🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.os.os2.bugs
Article #220

Re: USB memory keys -- the plot thickens

#220
From: mbbr
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:33
117 lines
5962 bytes
Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined and
tholed:
> Lon Hooker writes:
>
> > <<SNIP>>
>
> >>> Get the drive working right, first... right now it's so hosed-up I'm
> >>> surprised it copies anything at all.
>
> >> Hosed-up out-of-the-box?  That's when the COPY operation with /V failed.
>
> > Certainly... if it came from CompUseless, being hosed-up
> > "out-of-the-box" is certainly possible... even probable.  Par for the
> > course for that outfit.
>
> Windows didn't have a problem with it, and OS/2 could certainly read
> from and write to the device, even though LVM reported the wrong
> capacity.  Not exactly my idea of "hosed-up".  The IBM memory key is
> the one that OS/2 wouldn't work with at all.  In fact, DFSee reports
> that its one partition extends beyond the physical end of the device,
> but Windows doesn't have a problem with it.  Speaking of Windows, when I
> reformatted the CompUSA memory key under OS/2 and gained one allocation
> unit, Windows CHKDSK complained of lost chains, yet the sole file on
> the memory key was correct.
>
> > Besides, you, yourself, said you made numerous changes both under eCS
> > *and* W$, using several different formatting tools... that hardly
> > qualifies as "out-of-the-box".
>
> No, I never said that.

Admission noted, Dickless.

> I don't even have eCS on the OS/2 machines in
> question; I'm running MCP2 FP5.  You must be confusing me with somebody
> else.  The IBM memory key is still in its "out-of-the-box" condition
> with regard to partitioning and formatting.  I performed no formatting
> and partitioning operations on the CompUSA memory key until after I
> discovered the problem with /V, so it also qualified as "out-of-the-box"
> at that time.
>
> > That is the junk I was trying to get rid
> > of by zeroing the drive.  Try it again, but don't try formatting it with
> > DFSee... just eject it and format it with the OS.
>
> I would expect DFSee to SYS3175 anyway if I tried it again.  But how
> could that possibly have an effect on the way COPY behaves when the
> /V option is used?

What you would expect is irrelevant, Dickless.

> >> Even after following the procedure above, use of the /V option is still
> >> deadly.  Try it yourself, but be forewarned that other files may
> >> disappear along with the one you're trying to copy.  The memory key
> >> is drive F in the following:
>
> > How can I do that...
>
> Simple:  copy a file to a memory key with the /V option.

Yes, you are a simpleton, Dickless.

> > I don't have your drive,
>
> You don't need my drive.

We don't want your drive, Dickless.

> > and mine all work just
> > fine with whatever size or type of file I write to them.  I've written
> > files to FAT16, FAT32, HPFS, JFS and even NTFS... with and without /V.
>
> How did you write to NTFS with an OS/2 machine?  The only drivers I've
> heard about are all read-only.
>
> > The only problems I ever had were with older versions of FAT32.IFS.
>
> I'm not using FAT32.  The problem occurred with plain old FAT16.

You're a FAThead, Dickless.

> >> [H:\]copy bigfile f: /v
> >>         1 file(s) copied.
> >>
> >> [H:\]dir f:
> >>
> >> The volume label in drive F is COMPUSA.
> >> The Volume Serial Number is 9946:2415.
> >> Directory of F:\
> >>
> >> SYS0002: The system cannot find the file specified.
> >>
> >> [H:\]copy bigfile f:
> >>         1 file(s) copied.
> >>
> >> [H:\]dir f:
> >>
> >> The volume label in drive F is COMPUSA.
> >> The Volume Serial Number is 9946:2415.
> >> Directory of F:\
> >>
> >> 06-05-08  7.00     77.746.584      0 a---  BIGFILE
> >>         1 file(s)  77.746.584 bytes used
> >>                      51.845.120 bytes free
> >>
>
> > So?  As I say, I can't duplicate it here.  I've had occasion to research
> > these USB devices fairly extensively, and gave you my best shot.
>
> Maybe somebody else can duplicate it?
>
> > Sorry I can't help more, but apparently your system is different enough
> > that my procedures can't work on it.
>
> Same drivers.  Could it be the Intel hardware?

Could you be any less stupid, Dickless?
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1147613629.086812.83450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
References: <bUi1g.8673$3W1.8224@tornado.socal.rr.com> <%Rj6g.175178$bm6.39691@fed1read04> <WUt6g.7507$Nk3.438@tornado.socal.rr.com> <iMC6g.41667$iU2.4572@fed1read01> <1147480756.558120.311200@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <bhh9g.46592$iU2.22062@fed1read01> <urs9g.1573$9W5.685@tornado.socal.rr.com> <kAu9g.46647$iU2.43886@fed1read01> <Gxw9g.3046$uM4.418@tornado.socal.rr.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 10c4f5,216ae0f6ce49e269
X-Google-Thread: 1156f6,94b12c41aa608681
X-Google-Thread: 102c26,94b12c41aa608681
X-Google-Thread: 1138ec,94b12c41aa608681
X-Google-Attributes: gid10c4f5,gid1156f6,gid102c26,gid1138ec,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: mbbr@mighty.co.za
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.bugs,demon.local,rec.music.classical,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: USB memory keys -- the plot thickens
Date: 14 May 2006 06:33:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <1147613629.086812.83450@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
References: <bUi1g.8673$3W1.8224@tornado.socal.rr.com>
   <%Rj6g.175178$bm6.39691@fed1read04>
   <WUt6g.7507$Nk3.438@tornado.socal.rr.com>
   <iMC6g.41667$iU2.4572@fed1read01>
   <1147480756.558120.311200@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <bhh9g.46592$iU2.22062@fed1read01>
   <urs9g.1573$9W5.685@tornado.socal.rr.com>
   <kAu9g.46647$iU2.43886@fed1read01>
   <Gxw9g.3046$uM4.418@tornado.socal.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.211.117.172
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1147613634 4617 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2006 13:33:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 13:33:54 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <Gxw9g.3046$uM4.418@tornado.socal.rr.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=210.211.117.172;
   posting-account=gfDFhQ0AAAD-2SlsgA4JCYtc0KAvRvTc