I recently bought a new hard disk (Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200rpm)
because my old hard disk (Seagate 40GB) has started to go bad.
Although, it already started giving a sign (noisy, system hanging) a
few a months ago. But that's not the problem.
I bought my new HD and replaced it on my old one. I installed WinME on
it and someting is not right. The OS kept crashing at all times not
loading programs properly. Although it boots up normally. I also nitced
that in my device manager, there's an error in "primary ide
controller". I thought it was a driver issue so i downloaded an updated
driver (posted last 2002, not an updated one), reformat, reinstall the
os, drivers, and so on and still it the error is still in there. I
already connected cable properly and still the same. Also, it bothers
that before i 1st formated the disk, in boot up, it shows a message the
drive cannot checked because it was formated, a virus or third party
software which i disabled before the old disk got failed. I know that
is normal, but is there any problem in that? Also during virus scan,
it says that mbr can't be scanned because it is not present. I also get
a boot i/o error log commandline virus scanning. Is this a virus
problem. my previous got whacked because it might be a virus lurking in
the system and memory which my antivirus can't detect. Only a memtool
detects that there might be a virus in the memory. I also installed and
tested Linux OS in the previous hd which it might had a virus bcoz of
the IT magazines with free cds that i bought that i didn't scanned b4.
Any advice or help 4 this problem. Tnx in advance.

What motherboard do you have?

Peter wrote:

My mb is kobian(mercury) KOB P4M266. Since its a seagate hd, maybe it
does require a seagate hd tool to format the disk. bcoz i used a
startup disk to format the new one.

<mel2k3ph@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114373592.485697.173660@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
Nope.

Thats fine.

There's one problem. If you don't want Windows XP, go back to Windows
98 or 2000. Windows ME is the worst operating system since... well, I
can't think of any worse commercial OS's.

Sounds about right.

What's the error message, specifically?

Sorry, I didn't follow that sentence at all. Care to rephrase it?

Hmm... sounds like maybe something went wrong in the formatting process.

Well if this is true, it seems that you have found the cause of the
problem yourself. Clean the virus, reset the CMOS/BIOS, reformat drives
and start anew.

That's another sentence that went on for too long and I just couldn't
follow. Maybe it's because I've been working on taxes and everywhere I
look I see W-2 or Schedule X. =P

Take care of things one at a time. Make sure your system is clean of
any viruses THEN see if you are having any hardware or driver issues.

//Kevin

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426c3897$0$79461$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

Nope.

No need with a hard drive problem.

Your problem.

Nope. ME works fine.

Tad unlikely that the mbr isnt present if the drive can be virus scanned.

Any other suggestion?

<mel2k3ph@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114417045.725261.244370@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Fraid not, like Kevin I found your english hard to comprehend.

You could try rephrasing it and see if that makes it easier to understand.

Rod Speed wrote:

Heh, yeah it is. Not related to the hard drive problem, but having a
shotty OS is *definitely* a problem.

After that's corrected, of course.

No, actually, not my problem. I knew better than to get Win ME.

Ha! Try working at a help desk for several years and I'd bet your
opinion would change. Of course, poor users play a part, but ME is less
stable than Windows XP, 2000, or even 98se. Out of the hundreds of
tech-minded people I've talked to, you're the first I've heard that
hasn't agreed whole-heartedly. Or perhaps you'd prefer the opinions on
CNET (all on 10-point scale):
(average user rating / editor's rating)
ME - 4.4 / 6.0
2K - 7.6 / 8.0
XP - 6.4 / 8.0

But hey, if it works for you, go with it.

//Kevin

"Kevin Buffardi" <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426d972b$0$79455$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...


Of 98, 98SE, ME, I would only use ME today if I had an older machine.

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426d972b$0$79455$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
Nope.

It isnt a shitty OS.

Corse it is.

Wrong again.

Nope.

Bullshit with SE and 98.

You wanna get out more.

Nope.

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim about SE and 98.

Dont use it anymore thanks.

Eric Gisin wrote:
Who is "most of us?" I've literally talked to hundreds of people who
have had serious problems with ME. All of those I convinced to change
to either 2000 or XP seemed very pleased with the outcome. Unless it
was due to financial constraints (and no offense intended), I wouldn't
take a computer technician's advice seriously if he/she said that they
used ME on their personal machine.

Well, maybe 2000 vs. ME is a bit of a stretch since they're geared
towards different audiences, but even XP-Home (which I wouldn't
recommend either) is a vast improvement over ME.

I have 98se as a secondary boot and it has great compatibility with even
obscure audio hardware that I have. Couldn't say the same for ME.
Actually, XP had more difficulties setting up the hardware than 98se. I
didn't even try the said equipment on ME because I wouldn't waste my
money on ME, but I've heard people with the same hardware having
problems with ME.

Again, if you ask me, ME was a *downgrade* from 98se... and *about* at
par with 95. Heck, I'd rather have Mac OS 9 than ME. This is from my
personal experience, but as I said before...

But anyways, we're digressing from the point. mel2k3ph@gmail.com, if
you want to spell out a little more clearly what's wrong, what errors
you've received, and what you've tried so far, I'd be more than happy to
give more recommendations. I'm sure the same goes for all the other
guys in here.

//Kevin

Well, I said, "shotty" by misspelling "shoddy." But I'd also disagree
with your statement. I'd actually go as far as saying *most* Microsoft
OS's are pretty shoddy, but ME takes the cake of them all. I'm kind of
dissappointed in their development of the Windows OS. 2000 was a huge
leap in the right direction. XP was acceptable. Longhorn looks to be
just another hack attempt to be as "cool" as OS X.

And, not having ME, how is it my problem???

Oh, so I did buy ME? Hmm... woulda sworn I didn't.

That's a really convincing argument and rebuttle. <sarcasm />

Seems like you've got the psychic thing down. First you "know" that I
bought something that I didn't buy, and then you "know" how your opinion
would be if you had more experience. Oh, and again, strong argument.

Disagreed. 98 & 98se aren't the most stable OS's in the world, but from
the years of my experience with all of the windows operating systems 3.1
to present, ME has been the least reliable.

Again, strong rebuttle. I it is an addage to Confucious that says,
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."

Real mature. Grow up.
So it's irrelevant that not only a survey of other users, but also
writers in the field agree with me that 2000 and XP are both superior
OS's? Mmmhmmm. So how is that irrelevant to my claim that ME is an
inferior OS? Care to provide an argument past "Nope?"

Good thinking.

//Kevin

Am top-posting because have only one point to make in reference to MS ME.
In general, ME has 3 major flaws that both consumers and MS MVPs complain
about. Two of the flaws are not uniform for all. Common to all was the
lack of built-in boot to pure msdos mode (not a dos window). For those with
dos-only apps, this was problem.
Not common to all was the ME installation. Depending on the hardware, a
bare ME install may not work on some platforms or be extremely difficult
comparatively speaking. There was also many complaints for those doing a
98/98SE to ME upgrade, which also seemed to be a hardware installation
problem. The history of which found no commonality for either one. A bare
ME install may work, yet an upgrade would not. And, vice versa.

The newsgroups in general that accepted ME's OS for conversation, had many
persons making snide and vague remarks about it. Never specific from these
individuals. Very seldom, was a complaint to be cornered to specfics. When
valid problems (usually install oriiented), the MVPs were unable to help
more often than not. Thus many of these jumped on the bandwagon. As did
many with no experience whatsoever with ME. In 2003/2004, many of these
MVPs conceded that the problem was not widespread and ME could be made to
work on the vast majority of systems without any user digress.

If your apps don't require real mode dos, and ME successfully installs,
there's not alot to pick at. ME, to a small extent, was an experimental
step for MS in developing XP. For many, the safest route was 98SE after
hearing the over-vocal ME complainers. Yet, the percentage with ME install
problems was actually miniscule.

The reality check was pretty straightforward here. Never had a problem.
Both Intel and Via boards were tried. Both Intel and AMD cpus were tried.
The first one I built, my daughter still has with its original hardware
configuration with an PQDI 2.0 image backup on an alternate partition. The
last one I built, I gave to my grandsons just late last year. Am still
wating for either to break as I'm the tech support guy.
"Kevin Buffardi" <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426c3897$0$79461$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426db5c5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
True of any OS.

Separate issue entirely. And thats just as true of SE and 98 too.

More fool you. Its perfectly usable if XP isnt feasible for some reason.

Sure, its got its quirks, but so does every OS, including XP.

Sure, but then so is ME over 98 and 95 in spades.

Sure, they dropped support for some dinosaur hardware.

Nothing like your original claim tho.

XP has dropped support for even more.

Precisely, because they chose to not support dinosaur hardware.

So you dont actually have any personal experience with it.

Sure, they dropped support for some dinosaur hardware. So did XP even more.

No point in asking you, you never actually used it.

Those of us who actually used both for years found that
ME was quite a bit better than SE in a number of areas, in
spades with the stupid shutdown problem that MS never
did manage to fix with SE and fixed completely in ME.

Again, you aint qualified to say, you never actually used ME.

No its not, you never ran ME.

I prefer to keep discussions in the newsgroup they started in.

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:426dbe8e$0$79461$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

You arent qualified to disagree, you admit you never ran it.

You arent qualified to rule on that, you admit you never ran it.

It leaves the Win9x/ME family for dead.

We'll see. Its too early to say yet.

Its your problem that you cant think of any worse commercial OS.

You arent qualified to say, you admit you never ran ME.

Corse not. You didnt 'know better', you just bought the silly
storys that you HEARD. You have no personal experience with it.

Never said you did.

From someone who admits he never actually used it.

What an impeccible source. <sarcasm />

Best get your seems machinery seen to.

YOU'RE the one pontificating about ME without actually having run it.

Never did.

You dont even know what experience I have had with ME support.

Oh, and again, what an impeccible source.

You aint qualified to disagree, you never ran ME.

You have NO experience with ME.

Again, what an impeccible source.

gobbledegook.

Pathetic, really.

Get fucked. You are pig ignorant about ME,
you admit you have never actually bought it.

That wasnt what I said was irrelevant, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit
artist.

And those 'writers' UNIVERSALLY proclaimed that
Win would never fly. Boy do they look pathetic now.

Then they proclaimed that the sun shone out of OS/2's arse, TWICE.

Boy do they look pathetic now.

Those silly numbers are irrelevant to your pig ignorant
claim that ME is worse than 98 or SE BECAUSE 98
AND SE ARENT EVEN LISTED, STUPID.

That wasnt even an argument, it was clearly
an answer to the previous question, stupid.

Hardly rocket science and irrelevant to whether
ME is worse than 98 or SE anyway.

Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:zJobe.15121$go4.11203@newsread2.news.atl.eart hlink.net...

Thats not going to save your bacon, the netnazis will gut you anyway.

Nope, most dos only apps worked fine on what it provided.

Just as true of XP and 2K. NT in spades.

Nothing like as many as with those doing a 98/98SE to NT upgrade.

In practice there werent all that many systems that saw that problem.

Like Buffardi who now admits he has never actually used it.

Yep, the new driver format did cause some initial problems,
but thats all they were, just initial problems that got sorted out.

And most apps that did require real mode dos worked fine.

Particularly with the driver format.

Most of which had never actually used it.

Precisely, and it fixed some real problem that SE had too.

Yeah, I installed it on countless machines and never had a single problem.

I've basically upgraded everything to XP now, just to simplify things.

I still have one complete dinosaur running 95, but thats
because its still a 486 with fuck all memory and the kid
that owns it likely doesnt even use it much anyway.

No, I admitted I never *owned* it. I've used it extensively.

It was a good improvement... but it still has its problems.

True - all I've seen are screenshots and some breif reviews. But it
doesn't look like there will be any big new breakthroughs.

Thinking if you repeat this enough times, it might come true? Sorry, it
won't.

Wrong. Did you not hear that I worked on *hundreds* of machines with
Windows ME on them? I had a Windows machine before ME came out and 98se
was working for my needs at the time, so there really wasn't any need
for me to even consider the "upgrade."

Then care to enlighten me?

//Kevin

Rod, you have quite an issue dealing with any criticism of Windows at
all. I like Windows for the most part, but just as Lil' Dave, I can
recognize problems with the OS. I'm puzzled why you're so sold on the
idea that Windows ME was some flawless system.

You're blantantly twisting my words to create a lie. I never *owned*
it. I *used* it on hundreds of different machines for several years.

I'm sorry to see that you take criticism of an old operating system so
personally and resort to personal attacks. For those reasons, I'm done
with this thread. The point has been made over and over that Windows ME
has flaws. You can stick your head in the ground and call people names
all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Good day to you sir.

//Kevin

Kevin Buffardi <kevin.buffardi@email.com> wrote in message
news:4270374a$0$79460$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

Dont believe you.

So has ANY OS.

Plenty claimed that about XP at the same stage.

I dont believe you. Your pig ignorance about ME stands out like dogs balls.

Easy to claim now in a desperate attempt
to bullshit your way out of your predicament.

Dont believe you.

You previously said something completely different.

You're obviously lying.

None of your business.