win2k + qnx

Hi,

I found some serious problem with w2k and qnx.

77 and 78 partition are shown as FAT partition in w2k,
79 is shown as FREE partition.

So the major problem is only with 77/78 partitions (QNX4).

The problems starts when these 77/78 partitions becomes almost full,
w2k stops finding them as healthy FAT partitions and actually start
to fix them when you boot w2k.

The result is that some data is changed/lost on your 77/78 partitions.

I can’t believe how w2k can shows non-dos/win partitions as FAT partition
it’s insane…

I’m currently trying to find out partition number that are NOT shown as FAT
partition by w2k, as far as i tested i only found 79 who shows as FREE.

If you know how to avoid that major problem or if you know partition number
that doesn’t show as FAT partition in w2k please tell…

Hmm. I did not notice that. Anyway, you could try to use one of partitions
Windows surely knows (and does not support) so it won’t try to fix it. OS/2
would be a good choice. (type 7 I think).

  • igor

“jhroyer” <nospam28@joher.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.010401215941.466979A@ip10.joher.com

Hi,

I found some serious problem with w2k and qnx.

77 and 78 partition are shown as FAT partition in w2k,
79 is shown as FREE partition.

So the major problem is only with 77/78 partitions (QNX4).

The problems starts when these 77/78 partitions becomes almost full,
w2k stops finding them as healthy FAT partitions and actually start
to fix them when you boot w2k.

The result is that some data is changed/lost on your 77/78 partitions.

I can’t believe how w2k can shows non-dos/win partitions as FAT partition
it’s insane…

I’m currently trying to find out partition number that are NOT shown as
FAT
partition by w2k, as far as i tested i only found 79 who shows as FREE.

If you know how to avoid that major problem or if you know partition
number
that doesn’t show as FAT partition in w2k please tell…

Unfortunately no,

0x7h is also the partition type of a windows NTFS partition. (also the one
of QNX2 :wink:

I tried:

Linux: 129,130,131
FreeBsd: 165
OpenBsd: 166
NetBsd: 169
Novell: 103,104,105

Unfortunately all of them are shown as FAT.

In fact the problem is more complex, other partition are shown as windows
partition but ONLY qnx partition
are also shown as windows + FAT because windows seem to find out some FAT
info on these qnx partitions.

So far only type 79 is not shown as a windows partition but it’s shown as a
FREE partition.

All the others (linux/bsd/novell) are shown as windows partitions but only
(77/78) QNX partitions have data
that leads windows to think they’re FAT.

Most of the time they’re shown as ‘Healthy’ but if data goes over some place
on this parition it switch to non-healthy
and win2k try to fix them at boot time.

Then some data is lost on the QNX partition.



“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:9a844v$an4$1@inn.qnx.com

Hmm. I did not notice that. Anyway, you could try to use one of partitions
Windows surely knows (and does not support) so it won’t try to fix it.
OS/2
would be a good choice. (type 7 I think).

  • igor

“jhroyer” <> nospam28@joher.com> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010401215941.466979A@ip10.joher.com> …
Hi,

I found some serious problem with w2k and qnx.

77 and 78 partition are shown as FAT partition in w2k,
79 is shown as FREE partition.

So the major problem is only with 77/78 partitions (QNX4).

The problems starts when these 77/78 partitions becomes almost full,
w2k stops finding them as healthy FAT partitions and actually start
to fix them when you boot w2k.

The result is that some data is changed/lost on your 77/78 partitions.

I can’t believe how w2k can shows non-dos/win partitions as FAT
partition
it’s insane…

I’m currently trying to find out partition number that are NOT shown as
FAT
partition by w2k, as far as i tested i only found 79 who shows as FREE.

If you know how to avoid that major problem or if you know partition
number
that doesn’t show as FAT partition in w2k please tell…

“jhr” <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:9aa2t6$g23$1@inn.qnx.com

Most of the time they’re shown as ‘Healthy’ but if data goes over some
place
on this parition it switch to non-healthy
and win2k try to fix them at boot time.

Why not just to disable those drives from w2k disk manager? W2k will happily
ignore them after it.

-Reko

You can remove drive letters from them (they don’t have drive letters
anyway)
but I dunno how you can disable these partitions.

Regards.


“Reko Turja” <ignaz@swagman.org> wrote in message
news:9aa58m$hhb$1@inn.qnx.com

“jhr” <> nospam@nospam.com> > wrote in message
news:9aa2t6$g23$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Most of the time they’re shown as ‘Healthy’ but if data goes over some
place
on this parition it switch to non-healthy
and win2k try to fix them at boot time.

Why not just to disable those drives from w2k disk manager? W2k will
happily
ignore them after it.

-Reko
\

Reko Turja wrote:

“jhr” <> nospam@nospam.com> > wrote in message news:9aa2t6$g23$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Most of the time they’re shown as ‘Healthy’ but if data goes over some
place
on this parition it switch to non-healthy
and win2k try to fix them at boot time.

Why not just to disable those drives from w2k disk manager? W2k will happily
ignore them after it.

-Reko

The danger is that as soon as you do ANYHTING that changes the partition
information on the disk, disk manager will start to do unpleseant things
to any partition it doesn’t recognize properly…

it seems to work by the principle: “if there is something i dont
recognize, it must be something wrong, and when that happens I should to
automatic corrections without asking for permission, even though I have
no idea what I am doing”

example:
the hd had the following partitions:

1: fat 16 (active partition)
2: Linux
3: QNX
4: Linux swap

I was trying to make the linux partition the active one, as soon as I
did that, disk manager promptly wiped all partition information, and
claimed the entire disk to be “free space”

example 2:
the hd had the following partitions:

1: fat 16 (active partition)
2: Linux
3: QNX
4: Extended partion containing:
5: Linux swap
6: fat 32
7: fat 32

Same here, when I tried to make the linux partition the active one, disk
manager decided that there was something wrong with my extended
partition, and promptly removed all logical partiotions in it…


in other words: use caution when using disk manager with non fat/ntfs
partitions

Same for me, I lost my paritition table when I tried to make a partition
active,
but once again be carefull because when booting w2k will try to handle these
partition and if he finds it as FAT AND NON-HEALTHY it will auto fix it.

That’s why we really need a fix from microsoft asap or to find a partition
type number that is not recognized by w2k.


“Crudbreeder” <crudbreeder@psynet.net> wrote in message
news:3AC8B424.85A2D29E@psynet.net

The danger is that as soon as you do ANYHTING that changes the partition
information on the disk, disk manager will start to do unpleseant things
to any partition it doesn’t recognize properly…

it seems to work by the principle: “if there is something i dont
recognize, it must be something wrong, and when that happens I should to
automatic corrections without asking for permission, even though I have
no idea what I am doing”

example:
the hd had the following partitions:

1: fat 16 (active partition)
2: Linux
3: QNX
4: Linux swap

I was trying to make the linux partition the active one, as soon as I
did that, disk manager promptly wiped all partition information, and
claimed the entire disk to be “free space”

example 2:
the hd had the following partitions:

1: fat 16 (active partition)
2: Linux
3: QNX
4: Extended partion containing:
5: Linux swap
6: fat 32
7: fat 32

Same here, when I tried to make the linux partition the active one, disk
manager decided that there was something wrong with my extended
partition, and promptly removed all logical partiotions in it…


in other words: use caution when using disk manager with non fat/ntfs
partitions

Previously, jhr wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.installation:

Same for me, I lost my paritition table when I tried to make a partition
active,
but once again be carefull because when booting w2k will try to handle these
partition and if he finds it as FAT AND NON-HEALTHY it will auto fix it.

That’s why we really need a fix from microsoft asap or to find a partition
type number that is not recognized by w2k.

Har. Do you really believe that Microsoft has not done this
intentionally? Thou shalt have no other no other operating system
before Windows. This is just Microsoft being quietly pissy with other
operating system vendors. Earlier versions of Windows and DOS
respected the partition table just fine (almost), and Microsoft has
never made an official claim to partition numbers 77, 78 and 79 to my
knowledge.

Just my paranoid mind in action.

Andrew

Hardly paranoid. Good luck jhr in getting a fix from Mickeysoft.

You know, this sort of behavior really is quite illegal (at least here
in the U.S.). This is far worse than most viruses. If M$ claims that
this is an innocent bug, then they immediately validate the same claim
from anyone who writes a virus for their OS (ooops, sorry I didn’t mean
to do that), it’ll bite them in the ass.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Thomas [mailto:Andrew@cogent.ca]
Posted At: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:59 AM
Posted To: installation
Conversation: win2k + qnx
Subject: Re: win2k + qnx


Previously, jhr wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.installation:

Same for me, I lost my paritition table when I tried to make a
partition
active,
but once again be carefull because when booting w2k will try to handle
these
partition and if he finds it as FAT AND NON-HEALTHY it will auto fix
it.

That’s why we really need a fix from microsoft asap or to find a
partition
type number that is not recognized by w2k.

Har. Do you really believe that Microsoft has not done this
intentionally? Thou shalt have no other no other operating system
before Windows. This is just Microsoft being quietly pissy with other
operating system vendors. Earlier versions of Windows and DOS
respected the partition table just fine (almost), and Microsoft has
never made an official claim to partition numbers 77, 78 and 79 to my
knowledge.

Just my paranoid mind in action.

Andrew

Rennie Allen wrote:

Hardly paranoid. Good luck jhr in getting a fix from Mickeysoft.

You know, this sort of behavior really is quite illegal (at least here
in the U.S.). This is far worse than most viruses. If M$ claims that
this is an innocent bug, then they immediately validate the same claim
from anyone who writes a virus for their OS (ooops, sorry I didn’t mean
to do that), it’ll bite them in the ass.

Well, all they (MS) have to do is to write a disclaimer saying something
like “this software is intended only for use with MS filesystems, using
it with other filesystems may result in damage to your computer.
This software comes with no warranty for use with any other than MS
filesystems. we will not be liable for any damage caused by such use of
this program”

And, trojan writers can do the same (no one actually reads the license
agreement). In fact, the trojan doesn’t even have to write a
disclaimer, since the application that is hosting it probably already
has one. You’ll also notice that these disclaimers usually say
something like “void where prohibited by law”, because many states do
not allow somebody to produce something that is negligently or
intentionally destructive, and try to disclaim their way out of it…

-----Original Message-----
From: Crudbreeder [mailto:crudbreeder@psynet.net]
Posted At: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:36 PM
Posted To: installation
Conversation: win2k + qnx
Subject: Re: win2k + qnx


Rennie Allen wrote:

Hardly paranoid. Good luck jhr in getting a fix from Mickeysoft.

You know, this sort of behavior really is quite illegal (at least here
in the U.S.). This is far worse than most viruses. If M$ claims that
this is an innocent bug, then they immediately validate the same claim
from anyone who writes a virus for their OS (ooops, sorry I didn’t
mean
to do that), it’ll bite them in the ass.

Well, all they (MS) have to do is to write a disclaimer saying something
like “this software is intended only for use with MS filesystems, using
it with other filesystems may result in damage to your computer.
This software comes with no warranty for use with any other than MS
filesystems. we will not be liable for any damage caused by such use of
this program”

I gotta say, like everyone else I do begrudgingly have a MicroSlob Windoze
computer because every now and then I have to look at files that people send
me that can only be viewed with MS Software.

BUT . . . . why the hell would anyone screw up a REAL COMPUTER by putting
MicroSlob Anything on it?

DON’T DO IT ! ! !

If you play with fire YOU WILL GET BURNED!


Bill Caroselli - Sattel Global Networks
1-818-709-6201 ext 122



“Crudbreeder” <crudbreeder@psynet.net> wrote in message
news:3ACA2621.37FEE336@psynet.net

Rennie Allen wrote:

Hardly paranoid. Good luck jhr in getting a fix from Mickeysoft.

You know, this sort of behavior really is quite illegal (at least here
in the U.S.). This is far worse than most viruses. If M$ claims that
this is an innocent bug, then they immediately validate the same claim
from anyone who writes a virus for their OS (ooops, sorry I didn’t mean
to do that), it’ll bite them in the ass.


Well, all they (MS) have to do is to write a disclaimer saying something
like “this software is intended only for use with MS filesystems, using
it with other filesystems may result in damage to your computer.
This software comes with no warranty for use with any other than MS
filesystems. we will not be liable for any damage caused by such use of
this program”