pick your brain here] in whether PM or these tools you referenced, were found as acceptabe when attempting use with/on *non-supported* partitions/disks. Looking at the 8.0 PDF, I found little explaining such activities (or at least directly). Granted I didn't spend a wholelot of study time on it though.. e.g. what about all the other partitions and disk activities one encounters at times.. -- MEB _______________ [....] > Though you directed the query to Bill, I'm interested [let me pick your > brain here] in whether PM or these tools you referenced, were found as > acceptabe when attempting use with/on *non-supported* partitions/disks. Yes they would be acceptable for each situation intended and I can't imagine what properly setup partition/disk wouldn't be supported, and so I'm not sure of what is your question, however Bill Blanton is very well versed with these tools more than I, and so will let him respond to any further questions if he wants to, thank you Bill. Rick > Looking at the 8.0 PDF, I found little explaining such activities (or at > least directly). Granted I didn't spend a wholelot of study time on it > though.. e.g. what about all the other partitions and disk activities one > encounters at times.. > -- > MEB > _______________ > | BIOS HDD0 (fixed disk 80h) will change if your BIOS allows booting > | from drives other than the primary master. The fdisk MBR standard > | boot code > | requires bootstrapping off of 80h. > > Hmm. Is there a separate field for 80h that works on a hard drive basis? The BIOS keeps track of drive information in its own data tables stored in RAM, which is written during POST. You can effectively "swap" drives (i.e 80h <=> 81h) by modifying the tables. That's how boot managers, such as BING and grub, are able to boot off of 81h, 82h,... 8nh. Many later model BIOSs also allow booting from a non-primary master drive. Though in that case, the BIOS probably doesn't "swap" table data, but writes the data accordingly during the POST. > I've been thinking the one in the BPB (Boot Partition Block) operates on > a partition basis. That can be changed using SYS, & SYS will always put > 80h into there. For instance SYS D: will put 80h into it, even if > D:\partition is on HDD1. If you "swap" at boot, the second and first drive, the second drive effectively becomes 80h, so you do want 80h in the BPB in that case. Perhaps MS was being cautious as it knew its MBR loader code couldn't boot 81h. Or, perhaps it was an oversight. It does make it easier to physically swap "drives", or raw copy partitions/drives to 80h, etc.. without SYSing the volume to correct the value. > |> Furthermore, I'm not sure the standard > |> code will look beyond HDD0 for an Active partition to boot. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Partition on there Active, though, which really it shouldn't. An > Extended can't boot! That's interesting. Perhaps fdisk is type-agnostic. Can it set a non-DOS type active? I've never tried. The only time i ever run fdisk is for reference. :/ |> | BIOS HDD0 (fixed disk 80h) will change if your BIOS allows booting |> | from drives other than the primary master. The fdisk MBR standard [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | (i.e 80h <=> 81h) by modifying the tables. That's how boot managers, | such as BING and grub, are able to boot off of 81h, 82h,... 8nh. Are you saying there is no field for it on the hard drive itself, but BIOS sets up the table going by where the drive is mounted on the IDE board? These BIOS data tables may be what governs FDISK when it comes to drive enumeration. Also, they likely determine what gets into the partition's BPB at the time FDISK creates a partition. However, I think I know from experience it isn't sufficient to move a hard drive from Drive 2 to Drive 1 to boot it, (not that I think you said so). Moving it may give the hard drive itself an 80h (in the table), but, any partition created (even with BING) while the drive was not Drive 1, will not have an 80h in its BPB (Boot Partition Block)-- & it won't boot! SYS will be needed to fix it. Well, there is now an option in BING to do it too. It may not be necessary to do it when BING is used as the boot manager, though. It likely takes care of the whole thing when its "swap" option is used. In that case, of course, you wouldn't need to physically move the drive, either. | Many later model BIOSs also allow booting from a non-primary master | drive. | Though in that case, the BIOS probably doesn't "swap" table data, but | writes | the data accordingly during the POST. Something has to deal with that BPB too. When I moved a hard drive from Drive 2 to Drive 1, it wouldn't boot until I SYSed it, you may recall. |> I've been thinking the one in the BPB (Boot Partition Block) |> operates on a partition basis. That can be changed using SYS, & SYS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | perhaps | it was an oversight. Maybe they thought the drive would be SYSed in the normal course of events before anyone would try to boot from it. But I didn't, because the bootable partition was a BING created clone. | It does make it easier to physically swap "drives", or raw copy | partitions/drives | to 80h, etc.. without SYSing the volume to correct the value. There is an option in BING to do it too, though I'm not sure whether or not it just works at the time the partition is created. Maybe there is a requestor for it too. Anyhow, every bootable partition should have an 80h in there, I think. Unless there is a secret switch (like those CMBR switches), SYS will always just put 80h in there-- no matter where the partition's drive is mounted. |> |> Furthermore, I'm not sure the standard |> |> code will look beyond HDD0 for an Active partition to boot. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | non-DOS type | active? I've never tried. I don't have one to try it with, but my guess is... probably, considering it does do an Extended. | The only time i ever run fdisk is for | reference. :/ Yea, me too. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net > |> | BIOS HDD0 (fixed disk 80h) will change if your BIOS allows booting > |> | from drives other than the primary master. The fdisk MBR standard [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > BIOS sets up the table going by where the drive is mounted on the IDE > board? Basically..It uses its own logic, but within certain predictable rules. Port, type, drive jumper configuration, boot order... > These BIOS data tables may be what governs FDISK when it comes to > drive enumeration. Also, they likely determine what gets into the > partition's BPB at the time FDISK creates a partition. Fdisk most likely uses the BIOS int 13h disk services, which in turn probably refer to the "Fixed Disk ParameterTable". There's no need to access them directly in most cases. This is old, but explains the gory details. http://www.phoenix.com/NR/rdonlyres/9BEDED98-6B3F-4DAC-BBB7-FA89FA5C30F0/0/specs edd11.pdf |> |> | BIOS HDD0 (fixed disk 80h) will change if your BIOS allows |> |> | booting from drives other than the primary master. The fdisk [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | | This is old, but explains the gory details. http://www.phoenix.com/NR/rdonlyres/9BEDED98-6B3F-4DAC-BBB7-FA89FA5C30F0/0/specs edd11.pdf Eeee-yikes, but thanks for the resource. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" >"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message >The BIOS keeps track of drive information in its own data tables stored in >RAM, which is written during POST. You can effectively "swap" drives (i.e >80h <=> 81h) by modifying the tables. That's how boot managers, >such as BING and grub, are able to boot off of 81h, 82h,... 8nh. >Many later model BIOSs also allow booting from a non-primary master drive. >Though in that case, the BIOS probably doesn't "swap" table data, but writes >the data accordingly during the POST. Nice detail, thanks! >It does make it easier to physically swap "drives", or raw copy partitions/drives >to 80h, etc.. without SYSing the volume to correct the value. SYS has nothing to do with MBR or active partition. - MBR and active partition is system-level, pre-OS - SYS is OS-level (i.e. PBR and file system, no MBR effects) >That's interesting. Perhaps fdisk is type-agnostic. Yes it is, on the matter of setting partitions as active (though it "knows" MS's Extended type should not be active, which is an OS-level awareness; the system couldn't care). I used to automate FDisk from batch files to toggle between PICK and DOS partitions, using re-direction and a carefully-constructed text file of "keystrokes" (must use single-byte CR for "enter") >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Do it once, properly >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - | On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" |>"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | Nice detail, thanks! I still think it isn't sufficient to have a hard drive recognised as 80h (Drive 1) for the purpose of booting a partition on it. The partition to be booted must have an 80h of its own in its (Terabyte's terminology) BPB (Boot Partition Block), which probably is in its (cquirke's terminology) PBR (Partition Boot Record). I know this to be true, because I moved a hard drive to be Drive 1-- & it wouldn't boot until SYS was applied to do that. It originally had an 81h in there, because the partition was created (a BING clone) while the drive was Drive 2. Now, BING has the capability to put an 80h (Drive Number) in the BPB no matter which drive a partition is copied to. One is given the choice, &/or there may be a default that can be set. Could well be BING itself never cared much about the drive number because it rewrote the boot code of the MBR. I vaguely remember it is that MS boot code itself which is the finicky thing with drive number, & I know BING has its own version of it! |>It does make it easier to physically swap "drives", or raw copy |>partitions/drives to 80h, etc.. without SYSing the volume to correct [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | - MBR and active partition is system-level, pre-OS | - SYS is OS-level (i.e. PBR and file system, no MBR effects) Nevertheless, one cannot boot to Windows (98, anyhow) without an 80h in the BPB. |>That's interesting. Perhaps fdisk is type-agnostic. | | Yes it is, on the matter of setting partitions as active (though it | "knows" MS's Extended type should not be active, which is an OS-level | awareness; the system couldn't care). Uhuh. I was trying to turn Active off entirely on Drive 1, just to see whether I could then boot an Active partition on Drive 2. But one can't do that with FDISK, so I made an unbootable one the Active one-- hoping that would do. HOWEVER, one can't even use FDISK to set an Active partition on any drive other than Drive 1. Therefore, the little test had to be aborted! | I used to automate FDisk from batch files to toggle between PICK and | DOS partitions, using re-direction and a carefully-constructed text | file of "keystrokes" (must use single-byte CR for "enter") I probably would have done that too had I been involved with these things back then. |>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - | Do it once, properly |>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net > | On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" > |>"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be booted must have an 80h of its own in its (Terabyte's terminology) > BPB (Boot Partition Block), Or even the misnomed(sic) Bios Parameter Block. But you're correct in that the boot sector also has to contain the correct drive number to boot..80h. > | I used to automate FDisk from batch files to toggle between PICK and > | DOS partitions, using re-direction and a carefully-constructed text > | file of "keystrokes" (must use single-byte CR for "enter") > > I probably would have done that too had I been involved with these > things back then. On my first multi boot system, I changed the boot indicator byte in the tables manually with a disk editor. I got tired of that pretty quick, and got BING. Now I hardly even bother with multi boot...I'm all virtualized. :) |> | On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" |> |>"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | that the boot sector also has to contain the correct drive number to | boot..80h. OK. But I see you were there when this first happened to me long ago. And back then you were calling it "BIOS Parameter Block" too. Maybe that is the right name, but isn't "Boot Partition Block" somewhat more descriptive. Now I see only its initials are used in the BING .pdf-- & it must be me that invented the better name! But I'll go back to "BIOS Parameter Block", if you swear that is right! Can it be both exist-- the one called "parameter" being one of those BIOS tables? Here is the "white paper" Pfeifer came up with back then-- but it has no name that I can see...!... ......Quote Pfeifer.......... | I really don't know the answer to that. Here's what MS says about that | byte in the FAT file system white paper that I have: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | | The Int 0x13 drive number for HD1 (primary slave) is 0x81, but yet they | say 0x80 for hard drives. It looks like they're just using 0x80 as an | example, and so the primary slave should be 0x81. But yet when MS format | (from Win98) is used to format a partition on HD1, it makes that byte | 0x80. BING makes it 0x81....but not always according to you? I haven't | checked that myself, but I think I'm going to have to leave this issue | up to you to work out with Microsoft and Terabyte Unlimited. | | To answer your other post....as I said earlier in the thread, installing | BING is not going to prevent you from booting a drive without it as long | as you know how to make it bootable. You know how to do that now. | | Tom ........EOQ................. He is really a smart one & stuck with me through many a long & windy post to solve the problem-- though I believe he got testy near the end! |> | I used to automate FDisk from batch files to toggle between PICK |> | and DOS partitions, using re-direction and a carefully-constructed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | got BING. Now I hardly even bother with multi boot...I'm all | virtualized. :) Yow. That was extreme. SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net > | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message > |> I still think it isn't sufficient to have a hard drive recognised as > |> 80h (Drive 1) for the purpose of booting a partition on it. The [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > descriptive. Now I see only its initials are used in the BING .pdf-- & > it must be me that invented the better name! Could be! > But I'll go back to "BIOS > Parameter Block", if you swear that is right! Can it be both exist-- the > one called "parameter" being one of those BIOS tables? There are a few parameters in the BPB that relate to BIOS information, but it's an OS construct. Many of the params are file system specific. I don't know where I heard it first,,, it's "common knowledge". :) Here's some proof; Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System Specification http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456 c/fatgen103.doc <quote> Boot Sector and BPB The first important data structure on a FAT volume is called the BPB (BIOS Parameter Block), which is located in the first sector of the volume in the Reserved Region. This sector is sometimes called the “boot sector” or the “reserved sector” or the “0th sector,” </quote> > Here is the "white paper" Pfeifer came up with back then-- but it has no > name that I can see...!... [snip] That was from the same fatgen103.doc > He is really a smart one & stuck with me through many a long & windy > post to solve the problem-- though I believe he got testy near the end! I guess even the smart ones have their limits ;-)) |> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message | [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] | Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System | Specification http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456 c/fatgen103.doc | <quote> | Boot Sector and BPB [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | “reserved sector” or the “0th sector,” | </quote> Uhuh. That is proof enough. "BIOS Parameter Block" it is. All my various names for it in 3 master posts have been fixed. |> Here is the "white paper" Pfeifer came up with back then-- but it |> has no name that I can see...!... | | [snip] | That was from the same fatgen103.doc And I see I had downloaded that document a while ago. Sorry to make you post it to me twice (if that is the full count), but thanks. I'm reading through it again now. I see even "little endian" is in there, but I haven't seen the big chief. |> He is really a smart one & stuck with me through many a long & windy |> post to solve the problem-- though I believe he got testy near the |> end! | | I guess even the smart ones have their limits ;-)) I'm trying to recall whether you've gotten testy yet. I do believe cquirke did once, & of course Terhune had me plonked for quite a while! SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net || Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System || Specification http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456 c/fatgen103.doc | I'm reading through it again now. Sheesh! Not that anyone necessarily said so but me, but that field... BS_DrvNum... isn't in the BPB (BIOS Parameter Block) at all. It's near it, but it is in a part of the Boot Sector that is OUTSIDE the BPB. That is why it does not begin with the letters "BPB". SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net ||> | "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message || [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] || Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System || Specification http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456 c/fatgen103.doc || <quote> || Boot Sector and BPB [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] | PCR | pcrrcp@netzero.net > || Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System > || Specification [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it, but it is in a part of the Boot Sector that is OUTSIDE the BPB. That > is why it does not begin with the letters "BPB". Uh oh.. You'll have to change your master posts again. I've never noticed that. Logically, you'd think DrvNum would be in the BPB. It's the first byte after the BPB. |> || Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System |> || Specification http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/1/161ba512-40e2-4cc9-843a-923143f3456 c/fatgen103.doc |> | I'm reading through it again now. |> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | first byte | after the BPB. Yea, I changed those references to BS (Boot Sector), but may need to further adjust it. I guess I'll end up calling it "Partition Boot Sector" or "Partition Boot Record" (as cquirke may be doing), because there is one per partition. Also, "BS" has a much more popular use. The BPB (BIOS Parameter Block) is a part of the PBS, & it seems to be variable in size depending on which FAT the partition is, FAT32's PBP looking like the largest. Anyhow, the drive number field (BS_DrvNum) is the first field after the end of the BPB wherever that is, just as you said. In the BootItNG.pdf the field is refered to as part of the "BPB"... "Under General, select the Use HD0 in BPB check box to force the BPB drive number to HD0 even when it’s on another drive." SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >Yea, I changed those references to BS (Boot Sector), but may need to >further adjust it. I guess I'll end up calling it "Partition Boot >Sector" or "Partition Boot Record" (as cquirke may be doing), because >there is one per partition. Also, "BS" has a much more popular use. :-) Yep, I switched from "partition boot sector" to "partition boot record" because the FAT32 boot record is 3 sectors long. Mind you, it's not such a great term, as: - each volume has a "PBR", so not only 1 per (extended) partition - many of these volumes are not "bootable" as such As far as booting goes, the boot record can be any size the OS wants it to be, as once the MBR jumps into the PBR code, is entirely up to the PBR code as to what happens next. I think a reason FAT32 stores the "free space" *after* the first sector in the boot record, is to stay sweet with pre-FAT32 heuristics that may mis-interpret writes to the boot sector as "viral" - given that the FAT32 free space value would be frequently updated. >--------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - ...no it's fine, I was disturbed already >--------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |>Yea, I changed those references to BS (Boot Sector), but may need to |>further adjust it. I guess I'll end up calling it "Partition Boot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | Yep, I switched from "partition boot sector" to "partition boot | record" because the FAT32 boot record is 3 sectors long. That seems like a good reason to me. I think I'll make the switch too. Too bad, I've just sugested to Terabyte they replace their reference to BPB with PBS-- & I don't want to go back & do it again. | Mind you, it's not such a great term, as: | - each volume has a "PBR", so not only 1 per (extended) partition | - many of these volumes are not "bootable" as such Sheesh, that's right. Still, I guess it is a boot record-- just one that doesn't function! | As far as booting goes, the boot record can be any size the OS wants | it to be, as once the MBR jumps into the PBR code, is entirely up to | the PBR code as to what happens next. I see. In Win98, that is IO.sys first & Win98 next that will have to deal with it. | I think a reason FAT32 stores the "free space" *after* the first | sector in the boot record, is to stay sweet with pre-FAT32 heuristics | that may mis-interpret writes to the boot sector as "viral" - given | that the FAT32 free space value would be frequently updated. Microsoft wanted to remain compatible with prior FAT versions too when they expanded the PBR. |>--------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - | ...no it's fine, I was disturbed already |>--------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net >| As far as booting goes, the boot record can be any size the OS wants >| it to be, as once the MBR jumps into the PBR code, is entirely up to >| the PBR code as to what happens next. >I see. In Win98, that is IO.sys first & Win98 next that will have to >deal with it. In Win9x, it loads Winboot.sys as code if present, copying that over IO.SYS; else it loads IO.SYS... IO.SYS is then expected to look for certain things before processing Winboot.ini if it exists, else MSDOS.SYS, to see where the rest of the OS is (if loading Windows), or whether it's supposed to load DOS Mode instead (i.e. if BootGUI=0) In NT-family OSs up to but not including Vista, it loads NTLDR, which in turn does with Boot.ini pretty much what IO.SYS does with MSDOS.SYS >| I think a reason FAT32 stores the "free space" *after* the first >| sector in the boot record, is to stay sweet with pre-FAT32 heuristics >| that may mis-interpret writes to the boot sector as "viral" - given >| that the FAT32 free space value would be frequently updated. >Microsoft wanted to remain compatible with prior FAT versions too when >they expanded the PBR. Sort-of; more with av utilities, I expect (as above). >------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break >------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |>| As far as booting goes, the boot record can be any size the OS wants |>| it to be, as once the MBR jumps into the PBR code, is entirely up to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | MSDOS.SYS, to see where the rest of the OS is (if loading Windows), or | whether it's supposed to load DOS Mode instead (i.e. if BootGUI=0) OK, thanks. | In NT-family OSs up to but not including Vista, it loads NTLDR, which | in turn does with Boot.ini pretty much what IO.SYS does with MSDOS.SYS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | Sort-of; more with av utilities, I expect (as above). OK. |>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - | I'm on a ten-year lunch break |>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - SignatureThanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:01:13 -0400, "PCR" >| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" >|>"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message >|>The BIOS keeps track of drive information in its own data tables >|> stored in RAM, which is written during POST. You can effectively >|> "swap" drives (i.e 80h <=> 81h) by modifying the tables. That's >|> how boot managers, such as BING and grub, are able to boot >|> off of 81h, 82h,... 8nh. I've been thinking about this, and I don't think that's how it works (or rather, how it needs to work). >I still think it isn't sufficient to have a hard drive recognised as 80h >(Drive 1) for the purpose of booting a partition on it. The partition to >be booted must have an 80h of its own in its (Terabyte's terminology) >BPB (Boot Partition Block), which probably is in its (cquirke's >terminology) PBR (Partition Boot Record). I don't think so, no (or again, it doesn't have to). BIOS determines what device to boot, and boots it by running code in the first sector of the drive's space (or a virtual equivalent, in the case of CD booting). From then on, the BIOS is out of the picture unless the boot code chooses to call it back in. The code in the first sector of the storage device booted, has full control - it can do whatever it likes. By convention, "diskettes" (or virtual equivalents, such as CD or USB stick boots) will load an OS directly, whereas "hard drives" (which may include USB sticks, Zip disks, etc. if these were set up that way) locate an active partition and run code found in the first sector of that partition. Until an OS is booted, the code that runs is an extension of the system BIOS. The standard MBR code with its 4-slot partition table is the most common system extension, but non-standard partitions etc. can easily be done via different code, e.g. BING. The only thing that constrains what this pre-OS, system-level code can do, is compatibility with OSs that may take an interest in pre-OS code and partition structures. A wildly-non-standard partitioning scheme runs the risk of corruption by an OS that assumes standard partitioning. A way to manage this risk is to keep a fake standard partition table in place, that basically is "immutable" (i.e. claims all space is taken up by alien partition types). As to booting other drives or devices, one can either do this via BIOS (i.e. BIOS is set to boot a different device) or by switching from a system boot code footprint on the device that the BIOS booted. For example, a bootrable Windows CD "falls through" to the first HD if no key is pressed after it is booted by BIOS. For another example, many boot managers such as Grub will include menu options to boot from diskette or CD. Note that these things pay no attention to whatever BIOS boot order is in effect. IOW, when Windows CD boot falls through, it does so directly, rather than by "asking" BIOS what the next boot device should be, or "asking" BIOS to boot the next device. This is important, because it may bypass some BIOS-level swapping schemes. For example, if BIOS enumerates HDs as 0, 1, 2... but is set to boot them in order 1, 0, 2... after no bootable CD is found, then whereas a BIOS HD boot would boot HD1, the CD fall-through will boot HD0 because that's the "first" HD as enumerated. The above is a common issue when S-ATA and IDE HDs are mixed in the same system. Typically, the S-ATA will be set to boot first, but the IDE will be enumerated before the S-ATA, so etc. Finally, the OS may offer boot menus and switch to different drives, partitions or volumes to continue the OS boot process. Both NTLDR and IO.SYS can do this, consulting Boot.ini and MSDOS.SYS or Winboot.ini to find the OS installations, respectively. However, just because the correct device or partition's boot code is executed, does not mean the correct OS will boot correctly. The OS's internal paths may be invalidated by switching drives around, as I suspect was in PCR's case.... >I know this to be true <cough> >because I moved a hard drive to be Drive 1-- & it wouldn't boot until >SYS was applied to do that. It originally had an 81h in there, because >the partition was created (a BING clone) while the drive was Drive 2. SYS is a DOS/Win9x tool that writes partition boot code, IO.SYS and (for pre-Win9x MS-DOS) MSDOS.SYS to the partition, as well as whatever disk compression drivers may apply (i.e. D??SPACE.BIN). I think the "80h", "81h" etc. are not encoded within the drive's partitions or MBR, but are dynamically assigned by BIOS when the drives are discovered. I can't see a mechanism whereby SYS would affect a physical HD swap, in terms of how the BIOS enumerates and boots the HDs. >| SYS has nothing to do with MBR or active partition. >| - MBR and active partition is system-level, pre-OS >| - SYS is OS-level (i.e. PBR and file system, no MBR effects) >Nevertheless, one cannot boot to Windows (98, anyhow) without an 80h in >the BPB. What is the BPB? >I was trying to turn Active off entirely on Drive 1, just to see >whether I could then boot an Active partition on Drive 2. That won't work, unless you also kill the MBR code within the Drive 1, and the next device in the BIOS boot order is Drive 2. Else BIOS will find MBR and enter it, and once that MBR code is running, BIOS never gets back in unless the MBR code is set to chain back to it (which it generally doesn't). You'd get this... - BIOS finds first sector ends in 55AAh boot sig - BIOS runs code in first sector of HD (so bye-bye, BIOS) - MBR code boots, looks for active partition - MBR code finds no active partition, stops with error If you want to boot Drive 2, then you'd either change enumeration of HDs in BIOS boot order, or you'd add non-standard MBR code to Drive 1 that runs the boot code in Drive 2. If you wanted to boot OSs on Drive 2 from a Drive 1 boot, you could do that by having a boot partition on Drive 1 that re-directs to Drive 2 from OS code, i.e. a [Paths] in Winboot.ini or MSDOS.SYS (in the casde of a Win9x) or a Boot.ini that points to the relevant drive and volume (in the case of the NT family of OSs). >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - - The most accurate diagnostic instrument in medicine is the Retrospectoscope >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - - > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:01:13 -0400, "PCR" >>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:00:06 -0400, "Bill Blanton" [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > internal paths may be invalidated by switching drives around, as I > suspect was in PCR's case.... Can I ask a somewhat related question here? I have a USB 2.0 IDE hard drive enclosure being used as a system backup drive (which works great for me). Normally this USB enclosure backup IDE drive is just left connected to the USB port on the computer, but its own power is turned off (by its own power switch on the enclosure - very convenient), and this normally works great for me. It enables me to make a perfect (partition level) backup copy of my C: boot drive in very little time (which I can restore as the occasion arises, as needbe - BTDT). It works great, EXCEPT if I forget to turn it off and then reboot; if I do that, the system tries to boot from the enclosure drive, even though I don't have that explicitly selected in the BIOS sequence (which is as follows: Floppy, ATAPI CDROM, IDE-HDD). In BING, I have not ever set its partition to Active, although admitedly it is a BINGed partition copy of my normal boot drive C: partition. So my question is, is there a simple way to prevent any attempt to boot from the USB IDE enclosure drive unless I enable that option somehow in BIOS?? But the only BIOS options I see available or listed on my Dell system (in the BIOS screen options at bootup) are as follows: Floppy, ARMD-FDD, ARMD-HDD, IDE-HDD, and ATAPI CDROM. Or maybe since the USB enclosure drive is indeed (contains) an IDE drive itself, the BIOS thinks it is available (if it was left powered on) and tries to boot from it first before going to the internal HDD. Is that what's going on? > Can I ask a somewhat related question here? I have a USB 2.0 IDE hard > drive enclosure being used as a system backup drive (which works great for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Floppy, ARMD-FDD, ARMD-HDD, IDE-HDD, and ATAPI CDROM. Try moving the ARMD-HDD after the IDE-HDD. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&oi=definer&q=define:armd-hdd&d efl=en > Or maybe since the USB enclosure drive is indeed (contains) an IDE drive > itself, the BIOS thinks it is available (if it was left powered on) and > tries to boot from it first before going to the internal HDD. Is that > what's going on? I doubt that the BIOS "thinks" it's IDE. If the topmost controller is USB. >> Can I ask a somewhat related question here? I have a USB 2.0 IDE hard >> drive enclosure being used as a system backup drive (which works great for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Try moving the ARMD-HDD after the IDE-HDD. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&oi=definer&q=define:armd-h dd&defl=en >> Or maybe since the USB enclosure drive is indeed (contains) an IDE drive >> itself, the BIOS thinks it is available (if it was left powered on) and >> tries to boot from it first before going to the internal HDD. Is that >> what's going on? > > I doubt that the BIOS "thinks" it's IDE. If the topmost controller is USB. OK. But I don't have either of the two "ARMD choices" selected as it is now. The only ones I *do* have selected in BIOS are: Floppy, ATAPI CDROM, and IDE-HDD, and yet BIOS still tries to use that USB drive (IF I happen to leave it on during bootup) during bootup, which seems kinda weird. However, this is a USB hard disk enclosure, with its own electronics, so who knows? Maybe that's the reason? (It's the Vantec Model). >>> Can I ask a somewhat related question here? I have a USB 2.0 IDE hard >>> drive enclosure being used as a system backup drive (which works great for >>> me). >>> >>> Normally this USB enclosure backup IDE drive is just left connected to the >>> USB port on the computer, but its own power is turned off (by its own power >>> switch on the enclosure - very convenient), and this normally works great >>> for me. It enables me to make a perfect (partition level) backup copy of >>> my C: boot drive in very little time (which I can restore as the occasion >>> arises, as needbe - BTDT). >>> >>> It works great, EXCEPT if I forget to turn it off and then reboot; if I do >>> that, the system tries to boot from the enclosure drive, even though I don't >>> have that explicitly selected in the BIOS sequence (which is as follows: >>> Floppy, ATAPI CDROM, IDE-HDD). In BING, I have not ever set its >>> partition to Active, although admitedly it is a BINGed partition copy of my >>> normal boot drive C: partition. >>> >>> So my question is, is there a simple way to prevent any attempt to boot from >>> the USB IDE enclosure drive unless I enable that option somehow in BIOS?? >>> But the only BIOS options I see available or listed on my Dell system (in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Try moving the ARMD-HDD after the IDE-HDD. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&oi=definer&q=define:armd-h > dd&defl=en >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > However, this is a USB hard disk enclosure, with its own electronics, so who > knows? Maybe that's the reason? (It's the Vantec Model). I just went back and checked, and what I said above was correct regarding the boot device selections (the only ones selected in BIOS) (I'm using a Dell) HOWEVER, when I boot up, I do see "USB Legacy Enabled" appear on the screen (amongst other things) during bootup, and I don't know if that relates to this or not. (I wouldn't think that would override the selected boot devices, though, which specifically do NOT include the USB drive, as I have it set up now) >>>> the BIOS screen options at bootup) are as follows: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > devices, though, which specifically do NOT include the USB drive, as I have > it set up now) Try disabling legacy support. Problem there is that you might have to find drivers for Windows, and BING might not see the drive. Depending on whether or not legacy support is all encompassing, or if you can select individual devices, it could also affect (disable) a USB mouse. >> HOWEVER, when I boot up, I do see "USB Legacy Enabled" appear on the screen >> (amongst other things) during bootup, and I don't know if that relates to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whether or not legacy support is all encompassing, or if you can select > individual devices, it could also affect (disable) a USB mouse. ..And an USB keyboard. I think you can get back in to the BIOS with a USB kb after disabling legacy support, but am not positive. Be aware..or have a spare Ps/2 kb on hand. >>>>> the BIOS screen options at bootup) are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Floppy, ARMD-FDD, ARMD-HDD, IDE-HDD, and ATAPI CDROM. >>>> >>>> Try moving the ARMD-HDD after the IDE-HDD. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&oi=definer&q=define:armd-h >>> dd&defl=en >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> >>>> I doubt that the BIOS "thinks" it's IDE. If the topmost controller is USB. >>> OK. But I don't have either of the two "ARMD choices" selected as it >>> is now. >>> The only ones I *do* have selected in BIOS are: Floppy, ATAPI CDROM, >>> and IDE-HDD, and yet BIOS still tries to use that USB drive (IF I happen to >>> leave it on during bootup) during bootup, which seems kinda weird. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> HOWEVER, when I boot up, I do see "USB Legacy Enabled" appear on the >> screen (amongst other things) during bootup, and I don't know if that relates to >> this or not. (I wouldn't think that would override the selected boot >> devices, though, which specifically do NOT include the USB drive, as I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whether or not legacy support is all encompassing, or if you can select > individual devices, it could also affect (disable) a USB mouse. Well, I suppose I could disable it (if I can find that specific option in BIOS), but it doesn't sound like a very good idea, for all the reasons you've mentioned. In the Final Analysis, it's probably best if I leave it as it is, and just be sure the USB drive is not on during bootup (which normally isn't a problem, since the ONLY reason I have and use this USB drive enclosure is for system backups). Still, I was a bit surprised by all this, since I *had* disabled that USB bootup option in the BIOS boot device list. But thanks for all the info, Bill. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message