packman

If you honestly ever suspect having a "hard disk meltdown", wouldn't you rather rely on a complete backup to CD or tape, anyway, to restore everything? I mean, you can do that in either FAT32 or NTFS. I can't see that, just because you formatted to NTFS, rather than FAT32, you're going to prevent a faulty hard disk from completely screwing up. Okay, for lesser problems, where it's not actually the HD that's at fault but, more, some aspect of the OS, I could perhaps believe that NTFS will recover the situation better. But, as I said earlier, I've been running Win2K on FAT32 to date and, on the very infrequent occasions when something HAS gone wrong, Windows has always recovered. Please, please. Someone, convince me that I'm not going to suffer a hikedown in speed if I go to NTFS.With obvious overheads, it certainly looks as though I am. (Incidentally, I notice that, under Win2K's Disk management, you can format in either FAT32 or NTFS, and cluster size anything from 512b to 8KB, but I think that, in practice, Windows prefers to use the default setting and adjusts things itself, according to the size of the partition).

Ah, perhaps the truth is now slowly beginning to emerge. Perhaps jwl812 really DOES have a point? I'll personally stick with the alleged better speed of FAT32, unless and until such time that someone can demonstrate convincing evidence to the contrary. Thanks, jwl812, for causing me to think twice about NTFS. It's not always best to go with the crowd, eh? Sure, if you're a commercial outfit, your leanings are probably going to be more toward the reliability/security side of things.

It's all very well you lot criticising jwl812 and producing quotes of one sort or another, but not one of you has produced a shred of evidence that NTFS is at least as fast as FAT32, or is only marginally slower. Could that be because jwl812 is actually correct in his/her assertion? If not, then what do you suppose jwl812 has or hasn't done, to have made his/her system so slow? It's certainly true that M$ plays down the speed aspect of NTFS, in preference to promoting its security and recovery aspects. I guess also that, with some respondants, there's an element of "I'm not going to admit I didn't necessarily make the best choice". You get that with all sorts of products and services, not just computers. For me, maintaining decent speed of operation is all-important (and no, I'm not a games person), so if it comes down to a choice between speed and security/recovery, I'll go for the former. To date, my FAT32 partitions have worked almost flawlessly; on the few occasions when a program's halted, Win2K has always recovered the situation without, apparently, any longterm damage. So, perhaps the argument for NTFS, rather than FAT32, is not as clearcut as one would at first suppose.

Here's my pennyworth. I'm currently making preparations to change my Win2K FAT32 partitions to NTFSs. I've studied a number of detailed books on Win2K and the file systems and these are some of the facts I discovered: 1. If you originally had FAT32 partitions and you converted to NTFS by using the Convert command, then you will certainly permanently slow down your hard drive. This is because Convert will leave the Master File Table spread all over your partition, rather than in a neat contiguous block at the beginning. The MFT holds all the information about individual files. Instead, to convert, you should use Format. This also puts a buffer zone next to the MFT, so further reducing fragmentation of the MFT. 2. Even with careful formatting, an NTFS partition might not still run as fast as its FAT32 equivalent. You're likely to get slower NTFS operation with smallish hard disk size and where you're using lots of small files (and so the MFT is used that much more). Although I've been spending a lot of time planning my conversion, I'm still wondering whether it's going to be worth it. I think the main advantage of NTFS will be in its better file recovery features, slightly better overall reliability, and ability to handle partitions in excess of 32GB. Beyond that, I can't see a really valid reason for using NTFS on a standalone machine.

Yes, I've also got the CT4760. Mine's the SB LIve Platinum (it'll be called something slightly different in the States, I think). Like you, I'm using Win2K + SP2. I too have had problems downloading and installing the driver. The downloading works but (and this was quite a long time ago now, so my memory on this is hazy) the driver wouldn't install and I got an error message something like "File XYZ is missing; the driver will not install". I tried downloading a second time but same result. In the end, I contacted Creative about it. They denied there was any problem with it. Fortunately for me, I'm not so concerned with having all the bells and whistles and extra software that the full driver gives, so in the end I simply forgot about the pukka driver and, ever since, have been using the Micro$oft default SB driver instead, which is called something like Microsoft SB Live Basic (see Device Manager). This provides perfectly good audio quality for the restricted amount of CD and DVD playback operations I perform but I can understand your frustration at not getting the bells and whistles you need for games work, etc. I'm convinced the problem lays with Creative, ie the driver itself is at fault. I guess in time Creative will realise this but, in the meantime, they'll be a hard nut to crack.

Clutch, What exactly is that announcement, to which you've pointed us? Is it someone just having a laugh, or what? The article is worded so that you can't tell whether it's an announcement about the final release of SP3 or whether it's about the release of yet another beta version of it. In my view, it's either the latter or a complete spoof. I've checked at Micro$oft's uopdate website and there's no mention whatsoever of it.

Wizard, I've tried the link you quoted and I recognise it as the very one I used at the last count. MS simply never responded, and I kept sending them reminders but those reminders were just ignored. It could be that you Americans get preferential treatment. Equally, MS might not give any support at all for upgrade versions of Win2K, as that's what I bought. However, if that were so it would appear to be very discriminatory. Was yours an upgrade version or a full version? I can't really see what I can do beyond what I've already attempted. I've tried all the normal routes. I must say that, from my long experience with MS products, the person-to-person support in the UK - be it phone or e-mail - has been virtually non-existent and users like myself usually have to rely on material published online or on info gathered from tech forums to get by. I know of no UK organisation that could force MS UK to provide me with the info I need. As a US consumer, you seem to be much better off than us Brits (which doesn't surprise me). This all seems especially galling, as in the UK we pay through the nose for software. If you really ARE talking about the very same cache problem as I've been discussing and you were provided with the fix, was it indeed a 'hotfix'? What sort of filesize was it? Presumably, it wasn't all that large, if MS e-mailed it to you, rather than directing you to a download site? [Do bear in mind that the US and UK versions of Win2K Pro are likely to differ in some respects. However, I would imagine this fix to be directed at what is a common area of the operating system].

Wizard, let me tell you (and others) this: When I first researched the cache problem about seven months ago and realised I'd have to specifically request a fix for it from Micro$oft, I looked for methods to contact Micro$oft UK (since that's from where I hail and where I bought my copy of Win2K). It soon became apparent that the only support that MS would give over the phone would be chargeable. Curiously, the free support for a limited period that used to exist with MS products was no longer offered, right from the start. I therefore tried e-mailing MS Support here in the UK, explaining in detail the problem and requesting the hotfix. I waited three weeks, got no reply whatever, so tried again, shortening the explanation. Waited another two weeks - no reply whatever. I then searched for another of MS's e-mail support addresses and ended up sending my message to an American MS site. Now, after a delay of about a week, they did have the decency to respond but stated that they couldn't help, as I'd bought my Win2K in the UK. Fair enough, but I explained the problem of contacting MS UK and they said "Okay, we'll pass on your enquiry and consider it". So, I left it with them. They obviously know the cache problem well but there it ended - no further response from MS whatever, despite me sending them numerous reminders. Thus, I gave up. In discussing this situation with another technical forum on the Internet, I got in touch with a Canadian IT technician whose administrator admitted that MS are quite willing to release the hotfix to corporate organisations (for the asking and possibly because otherwise the organisation might make a legal case out of it). However, for single users and small businesses, the fix would be available only through the chargeable route. That IT contact of mine and all his Win2K contacts were, in fact, in the same predicament as myself. This appears to explain why MS refused to respond to my e-mails. Wizard, if you yourself have managed to get the fix from MS easily and for free, then you must consider yourself extremely lucky. It seems very odd that MS acknowledges that this cache problem exists and yet they will not set up a public download for its fix. They do it for every single security issue but they won't do it for this quite serious operational problem. The message I'm getting from my Canadian contact, whose administrator deals directly with MS, is that MS regard this charging for this hotfix as quite lucrative. Conceivably, this is a misjudgement of the situation, in which case someone please show me the correct route to the hotfix!

First, Palos, the cache writeback problem is not the "unmountable boot device" that you think it is. I think you're possibly hinting at a totally different bug. For information on the cache writeback problem, take a look at the following two Microsoft articles: http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q281672&FR=1. http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q290757&FR=1. The problem is caused by two faulty system drivers - classpnp.sys and disk.sys. Micro$oft has published some revisions to these two files (compare the dates of your own versions of these files and you'll find them miles out of date, even after having applied SP2. However, Micro$oft has NOT acxtually provided the fix(es) for it. It is said that, if you're a large corporate customer with a tech support contract, you can get the pre-SP3 hotfix for this problem just for the asking but, if you're a single user, the only way you can get it is by buying it from Micro$oft (anywhere from $50 - $200). In effect, this is their charge for tech support on this problem. Obviously, users like myself are not prepared to pay this extra tariff on top of purchasing Win2K itself. Most hard drives these days have an option for cache writeback. To find this, open My Computer, rt-click on your root drive and then dig several levels thro the Hardware tab to Properties and there you'll find the setting. In theory, you could skirt the problem by disabling the setting. However, the fault is such that it automatically re-enables the next time you boot. Errors and warnings can be seen in Event Viewer (Programs/Admin Tools). They tend to tail off with usage of Win2K, so if you've been using Win2K for a while, you might have missed all the earlier errors and warnings (look at Properties of any listed warnings).

Yes, I too have been anxious to obtain SP3 ASAP. I'm hoping that it contains a long-awaited fix for the hard disk cache writeback problem, which my machine suffers from. This can cause random corruption of the hard disk every time you shut down. I'd hazard a guess that at least 80% of Win2K Pro users have this problem but don't realise it. Micro$soft's had a pre-SP3 hotfix for it for quite some time but haven't released it publicly (you can buy it from them). There's also a quite serious bug with Task Manager and I hope that that also has been addressed in SP3. Originally, SP3's release date was supposed to be April 2002, then it was rumoured as May, now June. Two things are delaying it - first, beta testing, which I gather is still on-going, and second, the fact that Micro$oft are obviously quite happy to make money from the hotfixes they sell to us users in the meantime.

MUa_Dib, Can you explain in some detail how you did an 'integrated' install of SP2, on Win2K Pro, as I need to know? My Win2K version is an upgrade version, but installed clean (not copying across any crap from Win98). I then immediately applied SP2 but this was a version of SP2 off a magazine CD and, as with several other versions of SP2, it hasn't properly updated some Win2K drivers, including two that handle HD caching. Consequently, the HD gets corrupted on the first few reboots. Apparently, the only proper way to apply SP2 to Win2K Pro is the 'integrated' method, and only using the full Networked version (even if it's a standalone machine, like mine).

Ekstreme, What do you mean by a 'clean' install? Did you know that most versions of SP2 do not properly update some of Win2K's important system files? This includes some concerned with HD caching and in many cases this causes HD corruption on the first few reboots. Incidentally, why are you commenting on the use of SP2 on someone's Win2K, when apparently you yourself are using WinXP? Are you getting mixed up?

Felix, Bladerunner and others: I would not recommend anyone using a magazine-cover version of SP2 because it's likely to be the Express version and so is one of the versions which doesn't properly update system drivers. This includes drivers responsible for handling the hard disk cache. This means that on a good many Win2K machines data will be lost on the first few reboots, thus rendering the HD corrupted. It's happened with mine. There isn't a satisfactory answer to this and I've been trying to get Microsoft to provide me with an ad-hoc fix. The problem can be circumvented if you do an 'integrated' install but only of the full Networked version of SP2. It's an over-complex and hazardous install. This problem is due to be fixed in SP3 but SP3 is some way off yet. So, don't get too self-assured about SP2. A great many SP2 users are continuing to use their machines in ignorance. Unfortunately, Win2K's Event Viewer may not show those early corruptions after some time, so many users will be none the wiser.

It might be nothing at all to do with ACPI. What you describe are classic symptoms of the cache write-back problem. Most versions of SP2 do not in fact properly update some system files, including two that handle hard disk cache write-back. This means that, when Windows is shut down the first few times, the cached data doesn't get properly written back to the HD and so you get HD corruption. Microsoft acknowledge this as an issue but at present there isn't a fix openly available for it. We'll have to wait for SP3, I'm afraid. Meanwhile, take a look in Event vIewer to see if there are any errors logged or any warnings about hard disk corruption. For the cache setting (configurable), look in the Properties of your root drive. Also, in Event Viewer look at the Properties of any errors. Take a look at http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q281672&FR=1. Look also at the same address but change the Q number to 290757.

Yes, you DO need SP2 to get ATA100 operation. However, some hard drives have a firmware UDMA default setting and in lots of cases this is UDMA66, not UDMA/ATA100. It might be worth contacting your HDD manufacturer, to see if there's a firmware utility available to change from 66 to 100. There WAS with mine. Also, I presume you realise that there are some different versions of SP2 around and that apparently only the 'network' version actually fully works? The others do not properly update some drivers. This situation is due to be fixed in SP3.

Sorry to jump in here when so much discussion has already taken place but it's fairly common knowledge that Win2k doesn't by itself support ATA100 operation. You need to add Service Pack 2 immediately after installing Win2K, as the fix for it is on that.This you've done, it seems. Some manufacturers of hard drives require an additional utility to be downloaded and run, in order to set up the hard drive for the UDMA or ATA performance you require. The default for a given HDD might not be ATA100, it might be UDMA66. Perhaps you should make some enquiries with the manufacturer of your hard drive? Perhaps you THINK you're running at ATA100 but in reality you're simply running at UDMA66. I presume you're aware also that there are different versions of SP2 around. Apparently, only the version for networked PCs actually fully works. The Express and third-party CD versions of SP2 do not properly update some drivers in Win2K. If you're unlucky, like I've been, you can end up with the cache write-back problem through this. Microsoft acknowledge that this is an issue in Win2K but they don't have a fix for it that's openly available. We'll all have to wait for SP3.

Bladerunner, NTGameman, and others: Yes, I'm ALSO interested in when SP3 will arive but, frankly, I can't even get SP2 to work properly. I installed it straight after Win2K Pro itself but it's not updated crucial drivers and is exhibiting the cache write-back problem, which causes hard disk corruption on reboots. Microsoft know about this problem (seeQ281672). A lot of Win2K users are ignorant of it, primarily because after a few days, the errors in Event Viewer tail off. However, by then, the damage has been done. Microsoft invite affected users to contact them for a downloadable fix but I've tried this and, as ever, they simply don't reply. I've yet to find a separate fix for it anywhere. The SP2 I applied was off a freebie CD (not an official Microsoft CD). Was THAT my mistake? Is the downloadable SP2 from Microsoft's site any better, in fully up[censored] everything, especially those two cache files - classpnp.sys and disk.sys? I see that the download version - and here I'm talking about a standalone PC, not a networked machine - uses an SP2Express exec file to install it. I've seen the pre-SP3 list that everyone here seems familiar with and the cache fix is definitely on that list (no.99 in the list). However, before I reformat my main partition again, just to experiment with the downloadable version of SP2, I'd like some cool advice on SP2 - whether it does fix the cache problem and whether FOR A STANDALONE MACHINE.

I'm afraid this is about the nearest heading for this particular enquiry. I'm using Win2K Pro/Sp2 on a standalone machine. Initially, after OS installation, I noticed some serious errors logged in Event Viewer. I thought nothing of it but later realised that, after installing SP2 (off a freebie CD), I have classic symptoms of the cache write-back problem. SP2 (as installed by yours truly straight after Win2K) doesn't update classpnp.sys and disk.sys, with the result that, on the first few reboots, hard disk corruptions can occur.Even now, I'm getting warnings in Event Viewer about possible hard disk corruptions. Microsoft publish an article on this at http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q281672&FR=1. They suggest that a separate fix is obtainable but I've tried asking them and I get no reply. Why doesn't my SP2 update those two files to at least 3490 and 3596? Do I need to download and install SP2 specifically from Microsoft's site? I notice that there you download first an exec program, then SP2 itself. Others I've discussed this with mention an 'integrated' install of Win2K/SP2 but what's published at www.ntcompatible.com/content.php?page_id=15 concerning that is hideously complex. I can't believe you need to do all that just to properly install SP2. Is there a pre-SP3 hotfix for the cache write-back problem?