Why is this (Formatting a Drive) ???


J

jw

I have a Western Digital USB powered external drive. Its a 320 gig.
It came formatted as Fat32 from the factory and just contains one
partition. Works fine on Windows 2000. I have gotten Win98se to
recognize it too, but I lost the driver I was using. That drive said
it was intended for Win2000, XP, and Vista (before Win7 existed). It
may have even been made for Win98 (I forgot).

I just bought a Seagate 320 gig external USB drive. Same size,
basically the same thing. That one said it was only for XP and newer.
Well, it came preinstalled with some backup software, which
automatically loaded, and gave me an error message everytime, because
it was XP software. I didn't want the software anyhow, just a drive
for storage. I finally was able to remove the autoload.inf file to
stop that irritating auto loading. This drive was formatted to NTFS.
I copied and then completely removed the software that came on the
drive (in case I wanted it later). Then I proceeded to format it to
Fat32. (I do not want NTFS, I want to be able to access the drive
from Dos if needed). It refuses to format. I even made two
partitions on the thing. It still wont format. I read that the
maximum fat 32 partition size allowed in Windows 2000 is 132 gigs, so
I guess I can partition it to 3 partitions of about 106 gigs each.

But why is it that the WEstern Digital works as the full 320 gigs in
Fat32, but I can not get this seagate to work the same? A hard drive
is a hard drive. It was only that included (unwanted) software that
needed XP or newer. What's the problem here?

Thanks

JW
 
Ad

Advertisements

Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox

I have a Western Digital USB powered external drive. Its a 320 gig.
It came formatted as Fat32 from the factory and just contains one
partition. Works fine on Windows 2000. I have gotten Win98se to
recognize it too, but I lost the driver I was using. That drive
said
it was intended for Win2000, XP, and Vista (before Win7 existed).
It
may have even been made for Win98 (I forgot).

I just bought a Seagate 320 gig external USB drive. Same size,
basically the same thing. That one said it was only for XP and
newer.
Well, it came preinstalled with some backup software, which
automatically loaded, and gave me an error message everytime,
because
it was XP software. I didn't want the software anyhow, just a drive
for storage. I finally was able to remove the autoload.inf file to
stop that irritating auto loading. This drive was formatted to
NTFS.
I copied and then completely removed the software that came on the
drive (in case I wanted it later). Then I proceeded to format it to
Fat32. (I do not want NTFS, I want to be able to access the drive
from Dos if needed). It refuses to format. I even made two
partitions on the thing. It still wont format. I read that the
maximum fat 32 partition size allowed in Windows 2000 is 132 gigs,
so
I guess I can partition it to 3 partitions of about 106 gigs each.

But why is it that the WEstern Digital works as the full 320 gigs in
Fat32, but I can not get this seagate to work the same? A hard
drive
is a hard drive. It was only that included (unwanted) software that
needed XP or newer. What's the problem here?

Apparently, Microsoft decided to prevent you from formatting drives
over 32GB as FAT32. Something about it being to slow for larger
drives - I guess they know better how we should use our hardware...
Anyway, the free / trial version of Acronis True Image is supposed to
be able to do it, as are a few other workarounds. Google "format
large drive fat32 windows" and it should give you plenty of other
options.
 
H

Hot-Text

Why is that Western Digital is the Bests
Tack that Seagate back and get a Western Digital!
 
J

jw

Why is that Western Digital is the Bests
Tack that Seagate back and get a Western Digital!

Actually I just put this Seagate back in the box and dug out the
receipt. I've tried for a week and nothing seems to work. Windows is
supposed to have this 32 gig limit, yet I can format it to 100 gigs
without problems. Yet, the Western Digital drive works just fine and
it is formatted to the entire 320 gigs. I dont understand this at
all.

So I go to the Seagate website and they have some software called
something like "Install Wizard". I decide to give it a try, and find
it's 152 megs big. I'm on dialup, that would take a full day to
download, and I can just imagine all the useless bloat in it. How the
hell can a program to perform a simple drive format be that large?

Now to mention that this drive pissed me off right out of the box with
their damn instand install software on the drive. Like, they could
ASK me if I want it, or want to skip it. But no, they got it set up
so it begins the install as soon as it's plugged in. If for no other
reason, I don't install ANYTHING until I perform a virus scan on it.
Seagate sucks.

I just hope they dont resell it, because it's going back with the
three Fat32 partitions I put on it, and without that software it came
with.
 
J

jw

Dam I buy a new Windows 7 Starter 32-bit on a WD 160GB HDD
I two would put that Seagate back in the box and dug out the receipt too.

http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=200895&NewLang=en

Now if you can get and make the Software work Keep it!

I just a Old WD lover!

No Windows 7 around here. I still prefer Win98se, but I learned to
live with Win2000 when I have to use it. I dont see myself ever going
beyond Win2000. I ran XP for a very short time and absolutely could
not stand it. I figure I can probably run 98 and 2000 for th rest of
my life since everything I need to do on the computer works fine.
It's only browsers that tend to be a problem, but the www is becoming
a huge advertisment anyhow, so I dont use it much anymore. If it
wasn't for usenet and email, I'd probably disconnect from the
internet.

Thanks for the article. I had not seen it. Of course that still
requires me to spend 13 to 14 hours to download that Disk Wizard. (I'm
on dialup, which is all that's available in my rural area). How can a
program to format a harddrive be 156Megs big? That makes no sense.
It must be filled with graphics and videos is all I can figure. I
wonder if there is someplace to get an older version of it. Since I'm
running it on Win2000, any version after 2000 should work. Buit where
does one find it?

Anyhow, thanks for the help.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Sid Elbow

Now to mention that this drive pissed me off right out of the box with
their damn instand install software on the drive. Like, they could
ASK me if I want it, or want to skip it. But no, they got it set up
so it begins the install as soon as it's plugged in. If for no other
reason, I don't install ANYTHING until I perform a virus scan on it.
Seagate sucks.

What model USB drive did you purchase? Seagate (and others) sell a
number of USB Hard Drives specifically as backup drives with
auto-running backup software pre-installed. They're quite common but
I've never seen one of these sold as a plain-jane USB HD. In all cases
they have been quite openly described as backup drives.

Did you do even minimal research your on the drive prior to purchase? If
you did and it wasn't described accurately, you have every reason to
return it.
 
J

jw

What model USB drive did you purchase? Seagate (and others) sell a
number of USB Hard Drives specifically as backup drives with
auto-running backup software pre-installed. They're quite common but
I've never seen one of these sold as a plain-jane USB HD. In all cases
they have been quite openly described as backup drives.

Did you do even minimal research your on the drive prior to purchase? If
you did and it wasn't described accurately, you have every reason to
return it.

It's a Free Agent Go 320GB Silver
ST903203fga2e-1-rk

The box indicated it was for XP and newer OS. But I knew that was
just the software. Yes it came with built in self running backup
software and other software, but it requires XP and gave me an error.
I deleted the software. since I do nopt plan to ever upgrade to XP or
newer.

It does format just fine to NTFS, but I refuse to use that format. I
work in Dos a fair amount, and NTFS can not be read from dos.
 
S

Sid Elbow

It does format just fine to NTFS, but I refuse to use that format. I
work in Dos a fair amount, and NTFS can not be read from dos.

You mean actual DOS (MSDOS) or emu-DOS (i.e. the COMMAND window from
Windows).

It's been a long time, but does real DOS even recognise FAT32?

In any event you belong to that hardy group who prefers some now
obsolete OS's which no one supports any more. That means that you face
certain difficulties along the way. Getting upset because things don't
work exactly the way you'd prefer is counter-productive (or at least
futile). You have to resign yourself to doing that much extra work to
use things with your obsolete systems.

(Sorry, that sounded "lecturing" - I didn't intend it that way.
 
M

MyNews

It's me New Name

Ok you have Windows 2000


Open My Computer

you see
Removable Disk
for the Seagate 320 gig external USB drive
if not the Drives for it is XP

If you do Right chick it
Chick Format.....

You see
Capacity
320 GB

File system
FAT
NTFS
Pick FAT32

Volume Label
ST903203fga2e-1-rk << maybe

Format options
Do Quick Format

Start

If all that do not work that all the Info I have!
 
J

jw

You mean actual DOS (MSDOS) or emu-DOS (i.e. the COMMAND window from
Windows).

Yep, MSDOS from Win98se. I like Dos, and in many cases better than
Windows. The user has a lot more control with dos. Try writing a
batch file to make multiple events occur in any version of windows.
That's right, you cant do it. You got to do each step individually.
It's been a long time, but does real DOS even recognise FAT32?

Yes, no problem. I heard the pre-win98 versions of dos do not, but I
have no reason to use the older versions. Dos was perfected over the
years, and I actually have many added things that never came with dos
that makes it even better. Believe it or not, I can even show
graphics and play some sounds. Dos is like riding a bike, once you
learn it, you never forget it.
In any event you belong to that hardy group who prefers some now
obsolete OS's which no one supports any more. That means that you face
certain difficulties along the way. Getting upset because things don't
work exactly the way you'd prefer is counter-productive (or at least
futile). You have to resign yourself to doing that much extra work to
use things with your obsolete systems.
I'm not upset, just a little frustrated with this drive. My WD drive
works fine at 320 GB yet not this Seagate. A drive is a drive.
I'm just taking it back and will get another WD. Yes, I like the
older OSs. I absolutely can not stand XP or Vista. Never tried Win7,
have no desire to try because it's just more NT based shit. I also
have the ancient OS2 installed on another computer. Excellent OS, but
there is little support for it. Too bad because it was far superior
to anything MS ever made. Someday I hope someone makes an OS that
really works and is not bloated to hell like XP and newer.

I bet someone will suggest Linux. Dont bother. That nightmare is for
people who want to spend their life fighting with software, and it
does not support any MS software programs anyhow. My next computer
will likely be a Mac. BUt I'll probably continue to run Win98 and
Win2K for life or until it no longer works at all. Right now it works
fine except for that Flash Player nonsense, but who needs that shit
anyhow. Just another thing to allow viruses into someone's computer.
Just that damn javascript, which I always have disabled, and
constantly get warnings to turn it on. As soon as I see that warning,
that webpage is history.

These days, people no longer use their computers for anything creative
or useful. They just waste their lives on Facebook and Myspace, both
of which are useless garbage. The funny thing is that I can and do
some very extensive graphics work and I use Win98. No one needs
anything more than Win98 or Win2K. The only reason I use 2K is
because 98 lacks decent USB support. All my real work is done using
98. I'm using it now. Does this message look any different than one
posted using XP or Win7?

All OS's created after 2000 were just money makers for MS and little
more. Win98se was the best OS MS ever created. If they had improved
upon it, especially the USB support, we could all have a GREAT OS now.

(Sorry, that sounded "lecturing" - I didn't intend it that way.

That's ok, I hear it all the time. "Why dont you upgrade". My
answer, "because I dont want the bloated useless and power hungry
garbage that MS makes now". Ever hear the phrase "KEEP IT SIMPLE
STUPID". Too bad MS dont know that one.....
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

jbclem

You'd be interested to know that there are some groups (websites) of gamers
who also don't want to go beyond Windows 2000, and as newer software (that
they want to use) comes out without Windows 2000 support, they've been
taking the essential WinXP operating dll's and converting them to work on
Windows 2000. I don't use games at all, but I've been able to use their
dlls to get certain XP and later software to run on my Win2000 computers.
In my case it's been mostly stock market software, but they've got newer
browsers such as IE8 working, and also things like .net framework 3.5. So
you see that there is something good that comes from gaming; at least these
guys have good taste in operating systems.

I'm with you about DOS. I don't use DOS programs much anymore, but my
favorite was XTREE GOLD, and I still use ZTREE everyday. And when there is
a serious computer problem, I go to DOS to try to fix it. I don't think I
ever used Win98se, but I remember what a PITA Win98 was, having to reboot
the computer everytime a program locked up. I'm happy with Win2000, and as
long as these gamers keep up their good work, I can keep using it.

There is also a stripped down version of WinXP, I think it's called the
black XP. Some people have removed all the extraneous and useless files
from it and it requires less memory to run.
 
J

jw

You'd be interested to know that there are some groups (websites) of gamers
who also don't want to go beyond Windows 2000, and as newer software (that
they want to use) comes out without Windows 2000 support, they've been
taking the essential WinXP operating dll's and converting them to work on
Windows 2000. I don't use games at all, but I've been able to use their
dlls to get certain XP and later software to run on my Win2000 computers.
In my case it's been mostly stock market software, but they've got newer
browsers such as IE8 working, and also things like .net framework 3.5. So
you see that there is something good that comes from gaming; at least these
guys have good taste in operating systems.

I'm with you about DOS. I don't use DOS programs much anymore, but my
favorite was XTREE GOLD, and I still use ZTREE everyday. And when there is
a serious computer problem, I go to DOS to try to fix it. I don't think I
ever used Win98se, but I remember what a PITA Win98 was, having to reboot
the computer everytime a program locked up. I'm happy with Win2000, and as
long as these gamers keep up their good work, I can keep using it.

There is also a stripped down version of WinXP, I think it's called the
black XP. Some people have removed all the extraneous and useless files
from it and it requires less memory to run.

Thanks for this info. I never knew this. I dont play games either,
but I'd like to be able to at least get a later version of Firefox
working on here just because I am tired of those popups telling me to
upgrade to a newer browser. Some URL's would be appreciated.

For Dos, I still use a commercial program from 1984 called Rapid File.
It;s an excellent database which I use to store addresses, phone#'s
and other contact info for people, or even other things. I began
using it in the late 80's when I did some volunteer work and I had to
manage all the workers and duties. This was the first program I ever
used on a computer. The guy who ran the place worked at a hospital
and got this program from work. Eventually I found a used copy of it
on Ebay and bought it. I have many years of info stored in it.
Unlike Dbase, the data can not be exported to any other program.
Dbase was lousy compared to Rapid File. I have never found any
Windows database to compare to it either. Best of all, I dont leave my
computer running when not in use (save energy), so if I need to look
up a quick phone number, I can just boot to dos and not wait for
Windows to load. My computer always boots to Dos when I turn it on.
Then I get a menu to offer me booting to Win98se or Win2000. (or just
stay in Dos by default).

Oddly enough, I rarely have problems with Win98 crashing. But I had
to get rid of IE. IE crashed regularly, both versions 5 and 5.5, and
6. I removed IE completely. I use Firefox, or K-Meleon. I actually
use Win98se more than 2000, but mostly because I have all my programs
and shortcuts in 98. However, I recently found a trick. I have an
icon in Win2000 which is my Win98 Desktop. Opening this icon, I can
access all my win98 programs, shortcuts and data. However, some
programs will not run, but many (like Forte Agent) will run on either
OS.

Yea, I often use Dos to fix problems in Windows.
I remember Xtree too.....

One thing I'd really miss without Dos, is that I like making Ascii
Art. Remember the old Ascii art on the old BBSs. I still like making
that stuff, except I've gone way beyond the old simple stick people
and animals. Using some 3rd party Dos addons (that I downloaded many
years ago), I can now animate this art, add sounds, colorize them and
much more. Not to brag, but 20 years ago, people would have died to
get some of the stuff I have created over the years. Most of it's
just ascii art using ansi.sys to colorize it, but I have found ways to
use the upper ascii characters, and use batch files to animate them,
plus those addons to delay events, add sound, add effects, and so on.
I got hooked on the ascii art many years ago, and still love doing it.
There's no market for it, but who cares, I like it. I load it from
autoexec.bat and have a colorful dos desktop, with colorful C:
prompts. And just for fun, I created a talk-back batch file series.
I can tell anyone to enter any (naughty) word at the C: prompt, and it
will give then a whole series of cussing and (naughty) images.

You just cant do stuff like this with Windows...
 
S

Sid Elbow

. No one needs
anything more than Win98 or Win2K. The only reason I use 2K is
because 98 lacks decent USB support. All my real work is done using
98. I'm using it now. Does this message look any different than one
posted using XP or Win7?

Well ... no .... but posting an ascii text message to a newsgroup is
hardly a demonstration of the power of an OS.

But while you are complaining about people telling you that you should
upgrade, aren't you essentially doing the same thing in reverse - saying
that "No one needs anything more than Win98 or Win2K" just because they
happen to suit you purposes? Nor is it just a question of support for
the OS. The Win9-series just doesn't have the power to run, say, a
modern CAD program such as Pro/Engineer or CATIA that the NT versions do
and even there, when an (NT) version such as Win2K is no longer
supported, it rapidly falls by the wayside as far as some applications go.

And I personally think that Win2K was the best of all windows versions.
I've reluctantly switched most of my installations (except one) to XP in
order to get certain programs (that I need) to run at all. But it's a
dog compared to Win2K even for basic stuff.

Doubtless, much of the current crop of applications could have been
successfully programmed for Win2K (though probably not for Win9x because
of its inherent limitations) and sure, the bottom line was money but
that's what we're stuck with. You either move on or tread water by
sticking with what you've got.

And if sticking with what you have is enough for you then more power to
you. Just be careful and remember that those OS's (especially Win98) are
leaky tubs as far as security issues go with their lack of maintenance.
And don't assume that everyone else is out of step because they don't
feel that Win98 is adequate for *their* purposes
 
S

Sid Elbow

There is also a stripped down version of WinXP, I think it's called the
black XP. Some people have removed all the extraneous and useless files
from it and it requires less memory to run.

There are applications (NLite is one IIRC) that allow you to prepare
lite versions of both Win2K and XP. They are quite good actually but you
need to be careful up front. Once installed much of what you took out
cannot be replaced and if some application happens to need a particular
module ..... tough.
 
J

jw

And if sticking with what you have is enough for you then more power to
you. Just be careful and remember that those OS's (especially Win98) are
leaky tubs as far as security issues go with their lack of maintenance.
And don't assume that everyone else is out of step because they don't
feel that Win98 is adequate for *their* purposes

Funny you say that. I never have issues with security in Win98. The
virus writers dont mess with Win98 anymore. And since I got rid of
IE, I dont even run into many spyware issues anymore. I dont even run
a anti-virus program in the background anymore. I manually scan once
and awhile, and scan downloads, but thats about all. When I installed
XP on another computer, I went online and within an hour, I had 3
occurances of malware in that hour.

Yea, part of it is what websites one visits, and I avoid the "slimy
ones", but there are redirects, and so the problems can occur. Then
too, I normally keep java script and popups disabled and that helps a
lot with redirects and such. That's what I like about the browser
"K-Meleon", I can enable and disable those things right at the top of
the screen. This browser deserves a lot more popularity than it gets.


I will have to say that I think Win2000 is more vunerable to malware
than Win98. I never go online with 2000, only with 98. (except on my
laptop at WIFI spots, because my wireless card requires Win2000 or
newer). But that laptop is just a tool to use for WIFI, I never use
it for regular computing and if it was to become infected, I'd just
wipe the drive and restore my backup. I have nothing valuable on it.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Ad

Advertisements

S

Sid Elbow

Yea, part of it is what websites one visits, and I avoid the "slimy
ones", but there are redirects, and so the problems can occur.

Set your browser to not allow redirects (assuming that your
Win98-version browser allows that as more recent ones do :)-) ). Or only
allow redirects on "Trusted Sites".

I don't feel javascript is that bad actually but you should certainly
turn off Active-X ... although early IE versions (up to IE-s as I
recall) will give you a nag window, that you can't turn off for each and
every Active-X objects it finds, which can make some sites unworkable.
Again, you can probably leave it on for Trusted Sites.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top