After installing the Adaptec 293 card in your PC, select and install the appropriate device drivers for your system to ensure proper communication between the digitizer and PC. VIDAR has introduced a driver CD that can be used to install UB or SCSI drivers on Windows 2000 and XP operating Systems. Drivers from Diamond Multimedia. Diamond Multimedia Systems SCSI Host Adapter 5.0.2183.1. Diamond Multimedia Theater 750 PCIE HD TV Tuner Card TVW750PCIE. Diamond Fireport 40 SCSI UW Vendor: Diamond Tested operating systems: Windows 2000, Windows XP Most recent version of this submission: Diamond Fireport 40 SCSI UW Average Rating: Tagged as: Diamond, Fireport Submit a new result for this product.
> So Norman, what is your point here?> That MS has not considered this particular bug as serious?
> Probably they were right, as it occurs only in very special
> conditions
Oh.My.God. OK Mr. A., here were the very special conditions. A combination
of the wisdom of making backups, with the stupidity of using Windows. No
one other than me had this idiotic combination.
Was it a very special condition to buy a computer with Windows 95
preinstalled and included in the cost of the computer? Maybe in Czech or
Russia or wherever yes, because maybe those governments were stronger than
Microsoft and computers could be bought without paying the Microsoft tax.
But in Japan, 97% of home computers were sold with Windows 95 preinstalled,
1% with Windows NT preinstalled, and 2% with MacOS. The models with NT
available had crippled hardware. The models with MacOS didn't suit most
common usage. In Japan, it was not a very special condition to buy a
computer with Windows 95 included in the purchase price.
Was it a very special condition to buy a SCSI card and external SCSI disk
drive? Maybe in Czech or Russia or wherever yes. Not in Japan. Those
peripherals were flying off the shelves. For a few years stores couldn't
keep them in stock. Now external disk drives use USB and owners don't have
to buy adapter cards, but in 1997 it was SCSI.
Was it a very special condition to use Windows 95 FDISK and Format? Maybe
in Czech or Russia or wherever yes. Not in Japan. Most SCSI card vendors
in Japan gave instructions duplicating Microsoft's instructions. Only Ratoc
provided their own partitioner for Windows 95. Only Adaptec provided their
own formatter for Windows 95. Dozens of vendors said that if Windows 95 was
already installed then Windows 95's tools should be used. Vendors didn't
say that their tools for MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 should be used even in
Windows 95.
After Mitsubishi Electric (Buffalo) saw several repros and performed several
repros themselves, they licenced Ratoc's partitioner for Windows 95.
Subsequently they produced their own partitioner and formatter for Windows
95.
Was it a very special condition to know that destruction of entire
partitions is something that software isn't supposed to do except when told
to do so? Could be, eh? You didn't know it, Microsoft didn't know it,
maybe I was the only one who knew it. But then why did Ratoc and Adaptec
and later Mitsubishi Electric produce special tools for Windows 95? Just
for me? When I didn't even own a Ratoc or Adaptec device at the time?
Was it a very special condition to use notebook PCs with adapter cards that
go in PCMCIA slots? Maybe in Czech or Russia or wherever yes, because real
estate is cheap in your country. Not in Japan. Notebooks have been bigger
sellers than desktops for more than 11 years in Japan.
Now, Microsoft did tell me that I was the author of my own misfortune by
choosing to buy OEM software. This is one of many lies. Even if I had had
the brains needed to avoid using Microsoft's OEM software, buying it still
wasn't a choice. When buying any reasonably equipped notebook PC, the
Microsoft tax was unavoidable. Except maybe in your country and a few
others.
> and you've discovered the root cause only now, but were not able to
> present it to MS support before?
Well as mentioned I thought I discovered the root cause 11 years ago because
if I used any partitioner other than Windows 95 FDISK then I didn't have
this problem. Only just recently I discovered that the root cause was
really a combination of Windows 95 FDISK combined with Windows 95 Format.
Anyway, 11 years ago, though it took several months to track things down and
discover that it didn't matter which vendor's PC and adapter card and disk
drive were used, and it didn't matter which language or service release of
Windows 95 was used, repro was 100% when Windows 95 FDISK was used and 0%
when any other available partitioner was used. After tracking it down, I
could repro it in 10 minutes. I refused to pay MS a fee to try to describe
it over the phone; it would have to be shown.
> Yes, huge bugs keep stalking in stable released products
And in unstable released products. To err is human. To refuse to allow
customers to get fixes is Microsoft. To tell dozens of lies about it is
Microsoft. To give such a weird explanation of this situation is ... well,
Mr. A., I used to have a lot of respect for you, and I'm finding it a bit
hard to believe that you wrote what you wrote here.
Millions of external SCSI drives were sold. PCMCIA SCSI adapters probably
also numbered in the millions. Windows 95 numbered in the hundreds of
millions, 100% of them with this defect. I don't think all those millions
of users discarded their paid-for Windows 95 installations and used NT or
Linux. One reason for not thinking so (sorry to repeat) is that two and
later three vendors provided partitioners and formatters to work around
Windows 95 bugs, not for Linux or NT.
But maybe 99.99% of users thought that operating systems are supposed to
lose all their files, because they didn't know that computers used to come
with operating systems before Microsoft was even founded. Maybe the very
special condition was me, because I knew that operating systems aren't
supposed to do that.
Download Scsi Drivers
Some Microsoft people still (this year) criticize me with the assertion that
I don't listen to authority. Oh I listen all right, I hear the lies. I
just know not to believe what I listen to.
Drivers Diamond Scsi & Raid Devices Usb
'Pavel A.' <pavel_a@NOfastmailNO.fm> wrote in message
news:%23n1l$pzFJHA.5448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Norman Diamond wrote:
>> Microsoft has time to fix bugs, but only the ones that survive triage.
>> Some serious bugs get killed in triage. Others aren't allowed into
>> triage in the first place.
>
> So Norman, what is your point here?
> That MS has not considered this particular bug as serious?
> Probably they were right, as it occurs only in very special
> conditions - and you've discovered the root cause
> only now, but were not able to present it to MS support before?
> Yes, huge bugs keep stalking in stable released products... the world
> isn't perfect.
>
> --PA
>
>
>> 'Alexander Grigoriev' <al...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:OyuHnnnFJHA.5448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Norman,
>>> Microsoft doesn't have much time to fix things. They are always busy
>>> making other bugs and misfeatures. You know, their bugfix process is
>>> so heavy and overcomplicated, they would rather prefer not to do that.
>>>
>>> 'Norman Diamond' <ndiamond@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:eSL2jViFJHA.768@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> The subject is old news, but I finally analysed this bug a few months
>>>> ago
>>>> and it still seems outrageous that no fix was ever offered. This
>>>> report and
>>>> links are also posted on the web.
>>>> http://www.geocities.jp/hitotsubishi/w95_fdisk_format/
>>>>
>>>> My first personally owned computer came with Windows 95 OSR2
>>>> preinstalled.
>>>> Shortly after buying it, I added peripherals which seemed appropriate
>>>> for
>>>> making backups: an external 3200MB SCSI hard disk drive, a PCMCIA-SCSI
>>>> adapter card to connect the PC to the disk, a cable, and a
>>>> terminator. At
>>>> this point, I had just finished buying equipment suitable for Windows
>>>> 95 to
>>>> lose every file, but I didn't know it yet. Gradually I made backups
>>>> of some
>>>> files, made backups of some more files, made backups of some more
>>>> files, and
>>>> then saw that the backups of my most important files didn't exist any
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> Over several months I visited the retail store several times where I
>>>> had
>>>> bought the equipment, exchanged the PCMCIA-SCSI card for a different
>>>> maker's
>>>> card, tried a different hard drive (converting the store's new
>>>> merchandise
>>>> into used merchandise), visited the maker of the PC, visited the
>>>> maker of
>>>> the second PCMCIA-SCSI card and the first hard drive, experimented with
>>>> other PCs, experimented with other language versions of Windows 95,
>>>> experimented with the original retail upgrade release of Windows 95,
>>>> etc.
>>>> The results were always the same. I could write backups of some files
>>>> onto
>>>> the external hard drive, then write backups of other files, and the
>>>> first
>>>> set would turn into garbage. After several months and expenditures on
>>>> train
>>>> fares exceeding the value of Windows 95, I acquired enough experience
>>>> to
>>>> reproduce the problem in 10 minutes, but no solution.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft's web site had two downloads which could fix bugs in the
>>>> way the
>>>> original release of Windows 95 handled internal IDE hard drives.
>>>> There were
>>>> no such fixes for OSR2, and no fixes at all for handling external
>>>> SCSI hard
>>>> drives.
>>>>
>>>> Eventually I tried another experiment. The maker of the PCMCIA-SCSI
>>>> card had
>>>> provided drivers and utilities for Windows 95, Windows NT4, Windows
>>>> 3.1, and
>>>> MS-DOS. I figured out how to install MS-DOS drivers in the CONFIG.SYS
>>>> and
>>>> AUTOEXEC.BAT files of Windows 95, and run the maker's utilities to
>>>> partition
>>>> the SCSI drive. After a reboot (equivalent to the reboot ordinarily
>>>> needed
>>>> after FDISK), Windows 95's format operation still worked. After that,
>>>> backups worked. Files did not get lost.
>>>>
>>>> Since my personally owned copy of Windows 95 OSR2 was a preinstalled
>>>> OEM
>>>> product, naturally Microsoft asserted that the PC maker was
>>>> responsible for
>>>> fixing bugs in Windows 95. Naturally the maker did not agree. I was
>>>> still
>>>> left with a garbage OS, wasted months, and wasted expenses, though
>>>> fortunately I had found a workaround.
>>>>
>>>> Windows 98's FDISK command was different. It worked (for creation of
>>>> partitions and logical drives). Then Windows 98 SE came along and its
>>>> FDISK
>>>> command was broken differently, but when it worked, it wokred (for
>>>> creation
>>>> of partitions and logical drives). Microsoft announced a download to
>>>> fix
>>>> Windows 98 SE's FDISK, but I couldn't get it, so I asked Microsoft.
>>>> This
>>>> time Microsoft actually let me communicate with a support manager.
>>>> But the
>>>> support manager also refused to let me get the fix for Windows 98 SE's
>>>> FDISK. Microsoft's support manager further denied that Windows 95
>>>> operated
>>>> the way it did.
>>>>
>>>> Windows NT4's disk manager seemed to work, and later Windows 2000's
>>>> disk
>>>> manager seemed to work.
>>>>
>>>> So anyway, for 11 years I was blaming Windows 95's FDISK command. As
>>>> well, I
>>>> blamed Microsoft's lack of testing, lack of appropriate process to
>>>> submit a
>>>> bug report, and false responses when I finally had the opportunity to
>>>> report
>>>> the bug.
>>>>
>>>> Recently I had occasion to reproduce the problem again and see what
>>>> Windows
>>>> 95 really did. The results were surprising. The same old repro case
>>>> operated
>>>> the same as always. But it turned out that FDISK was not 100% to blame.
>>>>
>>>> The repro case uses the procedure recommended by Microsoft. In
>>>> Windows 95's
>>>> device manager, enable INT13 on the external hard drive. Reboot. Run
>>>> FDISK.
>>>> Reboot. Format the logical drives. Sometimes another reboot is
>>>> necessary
>>>> before being able to write long filenames (an unrelated but documented
>>>> Windows 95 bug). The second and third logical drives appear to overlap.
>>>> Writing files to the third logical drive destroys the contents of the
>>>> second
>>>> logical drive. Running scandisk on either of them further destroys the
>>>> other. The first logical drive appears safe, but now I know that was
>>>> just an
>>>> accident.
>>>>
>>>> This time I did further experiments. Run FDISK. Reboot to Windows
>>>> 2000. Use
>>>> Windows 2000 to do the formatting. The result works! Or use Windows
>>>> 2000 to
>>>> create the extended partition and create the logical drives but do not
>>>> format the logical drives, then reboot to Windows 95, and use Windows
>>>> 95 to
>>>> do the formatting. The result works! So the problem is not only
>>>> Windows 95
>>>> FDISK. The problem is the combination of Windows 95 FDISK and Windows
>>>> 95's
>>>> format utility.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously Windows 95 is long gone and will never be fixed now. I
>>>> still blame
>>>> Microsoft's lack of testing, lack of appropriate process to submit a
>>>> bug
>>>> report, and false responses when I finally had the opportunity to
>>>> report the
>>>> bug.
>>>>
>>>> The repro case still repros the same as always. Here is a zip file
>>>> containing 110 screenshots. (So few because I was too lazy to capture
>>>> some
>>>> of the screenshots during Scandisk's operation.) After unzipping, the
>>>> filenames can be viewed in alphabetical order to view the sequence of
>>>> operations. I used funny spellings like 'xplore' for some Windows
>>>> Explorer
>>>> screenshots, 'zcandizk' for some Scandisk screenshots, and 'zf'ddisk'
>>>> for
>>>> some FDISK screenshots, so that the results could be viewed in order.
>>>> http://www.geocities.jp/hitotsubishi/w95_fdisk_format/fdisk_format_screenshots.zip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The hard drive's maker designated it 3200MB in base 10. Windows 95
>>>> detected
>>>> it as 3066MB in binary which is fine with me. The extended partition is
>>>> 3065MB which is also fine with me (the loss of 1MB of unused space is
>>>> really
>>>> pretty trivial in comparison to the loss of gigabytes of files). The
>>>> logical
>>>> drives are 1022MB, 1022MB, and 1021MB. I selected logical drive sizes
>>>> just
>>>> under 1GB so that cluster sizes would be 16KB instead of 32KB.
>>>>
>>>> After these recent experiments, I also figured out what the
>>>> combination of
>>>> Windows 95 FDISK command and format utility had really done, in order
>>>> to
>>>> create the overlapping logical drives. Windows 95 decided that the
>>>> SCSI hard
>>>> disk had 32 sectors per track, 64 tracks per cylinder (64 heads), and
>>>> 3066
>>>> cylinders (3066MB), which is fine with me. The physical drive has
>>>> 6281856
>>>> sectors but Windows 95 used only 6279168 of them, which is fine with
>>>> me (the
>>>> loss of 1MB of unused space is really pretty trivial in comparison to
>>>> the
>>>> loss of gigabytes of files). The EBR chain is correct, LBA sector
>>>> numbers
>>>> 2048, 2095104, and 4188160. The PBR for the first logical drive is
>>>> correctly
>>>> located at LBA 2080, and its FAT and data area are correctly offset
>>>> from
>>>> there. The PBR for the second logical drive is correctly located at LBA
>>>> 2095136, and its FAT and data area are correctly offset from there.
>>>> The PBR
>>>> for the third logical drive is located at LBA 2091040, inside the first
>>>> logical drive, near the end of the first logical drive. The third
>>>> logical
>>>> drive's FAT and data area are correctly offset from its mislocated
>>>> PBR, so
>>>> only a little bit of them overlap with the first logical drive and
>>>> most of
>>>> them overlap with the second logical drive. This certainly explains
>>>> why the
>>>> destruction I had seen came from the overlap between the second and
>>>> third
>>>> logical drives.
>>>>
>>>> An image of the entire hard disk drive, after FDISK and format but
>>>> before
>>>> copying any files, can be downloaded from the following link. The zip
>>>> file
>>>> is only 3MB but be reminded that the unzipped file will require 3GB.
>>>> http://www.geocities.jp/hitotsubishi/w95_fdisk_format/3200_hdd.zip
>>>>
>>>> I still wonder how any programmer can care so little about the
>>>> reliability
>>>> of their product. I still wonder how any vendor of a program can
>>>> dedicate
>>>> huge resources to toying with cosmetic issues but ignore and tell
>>>> lies about
>>>> moby lossages like this. Vendors of hard drives were sued for
>>>> problems less
>>>> serious than this. Vendors of floppy drives were sued for billions of
>>>> dollars for potential problems which might case 1/1000 of this amount
>>>> of
>>>> data loss but had never been reported as actually causing a data
>>>> loss. This
>>>> software bug is 100% reproducible and was delivered to every customer
>>>> of
>>>> Windows 95, so I cannot quite imagine how I was the only victim who
>>>> ever
>>>> detected it.
>>>
>>>
>>