Folow-up on Can't boot win98! Sectors not found Dos error, right?

I think I brought parts of this up in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general so I've included them in the
follow-up, now that everything works.

In short, Sector errors in win98 partition and inability to start
win98 solved by running MS Windows Defrag from within XP partition.

Details follow:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:52:22 -0400, mm
wrote:

Can't boot win98! Sectors not found Dos error, right?

I've posted before about the problems I've had booting to win98SE,
after I used Easeus*** to shrink the win98 partition, and I've made
progress**, and I can now boot to Win98 DOS.

To recap, I have dual boot, 98 and XP and my first step in fixing the
problle is explained fairly far below in the quoted text with four
asterisks****.

I was always able to access every file in the win98 partition C from
within XP, which is in its own partition D.

But then I was at this point:
But I get a DOS error if I try to do much when I'm there. If I try
to continue on to the Windows of win98, it loads a lot of the things
it is supposed to load, but eventually I get

Sector not found reading drive C:
Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?

Since the problem started when I used Easeus Partition Master** to
make a win98 partition smaller, after I moved data to its own
partition, I thought maybe I could just readjust the partition size,
even just a little bit, with a partition program that wouldn't screw
up win98, for example, Partition Manager 8, which was written when
win98 was king.

But before I did that, I wanted to put all the empty space at the rear
of the partition, so I thought I would use winXP defrag.

After I ran Defrag, I tried to boot to win98 again, just to be sure
which step fixed it, and voila, it worked fine after the defrag. I
guess the files I couldn't access in win98 DOS were all moved around,
to good addresses, or something like that. Maybe you DOS people know
what fixed it?


IIRC, some people suggested that the harddrive was going bad, because
of the sector errors, but I've seen no sign of that in the ensuing
weeks, and the drive is still listed as healthy by SMART.


**I think the System Requirements and what little other documentation
there is for Easeus PM is cryptic and misleading. It says that it
runs on winXP, and doesn't list win98, but it doesn't say that one
can't change the size of a fat32 partition that happens to hold win98
without screwing up the win98. I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most people
know that the contents of a partition would complicate resizing,
especially when a partition is being shortened at the end, not the
beginning where some important files are. So be warned that Easeus PM
won't work with win98.

Thank you all for your help.


The rest of the story, before I fixed it:
If I use the Win98 boot menu and only load DOS, I get a similar sector
error when I try to Edit many but not all normally editable files in
the win98 partition. Like .txt, .bat, and .ini files.

I can provide more details if necessary, the exact text of the error
message Edit gives, the files that I can edit versus the ones I can't,
the log of my boot attempt, the error messages when trying to do a
step-by-step start of win98, whatever you want, but maybe this is
enough.

Any suggestions what is wrong?

Help is much appreciated.


**Background. I have multi-boot with win98 in partition C: and winXP
in partition D:. Everything was fine afaik until I used Easeus
partition software to shrink the win98 partition. At that point, I
could get to the multi-boot menu but couldn't reach win98 at all.

****
People on the XP newsgroup showed me how to SYS C:, then use DOS Debug
to copy the C: boot sector to bootsect.dos, then to use the XP
Recovery Console FIXBOOT C: to restore the C: bootsector back to what
it was, that is, so it points somehow to the boot.ini, the multi-boot
menu. After that, I could boot to winXP or to the DOS of Win98.


*** I'm 99% sure that Easeus Partition Master got me into this mess.
I also found someone else who said it caused no-start with win98. It
runs under 2000, XP and newer, but it didnt' say it couldn't handle a
winw98 partition while doing so. I"m sure it will do fine, running out
ot XP, with FAT32 etc. when the partition is empty, but it seems that
the boot sector varies with the OS, according to Partition Manager 8,
and they wrote that when there was no reason to exaggerate. That is,
I don't think there was much competition that didn't also fully
support win98.

mm wrote:
I think I brought parts of this up in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general so I've included them in the
follow-up, now that everything works.

In short, Sector errors in win98 partition and inability to start
win98 solved by running MS Windows Defrag from within XP partition.

Like Hot-text, I'm glad you got it fixed. It's a mystery to me how XP
was always able to read files that presumably were in unreadable
clusters (as you posit below), even before the Defrag was run. That's
why I think it must be something else that fixed it -- but glad you got
it working. And thanks for the warning about Easeus. It does sound to be
the troublemaker, all right, as you posted elsewhere...

http://www.partition-tool.com/easeus...r/help/faq.htm
EASEUS Partition Master FAQ
====Quote=====
6. Both Windows XP and Windows 98 are installed, after resize/move the
partition of Windows 98 under Windows XP, and restarting the computer, I
cannot enter Windows 98 normally. Why?

Cause:
Moving or resizing the partition of the system cannot be allowed by
leading ways of Windows 9X.

Advice:
1. Please do not move or resize the partitions of Windows 9X, ME.
2. Please do not create or delete the partition in front of the system
partition of Windows 9X , ME.
====EOQ=======

That is sufficiently decipherable to mean it isn't for use with Win9x --
but I do understand your decision (before reading that) to try it,
thinking a 9x partition couldn't be different than an XP partition in
structure. I guess I would have made the same decision, if I had to.
Terabyte's BootItNG is obviously the superior product, as it works no
matter what OS is installed.

Details follow:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:52:22 -0400, mm
wrote:

Can't boot win98! Sectors not found Dos error, right?

I've posted before about the problems I've had booting to win98SE,
after I used Easeus*** to shrink the win98 partition, and I've made
progress**, and I can now boot to Win98 DOS.

To recap, I have dual boot, 98 and XP and my first step in fixing the
problle is explained fairly far below in the quoted text with four
asterisks****.

I was always able to access every file in the win98 partition C from
within XP, which is in its own partition D.

But then I was at this point:
But I get a DOS error if I try to do much when I'm there. If I try
to continue on to the Windows of win98, it loads a lot of the things
it is supposed to load, but eventually I get

Sector not found reading drive C:
Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?

That's one of the scariest! And yet XP was able to access the files --
very mysterious! Good going on finding that solution!


Since the problem started when I used Easeus Partition Master** to
make a win98 partition smaller, after I moved data to its own
partition, I thought maybe I could just readjust the partition size,
even just a little bit, with a partition program that wouldn't screw
up win98, for example, Partition Manager 8, which was written when
win98 was king.

But before I did that, I wanted to put all the empty space at the rear
of the partition, so I thought I would use winXP defrag.

After I ran Defrag, I tried to boot to win98 again, just to be sure
which step fixed it, and voila, it worked fine after the defrag. I
guess the files I couldn't access in win98 DOS were all moved around,
to good addresses, or something like that. Maybe you DOS people know
what fixed it?

I believe Defrag rewrites the FAT tables -- but why would XP be able to
read the files even before it did the Defrag & Win98/DOS only afterward?

IIRC, some people suggested that the harddrive was going bad, because
of the sector errors, but I've seen no sign of that in the ensuing
weeks, and the drive is still listed as healthy by SMART.

I guess that most horrible of error messages you got was a false
alarm -- very lucky!

**I think the System Requirements and what little other documentation
there is for Easeus PM is cryptic and misleading. It says that it
runs on winXP, and doesn't list win98, but it doesn't say that one
can't change the size of a fat32 partition that happens to hold win98
without screwing up the win98.

I would have made the same assumption -- it seems reasonable!

I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most people
know that the contents of a partition would complicate resizing,
especially when a partition is being shortened at the end, not the
beginning where some important files are. So be warned that Easeus PM
won't work with win98.

Thanks for the warning.

Thank you all for your help.


The rest of the story, before I fixed it:
If I use the Win98 boot menu and only load DOS, I get a similar sector
error when I try to Edit many but not all normally editable files in
the win98 partition. Like .txt, .bat, and .ini files.

I can provide more details if necessary, the exact text of the error
message Edit gives, the files that I can edit versus the ones I can't,
the log of my boot attempt, the error messages when trying to do a
step-by-step start of win98, whatever you want, but maybe this is
enough.

Any suggestions what is wrong?

Help is much appreciated.


**Background. I have multi-boot with win98 in partition C: and winXP
in partition D:. Everything was fine afaik until I used Easeus
partition software to shrink the win98 partition. At that point, I
could get to the multi-boot menu but couldn't reach win98 at all.

****
People on the XP newsgroup showed me how to SYS C:, then use DOS Debug
to copy the C: boot sector to bootsect.dos, then to use the XP
Recovery Console FIXBOOT C: to restore the C: bootsector back to what
it was, that is, so it points somehow to the boot.ini, the multi-boot
menu. After that, I could boot to winXP or to the DOS of Win98.


*** I'm 99% sure that Easeus Partition Master got me into this mess.
I also found someone else who said it caused no-start with win98. It
runs under 2000, XP and newer, but it didnt' say it couldn't handle a
winw98 partition while doing so. I"m sure it will do fine, running out
ot XP, with FAT32 etc. when the partition is empty, but it seems that
the boot sector varies with the OS, according to Partition Manager 8,
and they wrote that when there was no reason to exaggerate. That is,
I don't think there was much competition that didn't also fully
support win98.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Mr. PCR

Now I'll MM of The GAG, THE GRAPHICAL BOOT MANAGER

http://gag.sourceforge.net/

Allows boot of up to 9 different operating systems.
It can boot operating systems installed in primary and extended partitions
on any available hard disk.
Can be installed from nearly all operating systems.

it only with I can boot to ME for it's on C: just like 98
With GAG I can Hide the Primary 98 Partition and run ME on C: cool Hmm!

In message , PCR
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most people
know that the contents of a partition would complicate resizing,
especially when a partition is being shortened at the end, not the
beginning where some important files are. So be warned that Easeus PM
won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it can
write stuff: 98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff near the
end of the "disc" while it's operating, and presumably other aspects of
the OS need to know the size available too (for example whatever it is
that tells you you've run out of disc space when you try to create, or
copy in, a very large file). There are two ways this information (size
of space available) can be obtained: either the OS keeps a note,
somewhere in itself, of how much space is available, or it goes to look
every time it needs to know, either by testing or by interrogating the
partition table. If it uses the first method (a note of the size within
itself), then if someone reduces the size "without telling it",
something will break. (Thinking about it, it cold even write outside its
own partition and corrupt what is now in the next partition.) Both
methods have their disadvantages: storing the information locally is
prone to changes external to the OS breaking it, but having to check
externally (potentially at every disc write) cold have a significant
performance hit.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in; if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses internal
notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any partition
managing software that is going to be able to safely relocate/resize it
is going to have to have internal knowledge of the OS, and adjust those
internal notes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If vegetarians eat vegetables,..beware of humanitarians!

Hot-Text wrote:
Mr. PCR

Now I'll MM of The GAG, THE GRAPHICAL BOOT MANAGER

http://gag.sourceforge.net/

Allows boot of up to 9 different operating systems.
It can boot operating systems installed in primary and extended
partitions on any available hard disk.
Can be installed from nearly all operating systems.

it only with I can boot to ME for it's on C: just like 98
With GAG I can Hide the Primary 98 Partition and run ME on C: cool
Hmm!

It looks interesting. It doesn't claim to do as much as BootItNG,
though, such as partitioning & resizing.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , PCR
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system & hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for copy
protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And I've used
the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no ill effect
that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS & onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where that
table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters & whether they are
currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how much
of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere -- I
think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of the
partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge of
the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the FAT),
but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files with XP
that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run. The Defrag
fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space note in the
PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the FAT
tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of the
OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In ,
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system& hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for copy
protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And I've used
the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no ill effect
that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS& onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where that
table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters& whether they are
currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how much
of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere -- I
think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of the
partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge of
the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the FAT),
but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files with XP
that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run. The Defrag
fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space note in the
PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the FAT
tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of the
OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x partition
with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out at the start
of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the Bootsect.dos
file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition is resized and
it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems the
W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT boot
sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer you boot
using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot loader, if
you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the bootsect.dos file,
which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that the file was not
updated when the partition was resized it will fail, you need to rebuild
this file to reflect the changes in the partition.

John

On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In ,
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system& hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for copy
protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And I've used
the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no ill effect
that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS& onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where that
table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters& whether they are
currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how much
of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere -- I
think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of the
partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge of
the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the FAT),
but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files with XP
that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run. The Defrag
fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space note in the
PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the FAT
tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of the
OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x partition
with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out at the start
of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the Bootsect.dos
file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition is resized and
it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems the
W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT boot
sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer you boot
using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot loader, if
you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the bootsect.dos file,
which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that the file was not
updated when the partition was resized it will fail, you need to rebuild
this file to reflect the changes in the partition.

John

On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In ,
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system& hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for copy
protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And I've used
the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no ill effect
that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS& onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where that
table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters& whether they are
currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how much
of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere -- I
think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of the
partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge of
the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the FAT),
but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files with XP
that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run. The Defrag
fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space note in the
PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the FAT
tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of the
OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x partition
with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out at the start
of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the Bootsect.dos
file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition is resized and
it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems the
W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT boot
sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer you boot
using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot loader, if
you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the bootsect.dos file,
which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that the file was not
updated when the partition was resized it will fail, you need to rebuild
this file to reflect the changes in the partition.

John

Mr. PCR
I burn up my free post at aioe
so I at a new IP LOOL

No partitioning & resizing, Just a BOOTER!


I going to plug my USB WinTV in to the Voodoo TV card on that PC and make a
video of the setup of the GAG.
For it is just a Boot manager, it's good for, if you copy a OS from one HDD
C: to Sec. HDD D: The GRAPHICAL BOOT MANAGER will open it as if it's on C:

all partitions can be C:
HDD 2gb Win95, HDD 20gb win98, HDD 30gb WinME, HDD 40gb win2000,
Buy a HDD 130gb, make 5 partitions copy to the OS to the partitions and it
can be the 2000 first for GAG will Boot All as if on C: cool toy Hmm

In message , John John - MVP
writes:
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of the
OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x
partition with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out at
the start of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the
Bootsect.dos file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition
is resized and it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems
the W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT boot
sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer you
boot using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot
loader, if you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the
bootsect.dos file, which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that
the file was not updated when the partition was resized it will fail,
you need to rebuild this file to reflect the changes in the partition.
[]
And the FAT table, if that stores either absolute size or any absolute
addresses?

In case I should ever need to resize a '98 partition, what's the easiest
way to rebuild this file, and the FAT if necessary?

(If it _isn't_ a multiboot system, presumably only the FAT would need
rebuilding.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"So, I take it you've ... been with a man before?" "I'm a virgin. I'm just not
very good at it." Topper Harley & Ramada Thompson (Charlie Sheen & Valeria
Golino), in "Hot Shots!" (1991).

Hot-Text wrote:
Mr. PCR
I burn up my free post at aioe
so I at a new IP LOOL

If you say so, but you're properties still say...
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

No partitioning & resizing, Just a BOOTER!

OK. That's what it looked like, yeah.

I going to plug my USB WinTV in to the Voodoo TV card on that PC and
make a video of the setup of the GAG.

They showed pictures of it at the site you posted. It looked OK.

For it is just a Boot manager, it's good for, if you copy a OS from
one HDD C: to Sec. HDD D: The GRAPHICAL BOOT MANAGER will open it as
if it's on C:

Very good. BootItNG can do that too.

all partitions can be C:
HDD 2gb Win95, HDD 20gb win98, HDD 30gb WinME, HDD 40gb win2000,
Buy a HDD 130gb, make 5 partitions copy to the OS to the partitions
and it can be the 2000 first for GAG will Boot All as if on C: cool
toy Hmm

Very nice. Glad you found something to keep you busy & to enjoy.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

John John - MVP wrote:
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In ,
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case)
that have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are,
which could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any
more, but even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system& hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for
copy protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And
I've used the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no
ill effect that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS& onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where
that table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters& whether
they are currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how
much of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere
-- I think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of
the partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is
the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge
of the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the
FAT), but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files
with XP that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run.
The Defrag fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space
note in the PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition
it's operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the
FAT tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of
the OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x
partition with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out
at the start of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the
Bootsect.dos file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition
is resized and it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems
the W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT
boot sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer
you boot using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot
loader, if you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the
bootsect.dos file, which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that
the file was not updated when the partition was resized it will fail,
you need to rebuild this file to reflect the changes in the partition.

John

What is it about Bootsect.dos that needs adjusting over a resize? Has it
grabbed the free space notation? A quick Google search shows
Bootsect.dos is mainly about IO.sys (to boot Win98), & that SYS will
restore it.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

On 11/28/2010 03:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case) that
have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are, which
could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any more, but
even if they don't ...

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it can
write stuff: 98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff near the
end of the "disc" while it's operating, and presumably other aspects of
the OS need to know the size available too (for example whatever it is
that tells you you've run out of disc space when you try to create, or
copy in, a very large file). There are two ways this information (size
of space available) can be obtained: either the OS keeps a note,
somewhere in itself, of how much space is available, or it goes to look
every time it needs to know, either by testing or by interrogating the
partition table. If it uses the first method (a note of the size within
itself), then if someone reduces the size "without telling it",
something will break. (Thinking about it, it cold even write outside its
own partition and corrupt what is now in the next partition.) Both
methods have their disadvantages: storing the information locally is
prone to changes external to the OS breaking it, but having to check
externally (potentially at every disc write) cold have a significant
performance hit.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition it's
operating in; if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses internal
notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any partition
managing software that is going to be able to safely relocate/resize it
is going to have to have internal knowledge of the OS, and adjust those
internal notes.

FAT32 keeps a record of the free cluster count and the next free cluster
on disk in the FSInfo sector. FAT and FAT12 don't keep this record on disk.

The partition size and location are kept in the partition table as
absolute values. The volume size (which should match the partition table
size value) is kept in the volume boot sector as a sector count. There's
no location value in the boot sector to say where itself is. Volume boot
sector pointers to the FAT, root dir cluster, and the backup boot sector
are all relative to the start of the partition/volume.

Moving a FAT partition should be easy. Just adjust the values in the
partition table and move the bytes.

If you resize, you have to adjust the FAT size. If FAT"16" then also
take into consideration the relative fixed location of the root dir and
move that. "In the way" file and dir clusters, immediately following
the FATs, have to be moved.,, You need to keep track of the data
clusters that are being moved so you can update the FAT's cluster
pointers. If your partition manager offers, and you accept to change the
cluster size along with everything else, then pray ;-)

It's not impossible of course, but whenever I want to resize a volume I
prefer to create a new empty volume and copy the files over, and/or
clone the volume before the resize. Of course many times you don't have
the luxury of that much space.

On 12/2/2010 02:05, PCR wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:
On 11/29/2010 9:26 PM, PCR wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In ,
writes:
mm wrote:
[]
I've learned that I'm not the only one
whose computer has been screwed up by this. I don't think most
people know that the contents of a partition would complicate
resizing, especially when a partition is being shortened at the
end, not the beginning where some important files are. So be
warned that Easeus PM won't work with win98.
[]
I suppose there could be some aspects of an OS (98 in this case)
that have absolute addresses on the disc of where some things are,
which could confuse it if suddenly they aren't at those places any
more, but even if they don't ...

I know Defrag will not move files with both the system& hidden
attribute on. The reason for that could be to protect an absolute
location for a file that some 3rd party software has deposited for
copy protection reasons. But I don't know of anything specific. And
I've used the /p switch of Defrag (that moves the unmoveables) to no
ill effect that I've detected.

an OS has to know how big a partition it is on, so it knows where it
can write stuff:

That seems reasonable to me. There may be BIOS& onboard HDD firmware
involved too, but surely the OS needs to know.

98's own defrag, for example, puts a lot of stuff
near the end of the "disc" while it's operating,

Right. I've watched that more than a few times. I believe Defrag has
gotten its information from the FAT table, but I'm not sure where
that table is kept. It depicts all the available clusters& whether
they are currently in use or not, IIRC.

and presumably other
aspects of the OS need to know the size available too (for example
whatever it is that tells you you've run out of disc space when you
try to create, or copy in, a very large file). There are two ways
this information (size of space available) can be obtained: either
the OS keeps a note, somewhere in itself, of how much space is
available, or it goes to look every time it needs to know, either by
testing or by interrogating the partition table.

The partition table can tell the size of the partition, but not how
much of it is used. But there is a note kept of free space somewhere
-- I think in the PBR (Partition Boot Record), an area in front of
the partition. However, the most up-to-date source of space used is
the FAT.

If it uses the first
method (a note of the size within itself), then if someone reduces
the size "without telling it", something will break.

I guess you are right. Easeus had somehow screwed Win98's knowledge
of the partition size after resizing it (possibly not updating the
FAT), but somehow not WinXP's knowledge. MM was able to read files
with XP that were unreadable through Win98, until a Defrag was run.
The Defrag fixed the FAT for Win98 (& possibly even the free space
note in the PBR).

(Thinking about
it, it cold even write outside its own partition and corrupt what is
now in the next partition.) Both methods have their disadvantages:
storing the information locally is prone to changes external to the
OS breaking it, but having to check externally (potentially at every
disc write) cold have a significant performance hit.

That is a conundrum -- speed or precision.

I don't know which method '9x uses to "know" how big a partition
it's operating in;

And it needs to know how much of that is free as well. It's in the
FAT tables.

if it does use an "internal note" (and if it uses
internal notes of absolute disc positions of anything), then any
partition managing software that is going to be able to safely
relocate/resize it is going to have to have internal knowledge of
the OS, and adjust those internal notes.

Yep. I think you've got it. That's what Easeus got wrong for Win98.

When Windows 98 is in a dual boot configuration with NT operating
systems you will run in the same problem if you resize the W9x
partition with just about any partition tool. This was pointed out
at the start of the other discussion thread, the problem is with the
Bootsect.dos file, this file becomes invalid if the DOS/W9x partition
is resized and it will then fail to boot properly.

When arranged in a dual boot configuration with NT operating systems
the W9x boot sector is copied to the Bootsect.dos file then the NT
boot sector is written to the partition. When you boot the computer
you boot using the NT boot sector which then launches the Ntldr boot
loader, if you select to boot Windows 98 ntldr will load the
bootsect.dos file, which is a copy of the W9x boot sector, being that
the file was not updated when the partition was resized it will fail,
you need to rebuild this file to reflect the changes in the partition.

John

What is it about Bootsect.dos that needs adjusting over a resize? Has it
grabbed the free space notation? A quick Google search shows
Bootsect.dos is mainly about IO.sys (to boot Win98),& that SYS will
restore it.

Total sectors in the volume.
FAT size.

Those are the biggest factors. The data region's starting location,
where a cluster's "relative" value points to, is computed from the FAT
size,, as it immediately follows the FATs.