Solved: was: Any way to TOTALLY disable Windows 98 Disk Cleanup tool?

[98 Guy]

I booted into DOS and ran scandisk on the 700 gb drive.

It found no problems - except that the free space was being reported
incorrectly. I told it to fix it.

After the fix, chkdsk says there were 3 free clusters on the drive (96
kb).

So that's why win-98 kept telling me the disk was full - when it
*appeared* to have 22 gb free.

I download a lot of music and movies from file-lockers, and these files
(.rar files) are typically 100mb to 400mb in size. For movies, they
expand to generate 1gb to 3gb .avi or .mkv files.

I move these files around on the drive after downloading and expanding
them, and after expansion I will delete the .rar files associated with
the movie files.

I guess that all that file-moving and deleting doesn't always result in
Windows keeping proper track of the free drive space.

I'm going to move the contents of this 700 gb drive over to a 1.5 TB
drive to deal with this drive-full problem. I've already formatted a
1.5 TB SATA drive in the past and win-98 has no problem with using it.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy
So that's why win-98 kept telling me the disk was full - when it
*appeared* to have 22 gb free.

It's interesting that the low disk space warnings were a real disk-full
warning based on a couint error, and weren't those based on maintaining cache
space (which are also around 3% hence my uncertainty). Your system seemed to
have that cleanup manager and monitor, but still wasn't using that (or was it
doing that too? You did originally ask about removing that tool...)

Those registry entries that 'none' posted today.. do you have those, and if
so, any difference in values?

Post by 98 Guy
I guess that all that file-moving and deleting doesn't always result in
Windows keeping proper track of the free drive space.

No intervening shutdowns since original formatting? I'm not sure what can
cause that value to go wrong mid-session. A hasty shutdown is usual cause.

Post by 98 Guy
I'm going to move the contents of this 700 gb drive over to a 1.5 TB
drive to deal with this drive-full problem. I've already formatted a
1.5 TB SATA drive in the past and win-98 has no problem with using it.

Using that free patched ESDI_506.PDR? I trusted Rudolph Loew's version better
because of some fragmented discussion and development on a massive forum
thread... I read it all, but saw things that implied a messier answer than
Loew's (among them a bit-match test with the M$ original), but if it works,
it works.

[98 Guy]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
No intervening shutdowns since original formatting?

If you mean "uncontrolled" or non-gracefull shut-downs - yea, there have
been plenty over the past 2 or so years that the drive was added to the
system.

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by 98 Guy
I'm going to move the contents of this 700 gb drive over to a
1.5 TB drive to deal with this drive-full problem. I've
already formatted a 1.5 TB SATA drive in the past and win-98
has no problem with using it.

Using that free patched ESDI_506.PDR?

No.

I make it a point to NOT use IDE-emulation mode on any system I attach a
SATA drive to (be it win-98 or XP).

When I made the jump beyond 80 gb hard-drives, I went with SATA drives
because at the time there was not much price difference between, say, a
160 or 250 gb IDE vs SATA drive. I have a small collection of SATA
drives in the 160, 250, and 500 gb size (that are legacy or spare and
have no planned use at this point) and only one 750 gb and several 1,
1.5 and 2 TB drives that are basically waiting to be incorporated into
new systems.

I've said several times here before that there is no shortage of win-98
drivers for SATA-1 controllers.

If your BIOS is set so that the SATA controller is operating in native
mode (not IDE-emulation mode) then when you have the
manufacturer-supplied win-98 driver you will not be faced with the 137gb
problem that you would be faced with if the drive was an IDE drive (or
if the drive is a SATA drive being used in IDE-emulation mode).

Post by Lostgallifreyan
I trusted Rudolph Loew's version

There is no reason to use Loew's version because you shouldn't (at this
point, or any point in the past 4 years) have an IDE drive in your
system larger than 128 gb in the first place - it should be a SATA
drive, and if it's a SATA drive then you use the proper win-98 driver.

IDE drives larger than 100 or 120 gb (ie -> 160, 200, 250, 320, etc)
quickly became expensive dinosaurs and replaced in retail channels by
SATA versions.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy
There is no reason to use Loew's version because you shouldn't (at this
point, or any point in the past 4 years) have an IDE drive in your
system larger than 128 gb in the first place - it should be a SATA
drive, and if it's a SATA drive then you use the proper win-98 driver.

Not on my mainboards... Long story, but a tiny (yet huge) part of it is that
I use Layla20 multichannel audio, modified for 12VDC power and DC coupled
I/O, and while this makes high grade lab gear on the cheap, it is totally
fussy about the systems it runs on, especially BIOS, so I start with Layla
and a board it works with (MII12000 for low power and small size), and build
all else around that. The cost of getting back to where I am now, any other
way, is a much bigger spane, a lot of learning, and probably a whole lot more
hardware customisation too.

I'm limited to PATA, but I can use FireWire and USB too, and often do. ATA
disks are expensive now, but not so bad that I didn't grab a couple more
400GB video grade Deskstars last week. I should be more than fine for a few
years, plenty of time to look ahead and steer very gently. If I have to make
fast moves with a current machine, I'd rather build based on current means
and methods, I have bought cheap backups of boards, Layla20's whenever they
appear on eBay. Rarely now, but I have a few of each..

If I ever need a different machine and have to get one, I will, but it won't
replace these, it will just be different. So far, no need. One of them has
room for a riser and a PCI-based SATA card if I really want to splurge on a
few terabytes. :)

[Lostgallifreyan]

spane

???
spend...

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy
If your BIOS is set so that the SATA controller is operating in native
mode (not IDE-emulation mode) then when you have the
manufacturer-supplied win-98 driver you will not be faced with the 137gb
problem that you would be faced with if the drive was an IDE drive (or
if the drive is a SATA drive being used in IDE-emulation mode).

Indeed. If I ever get a mainboard with SATA on it, I'd use that. I have used
SATA, and not had trouble with it, it's just not native to the boards (and
BIOS) that I need.

I remember a guy on a forum saying that SATA had problems, but if it did I
never saw them myself, and if they had existed, I guess they don't now. All I
remember is he thought it was serious.

[98 Guy]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
If I ever get a mainboard with SATA on it, I'd use that.

Lots of choices when it comes to SATA controllers on PCI cards.

They will all work under win-98, and will very likely have win-98
drivers on the mini-CD disk that comes with them (even it not so
indicated on the package).

All PCI-based sata controllers will be SATA-1 controllers. Anything
that claims to be SATA-2 or SATA-3 (is there a SATA-3?) will have to be
on a PCI-e board because of speed requirements.

Post by Lostgallifreyan
I remember a guy on a forum saying that SATA had problems

Seagate had a major problem with some hard drives back in late 2008 /
early 2009.

==============
January 23, 2009

Last week, Tom's Hardware reported that an escalating number of
Barracuda 7200.11, ES.2 SATA and DiamondMax 22 drives were failing due
to a fatal flaw in the firmware which caused the drive to suddenly lock
itself up and prevent the BIOS from even detecting it in the system.
There is no way of fixing this unfortunately, and the drive needs to be
returned for replacement.
==============

Read more about it here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/seagate-firmware-7200.11-drives-bricking,6885.html

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Lostgallifreyan
If I ever get a mainboard with SATA on it, I'd use that.

Lots of choices when it comes to SATA controllers on PCI cards.
They will all work under win-98, and will very likely have win-98
drivers on the mini-CD disk that comes with them (even it not so
indicated on the package).
All PCI-based sata controllers will be SATA-1 controllers. Anything
that claims to be SATA-2 or SATA-3 (is there a SATA-3?) will have to be
on a PCI-e board because of speed requirements.

Good, SATA-1 it is. I'll look into that. Two of my machines have no room for
the card, but the main one has plenty.


Re Seagate, no worries, I love my Deskstars. They seem to last forever. I
remember the Click of Death scare, but it never happened to me. (I run them
cool, don't have lots od disk thrashing, and I set them to low noise with the
supplied firmware tool, and whatever they cost, I'll get way more than my
money's worth judging by lifespan so far.

(I should mention that the extra price they cost now doesan't bother me
because for 20 but multichannel DC copupled I/O, I have reduced its cost by
many times the difference in costs for PATA and SATA per byte. As a total
system, balancing power demands and cost, and ability, I'm ok with what I
have. Computers may be very different from current standards before I need to
change again. Could be time I examined the current standards in high grade
workstations though, because those, when they get cheap and unwanted, might
be a future machine base for me.)

(And a PPS: Rudolph Loew patched the BIOS for the boards I have, as Via had
only supported the first device! I hekped him track it down to the point
where he could fix it neatly. Via wouldn't update their BIOS even when they
were handed the answer on a plate. They barely aknowleged the effort either.
I mention this because it partly explains my support for Rudolph Loew, and
partly explains my reluctance to upgrade when I have personal history of a
maker of industrial standard boards failing to make proper updates even when
they don't have to lift a finger to do it. It's taught me to make changes
very carefully, and only when they don't leave me with risky unknows greater
that I already have. Given that the first thing many Android users may learn
about their system's details is when they have to get it removed from the
botnet it becomes part of, I'm ok with staying put.)

/End ramble...

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy
If you mean "uncontrolled" or non-gracefull shut-downs - yea, there have
been plenty over the past 2 or so years that the drive was added to the
system.

If no intervening scandisk runs, I guess the spare space count had been
creeping agley for some time. :)

[f***@thecave.com]

Post by 98 Guy
I booted into DOS and ran scandisk on the 700 gb drive.
It found no problems - except that the free space was being reported
incorrectly. I told it to fix it.

Win98 has always had a problem with the free space being reported
incorrectly. This happens regularly to me, and always has. I curremtly
have a 120gb and an 40 gb drive installed, which is more than I need.
Each drive has 3 partitions on it. All are formatted to Fat32.

I wonder if newer versions of Windows has this same "free space"
problem?

I should mention this "Free space" problem has occurred hundreds of time
over the years, but has never once been an actual problem.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by f***@thecave.com
I wonder if newer versions of Windows has this same "free space"
problem?
I should mention this "Free space" problem has occurred hundreds of time
over the years, but has never once been an actual problem.

I think they'd handle it differently rather than eradicate it, as it's the
disk controller (on the drive's own hardware) that takes care of actual
storage locations. The OS just sees a range of numbers to address data, but
it has no idea exactly where and how much data until it gets a report back
from the disk controller, and suring hasty or bad shutdowns, it doesn't get
that report. If a disk cache fails to flush to disk securely and completely
at such times, you may lose the latest file(s) too).