Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I've temporarily gotten past my "Registry Checker" problem.

Now the problem is that booting stalls further on. Bootlog.txt ends
at "initing esdi_506.pdr". Does anyone know why? Or what to do about
it?


I have the file in my C:\Windows\system\iosubsys directory. And the
bootlog doesn't say it can't be found.

I've gone into safe mode and used msconfig.exe to stop system.ini,
win.ini, and the startup programs from executing during startup. It
stilll stalls on esdi_506.pdr!!!

There are 4 references to the file in the registry, in almost
consecutive lines. They have to with the primary and secondary IDE
controller (dual fifo), and with the "Standard IDE/ESDI Hard Disk
Controller"

They are found at
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\system\CurrentControlSet\services\class\hdc\001
002
006
and 007.

I have just about the same lines in the computer I use every day, with
win98FE and it inits successfully. In the computer that works, the
next line is drvwq117.vxd . Does that mean anything for the win98SE
computer that I'm trying to fix.

The related name is port driver and the value is esdi_506.pdr.
(pdr=port driver)

When watching the boot display on the screen, the problem is that the
boot stops in the middle, with an internal stack overflow message.
I've increased the number of stacks to the max in config.sys, and
added MinSPs=16 to system.ini. I've removed the modem. I don't think
there would be a stack overflow if it were not for esdi_506.pdr.

Searching google and groups.google has not turned up anything good.

Any ideas? Thanks.

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

The esdi_506.pdr IIRC is the protected real mode driver for the CD-ROM.
See if something here helps:
Solution Title: Driver Esdi_506.pdr not loading
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Op [...] 78917.html

--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm




"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:uvt6411h8hc4mfso2ksp621uvpftfk1c6d@4ax.com...
>
> I've temporarily gotten past my "Registry Checker" problem.
>
> Now the problem is that booting stalls further on. Bootlog.txt ends
> at "initing esdi_506.pdr". Does anyone know why? Or what to do about
> it?
>
>
> I have the file in my C:\Windows\system\iosubsys directory. And the
> bootlog doesn't say it can't be found.
>
> I've gone into safe mode and used msconfig.exe to stop system.ini,
> win.ini, and the startup programs from executing during startup. It
> stilll stalls on esdi_506.pdr!!!
>
> There are 4 references to the file in the registry, in almost
> consecutive lines. They have to with the primary and secondary IDE
> controller (dual fifo), and with the "Standard IDE/ESDI Hard Disk
> Controller"
>
> They are found at
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\system\CurrentControlSet\services\class\hdc\001
> 002
> 006
> and 007.
>
> I have just about the same lines in the computer I use every day, with
> win98FE and it inits successfully. In the computer that works, the
> next line is drvwq117.vxd . Does that mean anything for the win98SE
> computer that I'm trying to fix.
>
> The related name is port driver and the value is esdi_506.pdr.
> (pdr=port driver)
>
> When watching the boot display on the screen, the problem is that the
> boot stops in the middle, with an internal stack overflow message.
> I've increased the number of stacks to the max in config.sys, and
> added MinSPs=16 to system.ini. I've removed the modem. I don't think
> there would be a stack overflow if it were not for esdi_506.pdr.
>
> Searching google and groups.google has not turned up anything good.
>
> Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Meirman
> --
> If emailing, please let me know whether
> or not you are posting the same letter.
> Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:40:01
-0600 "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> posted:

> The esdi_506.pdr IIRC is the protected real mode driver for the CD-ROM.
>See if something here helps:
>Solution Title: Driver Esdi_506.pdr not loading
>http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Win95_3x/Win95/Q_10078917.html

Unfortunately, this pretty much assumes one can still get into
Windows, but has to use compatibility mode for the CDs or hard drives.
I'm going to copy the file from my computer to the other one, and see
if that helps.

The problem could be somewhere else, though, right?, even though
"initing esdi_506.pdr" is the last line in the log?

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

First I suggest you check your other thread. I provided a link to a page with
the 98SE CD .cab contents. You mentioned when reloading your devices/drivers
that some files were not found and if they were not installed they may be needed
and a cause for the problem/s.

--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm




"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:k68741lqqdiuopuil5n5qjj8c23rlc2ns6@4ax.com...
> In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:40:01
> -0600 "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> posted:
>
>> The esdi_506.pdr IIRC is the protected real mode driver for the CD-ROM.
>>See if something here helps:
>>Solution Title: Driver Esdi_506.pdr not loading
>>http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Win95_3x/Win95/Q_10078917.html
>
> Unfortunately, this pretty much assumes one can still get into
> Windows, but has to use compatibility mode for the CDs or hard drives.
> I'm going to copy the file from my computer to the other one, and see
> if that helps.
>
> The problem could be somewhere else, though, right?, even though
> "initing esdi_506.pdr" is the last line in the log?
>
> Meirman
> --
> If emailing, please let me know whether
> or not you are posting the same letter.
> Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:40:01
-0600 "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> posted:

> The esdi_506.pdr IIRC is the protected real mode driver for the CD-ROM.
>See if something here helps:
>Solution Title: Driver Esdi_506.pdr not loading
>http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Win95_3x/Win95/Q_10078917.html

Well it certainly should help. The Title is right on the money.
Thanks a lot. I'll go look now.



(This was supposed to have been posted areound 10PM EST last night. It
was written. I don't remember why I didn't post it. Without this, my
other reply looked sort of brusqe, I think.

(I'll go look in the .cab file as you suggest in the other thread.
After I changed my rb00x.cab file, it reinstalled the hardware files,
and I only couldn't find one or two. But maybe those are the
important ones. Thanks a lot.)


Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:45:25 -0500, meirman <meirman@invalid.com>

>I've temporarily gotten past my "Registry Checker" problem.

>Now the problem is that booting stalls further on. Bootlog.txt ends
>at "initing esdi_506.pdr". Does anyone know why?

As has been stated, this is a low-level disk driver.

More to the point, it's not a common point of failure in and of
itself. Neither is "registry checker", and a combination of two
unrelated uncommon points of failure should make you stop and think.

Most likely there's a common source of both problems, and it's at a
deeper level of abstraction - such as flakiness at the hardware level.
Such problems can render any writes to the HD unsafe, because they may
be insane (written to wrong areas of disk, corrupted in memory, etc.)

So I'd step back and do "the prelim" to check that the abstraction
layer you are diggining in is actually resting on solid ground:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/bthink.htm



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:07:50
+0200 "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
posted:

>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:45:25 -0500, meirman <meirman@invalid.com>
>
>>I've temporarily gotten past my "Registry Checker" problem.
>
>>Now the problem is that booting stalls further on. Bootlog.txt ends
>>at "initing esdi_506.pdr". Does anyone know why?
>
>As has been stated, this is a low-level disk driver.
>
>More to the point, it's not a common point of failure in and of
>itself. Neither is "registry checker", and a combination of two
>unrelated uncommon points of failure should make you stop and think.
>
>Most likely there's a common source of both problems, and it's at a
>deeper level of abstraction - such as flakiness at the hardware level.
>Such problems can render any writes to the HD unsafe, because they may
>be insane (written to wrong areas of disk, corrupted in memory, etc.)
>
>So I'd step back and do "the prelim" to check that the abstraction
>layer you are diggining in is actually resting on solid ground:
>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/bthink.htm

Thanks for this page. I've been reading it, and the pages it links to,
The one on the Startup Axis will take some time to complete. And I've
been doing the things you recommend


The short version is that I ran scandisk, it still crashed the next
time, I started in Safe mode, ran msconfig, checked "force
Compatibility mode disk access", and this time it started normally. I
unchecked it, and it still starts ok.

Does this make sense to you?


During startup the last time, it displayed one Unkonwn Device, with a
big yellow question mark, and started the Install Hardware process,
but whereever I look, I can't find the files it wants. I have no clue
what device it is talking about, but it said it wouldn't ask anymore.
And normal Windows still started. I've restored system.ini to the
boot process and it starts fine, and I plan to put back everything
else, one step at a time.


I got around registry checker by disabling it in the scanreg.ini file,
but I suppose I'll have to reinstate that too, right?


In more detail:
In trying to follow your recommendations, I had tested the memory a
couple days ago for 10 minutes and then for 3 1/2 hours, but I dl'd
newer versions of Memtest and DocMem. I had trouble using them, but
I'm not asking about that now.

I also ran scandisk, in DOS and then in Windows Safe Mode. I let it
fix a few small things -- having read your cautions about not letting
it fix certain things -- and none of them involved files that sounded
remotely important. For example a .url file in the Real directory,
some files which it said didn't have proper names, 8.3 names but one
was a .dll, other little stuff. I have the log file if you or anyone
is interested.

Scandisk/windows restarted itself several times, but automatically
continued with the surface scan where it had left off. It found no
bad sectors. Scandisk/do had found no bad sectors also, but I turned
it off about 80 or 90% of the way through, when it was in unused
space, since I knew I would run it again in Windows.

After running scandisk, I tried to restart, in step-by-step, and it
crashed in the same spot on the screen and the same spot in the
bootlog.

So I started in Safe Mode and ran msconfig looking for something,
anything I could disable that might help it start. I chose to check
"Force compatibility mode", on the theory that esdi_506.pdr is related
to something better than compatibility mode, and if I force compat, it
might not try to run esdi506.pdr.

Voila, it started, all the way to Normal Windows. Along the way, and
again the next time, it tried to install one more piece of hardware,
which it called Unknown Device, and displayed a big yellow question
mark. I tried the win98 CD and every folder in windows that it showed
had any .inf files, but none worked.


Anyhow, thanks a lot.

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:44:24
-0600 "Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> posted:

> First I suggest you check your other thread. I provided a link to a page with
>the 98SE CD .cab contents.

Very interesting. I saved this in my bookmarks.

>You mentioned when reloading your devices/drivers
>that some files were not found and if they were not installed they may be needed
>and a cause for the problem/s.

I wondered about that and I'm glad you mention it. Somewhere in this
story, Windows reinstalled all the hardware (maybe because I restored
a different registry copy) and I tried much harder to find everything
this time, and I missed only 2 or 3 files related to just one device.
Plus, I think, there is the Unknown Device. (I think that is the
display adapter. and that's why it only display at 480x640x16. But
I'll get to that.)

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:47:17 -0500, meirman <meirman@invalid.com>
>on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:07:50 "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
>>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:45:25 -0500, meirman <meirman@invalid.com>

>>>I've temporarily gotten past my "Registry Checker" problem.
>>>Now the problem is that booting stalls further on. Bootlog.txt ends
>>>at "initing esdi_506.pdr". Does anyone know why?

>>Most likely there's a common source of both problems, and it's at a
>>deeper level of abstraction - such as flakiness at the hardware level.
>>Such problems can render any writes to the HD unsafe
>>So I'd step back and do "the prelim" to check that the abstraction
>>layer you are diggining in is actually resting on solid ground:

>>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/bthink.htm

>Thanks for this page. I've been reading it, and the pages it links to,
>The one on the Startup Axis will take some time to complete.

The crucials in your case are the hardware tests, then the formal
malware scan http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/virtest.htm

>The short version is that I ran scandisk, it still crashed the next
>time, I started in Safe mode, ran msconfig, checked "force
>Compatibility mode disk access", and this time it started normally. I
>unchecked it, and it still starts ok.

>Does this make sense to you?

Yes; insane for a static cause of failure, implying it's a variable
problem. Not easy, but not uncommon :-p

>During startup the last time, it displayed one Unkonwn Device, with a
>big yellow question mark, and started the Install Hardware process,
>but whereever I look, I can't find the files it wants. I have no clue
>what device it is talking about, but it said it wouldn't ask anymore.

Now that interests me! By their resources shall ye know them, e.g. an
unknown device that uses IO port 220h, IRQ 5 and DMA 1 is most likely
an unrecognised or flaky sound card, etc.

Does your bonged (!) device use any hardware resources?

Is it there in Device Manager every time, or variable?

If variable, I'd think flaky hardware, bad NVRAM storage, or both.

>And normal Windows still started. I've restored system.ini to the
>boot process and it starts fine, and I plan to put back everything
>else, one step at a time.

OK.. With System.ini out of the frame, you'd have had 16-color vanilla
VGA. But I'd stay out of Windows until I was COAB certain about the
hardware. What hardware spec is this PC? Pentium III generation? If
so, then that's new enough for this issue to apply:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/badcaps.htm

>I got around registry checker by disabling it in the scanreg.ini file,
>but I suppose I'll have to reinstate that too, right?

Hmmm... when all is well, maybe. Spontaneous registry corruption
makes one VERY worried about bad RAM and similar low-level flakiness;
what happens is the registry image is seen as bad due to bad RAM or
similar effects, so in response the OS splats the one on HD, which may
or may not have been bad.

A structurally-bent registry can initiate problems, a la...

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/registry.htm

....but hardware must be OK before tackling that.

>In trying to follow your recommendations, I had tested the memory a
>couple days ago for 10 minutes and then for 3 1/2 hours, but I dl'd
>newer versions of Memtest and DocMem. I had trouble using them, but
>I'm not asking about that now.

OK. I'd be happier with an overnight run of all tests in MemTest,
whichever takes longer. Both have to be run from boot disk, which
they make themselves. If you have trouble there, do ask

>I also ran scandisk, in DOS and then in Windows Safe Mode. I let it
>fix a few small things -- having read your cautions about not letting
>it fix certain things -- and none of them involved files that sounded
>remotely important. For example a .url file in the Real directory,
>some files which it said didn't have proper names, 8.3 names but one
>was a .dll, other little stuff. I have the log file

It would be of interest (er... trimmed it pasted) for two reasons:

1) Pattern of errors

Some errors can arise from the interruption of normal file operations,
i.e. bad exits - but others indicate something more is going on. This
is covered in some detail in the "FAT data recovery" section of the
site. Which files are involved, may also point to what was in
progress at the time a bad exit occured.

2) Secondary damage

You may get a static failure pattern (i.e. the same context always
errors in the same way) if a significant file is bent.

>Scandisk/windows restarted itself several times,

I don't do Scandisk in Windows. By definition, if I'm doing Scandisk,
it's because I consider the file system or HD to be at risk, and
therefore unsafe for writes, and therefore unsafe for Windows.

>...continued with the surface scan where it had left off.

Windows Scandisk surface scan (called "thourough test" there) is not
only dangerous, but gives you far less info:
- course-grained progress counter can't reveal retry latency
- timing will be affected by background tasks anyway
- no map showing any existing bad clusters

>It found no bad sectors.

Did the final report state no bad clusters as well?

>Scandisk/do had found no bad sectors also, but I turned
>it off about 80 or 90% of the way through, when it was in unused
>space, since I knew I would run it again in Windows.

Ergh, but OK. Bad clusters in free space beyond the data "edge" will
prolly not affect you unless defragging (don't defrag!) until the data
edge sweeps forwards to use them.

>After running scandisk, I tried to restart, in step-by-step, and it
>crashed in the same spot on the screen and the same spot in the
>bootlog.

Ahhh.... details there?

>So I started in Safe Mode and ran msconfig looking for something,
>anything I could disable that might help it start. I chose to check
>"Force compatibility mode", on the theory that esdi_506.pdr is related
>to something better than compatibility mode, and if I force compat, it
>might not try to run esdi506.pdr.

Good call! If you've never allowed Scandisk to overwrite
C:\Scandisk.log, you could check that to see if previous passes had
ever "fixed" that file, esp. for crosslinks. What's the size of the
file? Is that size correct for your Win9x version, or smaller? If
smaller, is it a round multiple of the cluster size? If so, then
expect truncation damage from a Scandisk "fix".

>Voila, it started, all the way to Normal Windows. Along the way, and
>again the next time, it tried to install one more piece of hardware,
>which it called Unknown Device, and displayed a big yellow question
>mark. I tried the win98 CD and every folder in windows that it showed
>had any .inf files, but none worked.

Certainly sounds like all is not well somewhere - bad or mis-driven
UIDE controllers being the obvious guess. VIA chipset? New
motherboard dropped in as replacement with the same Win9x
installation? I'd wonder about bus speeds (overclocking) too. Did we
cover hardware specs yet? We should, around about now :-)



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -