🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Richard,

Richard Ashton wrote:
> 
> In article <36151B19.1BCFEC4F@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>            chris@nospam.demon.co.uk "Chris Priest" writes:
> } <snip>
> } I've just upgraded with <snip> 2 * 8.4GB disks
> 
> Directory of F:\os2\boot
> 
> 18-08-97   7:13p     65272           0  IBM1S506.ADD

Mine reads:
ibm1s506.add 24/04/98 10:15 68040
ibmatapi.flt 08/05/98 14:03 30476
ibmidecd.flt 22/04/98 15:21 24112
os2dasd.dmd  22/04/98 16:38 40808

> } <snip>
> } checked that the correct updates from the IDEDASD were on the floppies
> } and the HD. 

I remembered your "tricks" from your previous posts on the subject.
Thanks. OS/2 had absolutely no idea how big the disks and partitions
were without the new drivers. Partition Magic knew what's what of
course.

This version of IDEDASD.EXE from the device drivers web page, or this
months Personal Computer World (Nov that is), is post FP35/FP6 and
supports larger than 8.4GB disks, which mine are, by about 4 cylinders.
There are also some other fixes. From the README.TXT:

 FixPak 35 (FP35) for Warp 3 and FixPak 6 (FP6) for Warp 4 extended
support
  for fixed Enhanced IDE drives to sizes up to 8.4GB and added new
caching HPFS
  and FAT file system support for removable media drives such as SCSI
Syquest
  Syjet 1.5GB portable hard drive and the Iomega jaz 1GB and 2GB
personal hard
  drives.

  This package contains updates to the support in FP35 and FP6,
extending
  support to fixed Enhanced IDE drives greater than 8.4GB, fixing some
prob-
  lems, and adding additional documentation on removable media support. 
If you
  install or have installed fixpaks newer than FP36 or FP7 then this
package is
  not required.
 
> } So: How do I persuade OS/2 and NT4 to install with ptn 3 as the active <C:>
> } primary partition?
 
My question remains unanswered.
 
> NT cannot be installed on a VFAT partition. :(

This is VFAT16, not FAT32. NT4 and OS/2 _did_ both install eventually,
and now run in stand-alone mode quite happily. (Networking problems come
next!)

But what if I had installed NT5 already with NTFS or its even less
compatible new file system in partition 2? Then neither NT4 nor OS/2
would install or re-install.

I guess I'm going to have to hope that NT5 will install onto a logical
partiton now, and resequence my partitions. This is getting to be a
bigger learning experience than I intended.

Thanks for trying anyway,
Chris.
chris@idol.d.c.u

On Friday, in article <361551FF.A2764D9F@nospam.demon.co.uk>
     chris@nospam.demon.co.uk "Chris Priest" wrote:

>  
> > } So: How do I persuade OS/2 and NT4 to install with ptn 3 as the active <C:>
> > } primary partition?
>  
> My question remains unanswered.
>  

Just done a reinstall here onto a 4.3 GB disk and fdisk was very
unhappy even with an updated ibm1s506.add. Further requirement was
to ammend the line in config.sys on the installation disk to direct
os2 into using lba by using parameters /V /A:0 /U:0 /LBA.
The /V just to give a visual check on how os/2 sees the disks at 
bootup. /A is adaptor number /U is drive unit number

I had:	ptn 1 = c: dos+w3.1
	ptn 2 = c: win95
	ptn 3 = os/2 boot manager
        ptn 4 = extended (not shown by os/2 fdisk)
        ptn 5 = linux
        ptn 6 = d: swap
        ptn 7 = e: os/2
        ptn 8 = another linux

-- 
David 

David Lord wrote:
> 
> Just done a reinstall here onto a 4.3 GB disk and fdisk was very
> unhappy even with an updated ibm1s506.add. Further requirement was
> to ammend the line in config.sys on the installation disk to direct
> os2 into using lba by using parameters /V /A:0 /U:0 /LBA.

My FDISK etc. worked ok once I had updated the install disks with the
files from IBMDASD.EXE. IBM1S506 didn't need any parameters for this. 

Thanks for your input anyway,
-- 
chris@idol.d.c.u

Richard Ashton wrote:
> 
> In article <361551FF.A2764D9F@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>            chris@nospam.demon.co.uk "Chris Priest" writes:
> 
> } > } So: How do I persuade OS/2 and NT4 to install with ptn 3 as the active <C:>
> } > } primary partition?
> }
> } My question remains unanswered.
> 
> Then I am not sure I understand it, From first principles you can only
> have 4 primary partitions.

>From my first post, see that that's what I've got. My Win NT5 and Win 95
partitions are alternate C: partitions. The rest, NT4, OS2, OS2data and
Linux swap are logical ptns in the extended space, as are all the
partitions on the second drive.

> I have 2 C: one loads 95 which is actually installed on D, the other C:
> loads NT4 Workstation or NT4 Server on I: and K: both NTFS

Ahh, this is more interesting. What does you partition table look like,
and which C: boots which Windows? (Please.) Thinks...small C: ptns with
DOS 6 (or must it be 7?) and PQMagic, then BootMgr can select between
Windows versions without too many cascading boot selections(?)

> NT4 will install on any logical partition but needs a C: to seed from.
> OS/2 doesn't care where it loads

I know, but both seem to care where C: is physically, not logically. 

> May be a size issue with FAT16/VFAT16 I need to get the NT books out to
> see what the differences are, if any.

I had a look at the MS KB, and although many boot problems were
addressed, this was not one of them. None of my partitons is larger than
2GB, and both OSs recognised that the disks were larger than 1024 cyls.
What gets me is that the NT install had actually put the NT loader files
into the second C:, but on the reboot, NTLDR did not even get as far as
showing the selection menu. It just hung with the BIOS messages on
screen. No problem when using the first C: though. 

I saw a similar effect on my other big computer (which was C:Win95,
D:WinNT4, (E):Linux 2GB each) when I uninstalled NT and wiped Linux,
then tried to move Win95. The NT loader was still there, but hiding
itself. It worked again when I moved 95 back to its original position.
So I did SYS C: and it moved ok. Something in the NT and OS2 install
must be using absolute rather than partition relative sector addressing,
and getting the calculations wrong.

There is a point to all this. My work is on an IBM product called
MQSeries that makes program to program communication across different
platforms and networks 'easy'. So easy in fact that I needed to know
next to nothing about the different platforms and networks (except MVS).
I thought it was time to redress the balance, hence this project to get
my three computers networked using OS2, NT, 95 and Linux, and MQSeries
running on all of them. Rewriting CP/M was easier!

Your advice is appreciated, but don't spend too much time on it. If you
can't find an answer quickly, say so and I will drop the install issue
and move on. Getting OS2 networked is causing me grief now too.

TFAYHIA
-- 
Chris@idol.d.c.u
http://www.idol.d.c.u for a link to MQSeries. (A _very_ small web site
;-)

Richard,

You are up late. Does your computer play a tune when news arrives too?
My excuse is that the wife's gone to see her mother this weekend:)

Richard Ashton wrote:
> 
> In article <3616AE98.E89BDFE9@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>            chris@nospam.demon.co.uk "Chris Priest" writes:
> 
> <impressed> <snip a Thinkpad with 11 operating systems on it> </impressed>

> } > NT4 will install on any logical partition but needs a C: to seed from.
> } > OS/2 doesn't care where it loads
> }
> } I know, but both seem to care where C: is physically, not logically.
> 
> Indeed. They seem to want to be at the begining. A DOS hangover or MBR
> restriction I expect

Could be. Win95 seems slightly more partition friendly that NT. You too
boot to NT from the first C:. They do all at least take BootMgr into
account. It was the OS2 intall having this problem that really surprised
me. 

> <snip>
> } into the second C:, but on the reboot, NTLDR did not even get as far as
> } showing the selection menu. It just hung with the BIOS messages on
> } screen. No problem when using the first C: though.
> 
> Strange :(

Got me wondering what goes through the minds of MS programmers too. 

> <snip snip>
> the linux Floppy bring up Linux FDISK *not* DRIUD and re assign the partition

I don't like DRUID either. 

> <snip> 
> I love MQ series I recommend it to everybody I meet, then duck and say I
> only understand a bit about protocols in OSI layers 1-6, and that an MQ
> message is just another packet of data to me, how do you wish it
> shipped, sir ?

(Someone I know counts the number of different ways 'MQSeries' is
mis-spelled.)
Another satisfied customer, and you got the point. My wife and I worked
on the development team for the first MVS version for 2.4 years. The
chief architect, Dick Dievendorf, left IBM a couple of years later and
went to work for MS on MSMQ. (Did I hear someone way that MS have never
invented anything?) You may be interested to know that the next release
oF MQ/NT (v5.1) will be much better integrated with NT server and MS
backoffice programs (IIS, MTS, MSCS, SQLS...).

> <snip>
> Networking is easy 
Not IMHO. Especially not SNA/LU6.2.
> everything, I have talks to everything else, ethernet or
> Token Ring no problems even getting 98 to browse resources on Warp Server.
> Lots of pitfalls for the unwary :(

I have dug myself a few pits here. I shall bulldoze everything flat and
start again.

> Now if NT co-operated and didn't want to play silly SID [I wanna be God]
> games everything in the garden would be rosey. Fuck Gates.

Thanks again for your help, and FG too. I'll be able to figure out the
partitioning now,
-- 
Chris@idol.d.c.u