neil@ms.uky.edu (Neil Greene) (02/12/91)
System Configuration: 386 machine (Gateway 2000 standup model) Dos 4.01 (shell not installed) 150+ Meg Hard Disk (C/D Partitions) Windows 3.0 (running in standard mode) Share installed in config.sys Lantasti (Ethernet) Network Lately I have been getting FAT Table errors, which after some use, cause the hard disk to become very unreliable in doing simple task. I reformated the origional hard drive, partitioned the disk and installed share through the config.sys file. When running Norton 5.0, I get FAT Table errors and when trying to make a RECOVER file, Norton reports that the error-file can not be saved and further test will be abandoned. Something that I have noticed: When running Norton 5.0 and receiving no FAT Table errors, Norton recognizes the Hard Disk devices as "1st Hard Disk". When I do received the errors, Norton 5.0 recognizes the Hard Disk devices as "device driver", and thus gives FAT Table errors. Is there something I should change in the NU configurations, config.sys, or autoexec.bat??? -- Neil Greene --- University of Kentucky Mathmatics and Sciences University of Kentucky Computing Center neil@s.ms.uky.edu & neil@graphlab.cc.uky.edu (NeXT Attachments)
neil@ms.uky.edu (Neil Greene) (02/13/91)
neil@ms.uky.edu (Neil Greene) writes: >System Configuration: 386 machine (Gateway 2000 standup model) > Dos 4.01 (shell not installed) > 150+ Meg Hard Disk (C/D Partitions) > Windows 3.0 (running in standard mode) > Share installed in config.sys > Lantasti (Ethernet) Network >Lately I have been getting FAT Table errors, which after some use, cause the >hard disk to become very unreliable in doing simple task. I reformated the >origional hard drive, partitioned the disk and installed share through the >config.sys file. On a small note, I have just thought that this may be due to a CMOS error in the setup of the computer. Why? Because one of the users of the system had trashed his "acidently". (Why is it, non computer users can only figure out the most deadly commands ie - format c: or erase c:*.* followed by wipedisk and magnets). If this is still not the case, wondering if any others PC users have experienced large media, network and windows problems before. -- Neil Greene --- University of Kentucky Mathmatics and Sciences University of Kentucky Computing Center neil@s.ms.uky.edu & neil@graphlab.cc.uky.edu (NeXT Attachments)
lev@suned2.nswses.Navy.MIL (Lloyd E Vancil) (02/14/91)
In article <neil.666383538@s.ms.uky.edu> neil@ms.uky.edu (Neil Greene) writes: >neil@ms.uky.edu (Neil Greene) writes: > > Why? Because one of the users of the system had >trashed his "acidently". (Why is it, non computer users can only figure out >the most deadly commands ie - format c: or erase c:*.* followed by wipedisk >and magnets). > Because, that {Press esc to run setup} message displayed on boot-up that you have learned to ignore at least appears to do S O M T H I N G ;-) And, how many times have I said, to trembling new initiates, "Oh, don't worry. You can't hurt it." Oh how high and beautiful the sky, how dark and hard the stone! How lightly we trip, before the fall. L -- * suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov sun!suntzu!suned1!lev . lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil + . + * S.T.A.R.S.! The revolution has begun! * My employer has no opinions. These are mine!
dtb@adpplz.UUCP (Tom Beach) (02/14/91)
I once had a problem with a disk when trying to put a UNIX partition and a DOS partition on the same drive. UNIX always worked fine, but the DOS partition got increasing FAT table erors until it became unuseable. I finally had to put a second disk drive in the box reserving one for UNIX and the other for DOS. This worked perfectly. By the way, this is probably the wrong group for this discussion! Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Tom Beach : Sr Project Engineer : Mass Storage Technology | | phone : (503) 294-1541 | | email : uunet : dtb@adpplz.uucp | | ADP Dealer Services, ADP Plaza, 2525 S.W. 1st Ave, Portland OR, 97201 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
jpk@davasun.data.nokia.fi (JP Koivisto) (02/15/91)
dtb@adpplz.UUCP (Tom Beach) writes: >I once had a problem with a disk when trying to put a UNIX partition and a >DOS partition on the same drive. UNIX always worked fine, but the DOS >partition got increasing FAT table erors until it became unuseable. I had similar problems (long ago) when I had DOS & SCO Xenix 2.1.3 on the same drive. In the end I found the problem was that the XENIX partition MUST ALWAYS BE THE ACTIVE ONE! The Xenix happily used the active partition for something (swapping, piping,... ?) WITHOUT CHECKING IF IT WAS THE XENIX partition! I solved the problem by having XENIX always 'active' and used a (partially) selfmade primary boot where I can choose the partition to boot from. That worked still with SCO Xenix/386 2.3.2 and DOS 4.01... >By the way, this is probably the wrong group for this discussion! I dunno, as I haven't been following the discussion... jpk - JP Koivisto, Nokia Data OY, Finland --- EMail: jpk@davasun.data.nokia.fi