Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Mon 28 Jul 2014, 02:42
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects
Lucid Puppy 5.2.8 - Updated ISO Version 005 - APR 05 2012
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 87 of 189 [2829 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, ..., 187, 188, 189 Next
Author Message
LateAdopter

Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 147
Location: Reading UK

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 10:28    Post subject:
Subject description: Partitions & Win2k
 

Hello otropogo

Since this is way off topic I will be very brief.

The Win2k installer does not understand 48 bit addressing. You get that error message when trying to install with any partition involved which goes past 137GB ( including the extended container). You also have to EnableBigLBA in the registry after install for 48 bit addressing to work.

The entries in the partition table can be in any order. gparted does them in the order you entered them regardless of where the primary partitions are on the disk. But windows disk manager will reorder them if you use it to modify anything and the sda numbers will change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
otropogo


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Southern Rocky Mt. Trench

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 13:58    Post subject:
Subject description: Partitions & Win2k
 

LateAdopter wrote:
Hello otropogo

Since this is way off topic I will be very brief.

The Win2k installer does not understand 48 bit addressing. You get that error message when trying to install with any partition involved which goes past 137GB ( including the extended container). You also have to EnableBigLBA in the registry after install for 48 bit addressing to work.

The entries in the partition table can be in any order. gparted does them in the order you entered them regardless of where the primary partitions are on the disk. But windows disk manager will reorder them if you use it to modify anything and the sda numbers will change.


Hi LateAdopter,

Thanks for your explanation. But I'm not quite clear about your statement:

Quote:
You get that error message when trying to install with any partition involved which goes past 137GB ( including the extended container).


because:

1. initially I tried to install only to a primary partition modestly sized at 10GB, NOT >137GB

2. eventually I tried to install to the second hard drive, which contained no partition as large as 137GB,

Did you mean to say that Win2K can't install to any hdd larger than 137GB? Or perhaps to any hdd with a contiguous unallocated area >137GB?

And I feel it IS a lupu5.2.8 issue, in that all of the available partitioning tools failed to provide any support.

The fact that I had to resort to a PartedMagic installation booted from a rescue disk is, I feel, a fact demanding very serious consideration. The fact that PartedMagic reported no issues with either drive or any of their partitions, makes the failure of all of lupu's bundled partition managers all the more significant.

The other issue, which may be outside the scope of this thread, as you suggest, is the fact that Win2K failed to recognize the ntfs partition freshly created by PartedMagic.

But you haven't addressed that issue...

_________________
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
LateAdopter

Joined: 27 May 2011
Posts: 147
Location: Reading UK

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 14:44    Post subject:  

Hello otropogo

I have installed win2k and various puppies to a 320GB SATA drive. I partitioned it using the gparted that is in Lupu 525.

I don't know where the win2k installer goes wrong exactly, but it will not understand any sector address on the disk that is more than 137GB. So I speculate that anything that involves an address higher than that will fail or produce unpredictable results.

In my case I was installing to a 5GB extended logical partition that was all below 137GB on the disk, but it failed. The extended container partition defined in the MBR went right to the end of the disk i.e.320GB. I reduced this to below 137GB and then the install worked. Having done EnableBigLBA in win2k I then used gparted to increase it back to its full size again.

It was when I used win2k disk manager to create and format two ntfs extended logical partitions that it reordered the entries in the partition table in the MBR. Which was confusing to puppies and humans alike!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 5000
Location: Charleston S.C. USA

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:38    Post subject:  

otropogo wrote:
The other issue, which may be outside the scope of this thread, as you suggest, is the fact that Win2K failed to recognize the ntfs partition freshly created by PartedMagic.

This is normal with Windows. Especially Windows installer program. The only ntfs partitions that it will recognize are ones made by Windows partition programs. Third party programs, you pay for, get the secret code Windows is looking for on the partition.
I have read reference to some kind of security code Windows wants to see.
Gparted will handle ntfs format, but being open source, it does not have 100% support from Microsoft, like pay for partition programs do. It does not give Microsoft money for the secret code Windows looks for.
Any time you use Gparted to re-size a ntfs partition that Windows is installed on, you have to use Windows boot disc or repair disc to do a repair operation.
Explained here:
Talks about Vista and Windows 7, but holds true for any Windows.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/using-gparted-to-resize-your-windows-vista-partition/

_________________
I have found, in trying to help people, that the things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
otropogo


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Southern Rocky Mt. Trench

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 18:04    Post subject:  

Thanks bigpup,

This may explain many, perhaps all, of the major Windows problems I've had over several years, not just with Gparted, but perhaps also from using Ranish Partition Manager.

_________________
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
otropogo


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Southern Rocky Mt. Trench

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 18:46    Post subject:  

LateAdopter wrote:
Hello otropogo

I have installed win2k and various puppies to a 320GB SATA drive. I partitioned it using the gparted that is in Lupu 525.

I don't know where the win2k installer goes wrong exactly, but it will not understand any sector address on the disk that is more than 137GB. So I speculate that anything that involves an address higher than that will fail or produce unpredictable results.

In my case I was installing to a 5GB extended logical partition that was all below 137GB on the disk, but it failed. The extended container partition defined in the MBR went right to the end of the disk i.e.320GB. I reduced this to below 137GB and then the install worked. Having done EnableBigLBA in win2k I then used gparted to increase it back to its full size again.

It was when I used win2k disk manager to create and format two ntfs extended logical partitions that it reordered the entries in the partition table in the MBR. Which was confusing to puppies and humans alike!


Encouraging news, but unfortunately it makes the error messages and lockups I got during installation even more mysterious. From your experience it follows that the size of any unallocated space is not a factor. So I should have been able to install to my pre-created ntfs partition.

Of course I didn't use lupu's Gparted, since it won't open (ever) on my system. Nor could I use pdisk's utilities, as fdisk warned of a possible problem (on both hdds) with the cylinder count being thirty times the "normal" maximum 30401 vs 1024),

I wonder if anyone else is getting this error message from pdisk/fdisk on drives larger than 139GB?

and cfdisk warning for hdd0,

Quote:
FATAL ERROR: Bad primary partition 2:partition ends in the final partial cylind
Press any key to exit cfdsk


The line cannot be scrolled, to read the portion that's cut off, nor can the window be maximized or resized. Any of these attempts shuts down pdisk.

With hdd1 cfdisk performs normally. But these inadequacies make me leery of using either utility. It seems to me that to be usable, a disk utility should at least be able to meaningfully identify any problems with a drive and preferably be able to fix them or at least suggest another solution. The fact that the PartedMagic rescue LiveCD reported no issues with either drive's partitioning system or cyclinder count does nothing to allay this concern.

_________________
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
kevin bowers

Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue 13 Mar 2012, 22:58    Post subject:  

otropogo wrote:


Of course I didn't use lupu's Gparted, since it won't open (ever) on my system. Nor could I use pdisk's utilities, as fdisk warned of a possible problem (on both hdds) with the cylinder count being thirty times the "normal" maximum 30401 vs 1024),

I wonder if anyone else is getting this error message from pdisk/fdisk on drives larger than 139GB?


There was a problem in DOS with drives >32GB, and that is where that error warning came from. I thought it was fixed from WinME on, but perhaps Win2K missed it? Microsoft issued a hotfix for Win98, but it caused more problems than it solved, as the actual problem was just a technicality and didn't affect the usability of the drive or system. All it amounted to was that FDISK reported some sizes wrong, and it could safely be ignored, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
otropogo


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Southern Rocky Mt. Trench

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 00:39    Post subject:  

kevin bowers wrote:
...

There was a problem in DOS with drives >32GB, and that is where that error warning came from. ...All it amounted to was that FDISK reported some sizes wrong, and it could safely be ignored, so I wouldn't worry about that.


What worries me is that pdisk/fdisk reports one problem, while pdisk/cfdisk another. Evidently, one of these modules is defective, perhaps both.

Not something I want to bet my data on.

The fact that lupu's Gparted won't run at all, worries me too. It suggests that there's something about my hard drive configuration that none of them are equipped to handle.

_________________
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
ICPUG

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 1289
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 08:57    Post subject:  

IF
you want to create/modify/delete ntfs partitions that are to be useable
by windows and linux
THEN
use Windows partitioning tools
ELSEIF
you want to create/modify/delete ntfs partitions that are to be useable
by only linux
THEN
you can use Linux partitioning tools
ENDIF

Once you stray from this logic then behaviour becomes unknown and perhaps it is better to start from scratch - partition with the right tool and reinstall your operating systems.

My ntfs partitions are always useable by both Windows and Linux so I use Windows partitioning tools.

Once the partitions are there I have found writing to them with Linux to be no problem despite the dire warnings of the Knoppix community (and the occasional commentator here)!

This is a problem not specific to Lupu. It should be in a more general forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Sylvander

Joined: 15 Dec 2008
Posts: 3400
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:06    Post subject:  

A.
ICPUG wrote:
IF
you want to create/modify/delete ntfs partitions that are to be useable
by windows and linux
THEN
use Windows partitioning tools
ELSEIF
you want to create/modify/delete ntfs partitions that are to be useable
by only linux
THEN
you can use Linux partitioning tools
ENDIF

I discovered an example of the truth of this quite some time back, as follows:
1. I used Puppy->Gparted to create a FAT32 partition, on which to install Win2000Pro...
BUT...

2. I discovered during the installation of Win2000Pro...
At the point where all the files SEEM to have been installed...
And there is a reboot to load the Windows installation...
The Windows SETUP goes right back to the start, and begins afresh.
This happens in a continuous loop.
Win2000Pro would NEVER have finished the installation process.

3. It seemed the only way I could fix it, was to partition and format using Microsoft programs.
I used a bootable floppy->[Bob Cerelli's Win98 Startup Floppy], and ran fdisk.exe and format.com

B. Another time I discovered:
When I used Puppy->Gparted to non-destructively reduce the size of an NTFS partition holding an installation of WinXP...
XP would no longer boot!
I had to use TestDisk to recover/repair the Windows partition, so XP would boot once again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
otropogo


Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Southern Rocky Mt. Trench

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:12    Post subject:  

Interesting news, albeit somewhat late for me.

The obvious question though is, why would anyone create, or incorporate into a Linux distribution, a partitioning program certain functions of which are guaranteed to fatally sabotage the user's Windows system eventually without his even being aware of this until it's too late?

_________________
otropogo@gmail.com facebook.com/otropogo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Aitch


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 6825
Location: Chatham, Kent, UK

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 12:11    Post subject:  

The simple and should-be-obvious answer to that, is because M$ don't want linux users to succeed with using non-M$ tools Sad
What once may have worked will be messed up ASAP by the Microsloth every time, in my experience

Aitch Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
playdayz


Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 3788

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 14:40    Post subject:  

Firefox 11 Release

http://diddywahdiddy.net/Puppy500/Firefox-11-Lucid.pet

A couple of the files are improved in this pet versus the Firefox 10 pet, so it is recommended to use this one. Specifically /usr/bin/firefox and /usr/local/bin/defaultbrowser now read
Code:
/usr/lib/firefox/run-mozilla.sh /usr/lib/firefox/firefox "$@"

The argument "$@" was missing from the 10 pet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adobe Acrobat Reader 9.4.7 58MB

At sszindian's recommendation, Barry picked up on the version 9.3.3 from the Lucid repo. Here is 9.4.7 if anyone could test. The browser plugin and the Help seem to work with Firefox but not with Chromium. For the Help to work you need the Firefox 11 pet above.

http://diddywahdiddy.net/Puppy500/Acrobat_Reader-9.4.7-Lucid.pet

http://diddywahdiddy.net/Puppy500/Acrobat_Reader-9.4.7-Lucid.sfs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bigpup


Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 5000
Location: Charleston S.C. USA

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 15:17    Post subject:  

Playdayz,

Thanks for the update pet for Firefox.
Just to see what happens, I did the update by internal Firefox update. Went from 10.0.2 to 11. Seems to be working OK.

_________________
I have found, in trying to help people, that the things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
playdayz


Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 3788

PostPosted: Wed 14 Mar 2012, 15:36    Post subject:  

Quote:
I did the update by internal Firefox update. Went from 10.0.2 to 11. Seems to be working OK


Yes, I meant to say that, everything seems to work fine with the internal update, except if a program tries to use Firefox to display its Help and other similar cases--that's what the "$@" is for in /usr/lib/firefox/run-mozilla.sh /usr/lib/firefox/firefox "$@"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 87 of 189 [2829 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, ..., 187, 188, 189 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Projects
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1363s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0370s) ][ GZIP on ]