[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intro and it seems that W3.1 can see beyond thepartitionbarriers!

"I. Tura" wrote:
>         Hi Vitux,
>         Perhaps I didn't sent that letter. Debian enormous amount of messages
> dizzies me!
>         Sorry and thank you, man.
>         Ignasi
> ----------------------------------------------------
>         Transciption follows:
>         >Sounds very strange to me, I would suppose Win3.1 (which is
> >actually DOS) to see only the size of the partition it lives
> >in.
>         Me, too.
>         >How did you partition your drive?
>         Before going to sleep I remembered I used the fdisk from Hamm:
>         I ran fdisk and I did the following:
>         At first there was a large FAT16 partition.
>         I applied the following changes:
>         delete the FAT16 partition.
>         Then add the following partitions:
>         dev/hda1: DOS-16 bit >=32M of 100 Mb
>         dev/hda2: Extended (marked as bootable)
>         dev/hda5: a 950 Mb partition for Linux native. (XXXX
This is a "logical" partition ^^^^^^
>         dev/hda6: a 50 Mb partition for swap.
This one as well ^^^^^^
>         Then I wrote the changes.
>         From the DOS fdisk I see now:
>         Primary partition: 100 Mb
>         Extended partition: 1Gb with logical partitions. Would you like to see the
> info on logical partitions? (Y)
>         No logical partitions defined. Total size of extended DOS partition: 1051 Mb
Just a thought:
It seems you have made logical partitions for your Linux
install, and IIRC, linux fdisk and dos fdisk do not agree how
to handle logical partitions. This could account for the fact
that dos thinks there's no logical partitions defined (dos
can't see linux-partitions, but linux can see dos part's...)
I think you might need to make both your linux and your dos
part's as "real" (primary & extended) partitions to get this
working?! (I'm not even sure if this is possible; running pure
Linux on my boxes ;-)

>         Another curious experience w/ DOS I forgot to mention.
>         As I had built the computer from scratch (a 486 that nobody wanted -it
> seems that here people here are very rich-) I added a 1Gb HDD. But when I
> added the HDD, when running the DOS boot diskette it started to appear some
> odd characters in the screen (this did not happen when I booted the Linux
> kernel).

Need more info on that one. Sounds like one of those strange
things that can happen 
when combining new and old hardware :-| (hehehehe, Linux

>         An I/O conflict? I tried to solve it changing jumpers from the Oak 087
> video card using all combinations (no manual for it, Oak does not give it)
> but no change. Changing cards from its slots, but no solution.
>         As last I apply a plug&play DOS device from Intel and it detects my sound
> card. The errors disappear. Explanation? No idea.
>         No virus sure (cold boot, very new boot diskettes from two brands).
>         Norton DD told me the HDD was full of damaged clusters, but I stopped it
> and I applied Ontrack support for large drives to the DOS boot diskette.
> Then there were no errors.

Be very careful with Norton. Has been known to do nasty things
to ext2-fs' and fat's. (oh sweet reminiscence of the DOS-days

>                 >What version of DOS are you running?
>         DOS 6.22
>         >(btw, win3.1 seems to me to be the most stable windows version
> >at this point, but then again, it's based on DOS ;-)
>         Oh yeah man. If they have been so decent like in that times, I'm sure they
> would not get so much problems as they have now.
>         It seems, writing this, that it's something I did uncorrectly, but I don't
> know what it should be.
>         >Also: beats me why you would want to run hamm -its old, not
> >being developed, and there are really great advantages in
> >running the newer kernels (fs-corruption-bugs are fixed, much
> >better hardware-support, etc).
> >Recently upgraded slink->potato myself, things are running
> >smooth here.
>         Mmmm... I was too impatient. In the Pentium III I'll install Potato when I
> have a copy. Perhaps there is another reason: that in Windows world I have
> the tendency of being technological reactionary: prefer NT 4.0 than W2000,
> prefer W95C than 98 SameExcrement, prefer WP7 (actually the best is WP 5.1
> for DOS) than WP8... I forgot that it's also useful to get the latest
> versions of DOS/W nice programs, such as ARJ, IrfanView...

You're right on that one. I strongly suggest running Slink or
Potato -things have improved vastly even this past year. Good
thing w/ Linux: <strong> development!
One last thing: Try getting a bios-update for your old
computer; I've had much succes on my own old 486/100 (now
being reconf'ed for server use). When I updated my old Award
bios, it enabled LBA and other nice stuff (apm was much
improved). These old machines were made when a 540Mb hd was
HUGE, so no wonder if it craps out on large 1.1G drive.

>         Thanks for your interest, Vitux.
No problem. Once a newbie, I'm glad if can give something back
to the community...

>         Ignasi
> ___________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr
> --
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null

"I'm not a crook"
Richard Nixon

Debian GNU/Linux
Micro$loth-free Zone

Reply to: