|
|
You have to tell the bios to use the external card first in the boot order. This setting is probably SCSI adapter or something like that.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Got a new mainboard. 
|
|
|
|
|
Thats one way of doing it :P
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I am trying to schedule a task using the AT command in an NT 4.0 workstation.
What I need to do is schedule the task under a specific log on account other than system or administrator account.
Any ideas/suggestions will be graetly appreciated.
Thank you in advance
Alberto Gattegno
Software Engineer
http://www.itgil.com
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] may be helpful. I haven't tried it, but perhaps a combination od RUNAS and AT will do the trick. If not, try stuffing the AT command in a .bat file and using RUNAS to execute it.
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
can't be done. you can have the task interact with the desktop of the logged on user, but no 'run as' in 4. can you use the newer "task scheduler" that is installed with IE 6? then you'll have the opportunity to use an account of your choice.
|
|
|
|
|
My dad's primary hard drive, a Maxtor 40GB drive, has developed numerous bad sectors (possibly a bad cylinder?). So, we went off to the local Fry's, and bought an 80GB Western Digital (annoyingly loud, BTW).
Brought it home, put it in as primary slave. Booted it up, and the PnP BIOS's automatic hard disk detection (which runs on each boot) froze up when it got to the "slot" that that drive was on.
Removed all the other drives except for the old main drive, which stayed the primary master. Tried every jumper and cable configuration that was feasible (SM/Master, SM/Cable-Select, PS/Slave, PS/Cable-Select) - still froze up w/ the auto-detection. Tried w/ it as PM w/ no other drives on the system (not even the old PM), w/ both Master and CS jumper settings - still no luck. :bang-head:
It's not like just the auto-detection didn't work - it didn't show up at all, not from the command line or anything.
FYI, this is a fairly old system (Pentium II, PC100 RAM, Mfg around the time Win98 1st Ed. came out), and doesn't support large drives (over 8.4 GB), but twice (including once w/ this same system) I've successfully used overlay software to circumvent this. But it likely isn't due to a mobo failure, as the other drives are detected just fine.
Any ideas? Anything to try?
I've already returned defective parts to Fry's 4x in the last month or so, so I'm a little bit  to do it again - makes me look like a klutz - even though I've built lots of systems before. 
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Western Digital drives are fairly consistent in the jumper pattern. If it's a single drive system, no jumper is used. If a dual, the first drive must be jumpered as Master, and the second as Slave. I've heard that some systems use CS, but I've never seen one. It may be a problem with the interface - the new drives are UltraATA66/100, and may not be detectable by an older BIOS. Check for an updated BIOS from the MB manufacturer. I assume that it already has LBA enabled, as the previous drive was 40GB, but you might want to verify that. Have you tried the WD EZDrive software that comes with the HD yet? I hate it, but it does sometimes make the installation easier. If all else fails, you may be able to manually set the drive parameters in the BIOS using type 47 ( IIRC ) for the drive type.
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
It may be a problem with the interface - the new drives are UltraATA66/100, and may not be detectable by an older BIOS.
The previous one was an Ultra ATA/133, and it worked fine. 
Roger Wright wrote:
Have you tried the WD EZDrive software that comes with the HD yet?
No, I haven't - this is an OEM drive, so I'll have to download it.
Roger Wright wrote:
If all else fails, you may be able to manually set the drive parameters in the BIOS using type 47 ( IIRC ) for the drive type.
Hmm...I'll try that.
|
|
|
|
|
I would also say that it seems like a BIOS related issue. Try flashing in a new updated BIOS.
|
|
|
|
|
It was the BIOS. I'm trying to bypass the BIOS by using an PCI IDE card. Working so far - the IDE card's BIOS recognizes the drive and its correct size, but I can't boot from it. See my post on that above.
|
|
|
|
|
How can I keep the My Documents Folder, and all the stuff in it show in the start menu, but have stop windows from adding anything new to it?
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
Why not add My Documents as a menu and remove My Recent Documents
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
 i am trying to burn cd with an iomega external drive and i am having a very hard time any suggestions
leslie
|
|
|
|
|
A little more information would be helpful. What program are you using to burn the CDs? What errors are you seeing? What OS are you running? Have you checked for recent driver updates? Is the drive on the LPT port, or USB? Other?
"Your village called -
They're missing their idiot."
|
|
|
|
|
I have two machines here, XP and 98SE, and (not surprisingly for 98) I have a network hassle. The XP machine can browse the 98 machine no problem, but when I try and open the XP machine in the 98's Explorer it asks for a password for IPC$. This is irritating, because I'm logged in as the same user on both machines, with correct privs, and 98 doesn't allow you to type in a username. Any advice? Thanks in advance 
Paul 
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorted out now, thanks 
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul van der Walt wrote:
thanks
Well, I'm just glad I could be of service
Seriously though, what was the fix?
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
Even though the usernames and passwords were the same on both machines, Windows didn't 'match' them (typical 98  ). I created a new username on both machines, that solved it.
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you just love computers
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
No, I love Windows 98  
Paul
That demands capital punishment!! Death by a herd of marauding Bobs! - Ryan Binns
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul van der Walt wrote:
No, I love Windows 98
Shh, don't let your XP box hear you
Matt Newman
If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
|
|
|
|
|
please reply me.. if neone can tell
I want to know the difference between segemented paging and paged segementation??
|
|
|
|
|
It's basically whether the segment selector is used first, or the page number is used first. See Segmentation and Paging Combined[^].
Note, I found this through the obvious method: Google for '"segmented paging" "paged segmentation"'.
In practice, segment selectors that are not part of a 'flat' virtual address, such as x86 processors have, are a total pain in the neck to set up and use - which is why Windows ignores them for the most part, only using them as the processor requires. Most processors now operate on a segmented paging basis, where the 'page table' is actually a hierarchy of page directories and page tables.
The original 386 scheme uses the most significant 10 bits of the virtual address to access the top level (the Page Directory) which contains a physical address pointing to the appropriate Page Table. The next 10 bits are used to index the appropriate Page Table, which then contains the physical address of the actual page. On Pentium and later processors, the page directory entry contains a bit (Page Size) which indicates whether the remaining 22 bits in the address are a page table index and offset within the page, or whether they are an offset into a large page (4MByte). Windows 2000 and XP use 4MByte pages to map parts of system address space, to reduce the number of page tables and TLB space, which gives more memory available to programs, at the cost of higher internal fragmentation.
If you enable Physical Addressing Extension, the format of the page tables changes. There are now three levels: Page Directory Pointer Table, Page Directory, and Page Table. The top level (PDPT) contains four Page Directory Pointer entries, then the Page Directory and Page Table each contain 512 entries. Each entry is 64 bits in size, some of which point to an address and some of which are flags. Again, the Page Table level can be omitted, with the Page Directory Entry pointing directly to a 2MByte page. AMD's AMD64 architecture adds a fourth level for Long Mode (64-bit virtual addressing).
The advantage of these multi-level systems is that not all page directory entries need be valid - the OS need only construct and fill in the page tables that are actually being used. Indeed, it can swap out page tables if required.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
before, but I don't remember how to do it now. 
I disabled the onboard IDE, but no luck. Any ideas? 
