Name of driver for external hard drive?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Matty F, Jul 23, 2010.

  1. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    In 2007 I bought a 300GB hard drive that plugs into a USB port.
    This was formatted in the shop for use on a Win 98SEsystem and
    presumably drivers were loaded for it. It works perfectly.

    I now wish to plug this drive into the USB port of a similar Win98SE
    machine, but it's asking for drivers. Quite probably there was a CD
    supplied with drivers on it, but people move my things around all the
    time and forget where they have put them. So I don't have the CD. Or
    maybe the shop never gave it to me and I forgeot to ask for it.

    How do I find out the names of the drivers it is asking for?
    The drivers I need are obviously on this machine. How can I find them?
    I have searched this machine for all files including system files
    created or modified or accessed, around the date the drive was
    installed, with no result.

    The external drive has the name Navigator on the case. I suspect that
    is the name of the case and there is an unknown brand of drive
    inside.I suppose I could take it apart and try to find drivers for
    that drive. But surely it's just a generic USB drive.
    And to remind you, obviously the drivers I need are on this machine,
    and I just need to know the names. Presumably I can copy them, or is
    there some horrible installation process?

    I need to get 50GB of files off the other machine urgently. It has
    USB1 and large flash drives will not work.
     
    Matty F, Jul 23, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Matty F

    David Empson Guest

    Matty F <> wrote:

    > In 2007 I bought a 300GB hard drive that plugs into a USB port.
    > This was formatted in the shop for use on a Win 98SEsystem and
    > presumably drivers were loaded for it. It works perfectly.
    >
    > I now wish to plug this drive into the USB port of a similar Win98SE
    > machine, but it's asking for drivers. Quite probably there was a CD
    > supplied with drivers on it, but people move my things around all the
    > time and forget where they have put them. So I don't have the CD. Or
    > maybe the shop never gave it to me and I forgeot to ask for it.
    >
    > How do I find out the names of the drivers it is asking for?


    I can't answer that question, but what you probably is need a generic
    "USB Mass Storage" driver for Windows 98. This was a standard feature in
    later editions of Windows.

    A Google search might provide some clues as to the filename of the
    drivers. "Windows 98 USB mass storage driver" (without the quotes)
    brings up some promising leads.

    > The drivers I need are obviously on this machine. How can I find them?
    > I have searched this machine for all files including system files
    > created or modified or accessed, around the date the drive was
    > installed, with no result.
    >
    > The external drive has the name Navigator on the case. I suspect that
    > is the name of the case and there is an unknown brand of drive
    > inside.I suppose I could take it apart and try to find drivers for
    > that drive. But surely it's just a generic USB drive.
    > And to remind you, obviously the drivers I need are on this machine,
    > and I just need to know the names. Presumably I can copy them, or is
    > there some horrible installation process?
    >
    > I need to get 50GB of files off the other machine urgently. It has
    > USB1 and large flash drives will not work.



    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jul 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Jul 23, 2:36 pm, (David Empson) wrote:
    > Matty F <> wrote:
    > > In 2007 I bought a 300GB hard drive that plugs into a USB port.
    > > This was formatted in the shop for use on a Win 98SEsystem and
    > > presumably drivers were loaded for it. It works perfectly.

    >
    > > I now wish to plug this drive into the USB port of a similar Win98SE
    > > machine, but it's asking for drivers. Quite probably there was a CD
    > > supplied with drivers on it, but people move my things around all the
    > > time and forget where they have put them. So I don't have the CD. Or
    > > maybe the shop never gave it to me and I forgeot to ask for it.

    >
    > > How do I find out the names of the drivers it is asking for?

    >
    > I can't answer that question, but what you probably is need a generic
    > "USB Mass Storage" driver for Windows 98. This was a standard feature in
    > later editions of Windows.
    >
    > A Google search might provide some clues as to the filename of the
    > drivers. "Windows 98 USB mass storage driver" (without the quotes)
    > brings up some promising leads.


    I have downloaded nusb33e.exe from here and it works! Thanks very
    much.
    http://www.technical-assistance.co.uk/kb/win98se-usb-mass-storage-drivers.php
     
    Matty F, Jul 23, 2010
    #3
  4. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Jul 23, 2:49 pm, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >In 2007 I bought a 300GB hard drive that plugs into a USB port.
    > >This was formatted in the shop for use on a Win 98SEsystem and
    > >presumably drivers were loaded for it. It works perfectly.

    >
    > >I now wish to plug this drive into the USB port of a similar Win98SE
    > >machine, but it's asking for drivers. Quite probably there was a CD
    > >supplied with drivers on it, but people move my things around all the
    > >time and forget where they have put them. So I don't have the CD. Or
    > >maybe the shop never gave it to me and I forgeot to ask for it.

    >
    > >How do I find out the names of the drivers it is asking for?
    > >The drivers I need are obviously on this machine. How can I find them?
    > >I have searched this machine for all files including system files
    > >created or modified or accessed, around the date the drive was
    > >installed, with no result.

    >
    > >The external drive has the name Navigator on the case. I suspect that
    > >is the name of the case and there is an unknown brand of drive
    > >inside.I suppose I could take it apart and try to find drivers for
    > >that drive. But surely it's just a generic USB drive.
    > >And to remind you, obviously the drivers I need are on this machine,
    > >and I just need to know the names. Presumably I can copy them, or is
    > >there some horrible installation process?

    >
    > >I need to get 50GB of files off the other machine urgently. It has
    > >USB1 and large flash drives will not work.

    >
    > Move up to XP it has Full support of USB, 98se only justs support USB..


    XP and more recent versions of Windows will not work on that tiny
    machine. It's old but it works and does the job.
     
    Matty F, Jul 23, 2010
    #4
  5. Matty F

    Matty F Guest

    On Jul 23, 7:10 pm, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Matty F
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 23, 2:49 pm, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Matty F

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> >In 2007 I bought a 300GB hard drive that plugs into a USB port.

    >
    > >> >I need to get 50GB of files off the other machine urgently. It has
    > >> >USB1 and large flash drives will not work.

    >
    > >> Move up to XP it has Full support of USB, 98se only justs support USB..

    >
    > >XP and more recent versions of Windows will not work on that tiny
    > >machine. It's old but it works and does the job.

    >
    > A fried of mine with a very old laptop, I have the same model, Runs NT,
    > he added some more ram 128megs and runs XP on it, I think the CPU is a
    > PII


    This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it manages
    to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    copying off it.
     
    Matty F, Jul 23, 2010
    #5
  6. Matty F

    Richard Guest

    Suzie Wong wrote:

    >> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it manages
    >> to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    >> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    >> copying off it.

    >
    > That PC will run XP with no problems..


    I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    256 megs makes XP do that.
     
    Richard, Jul 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Matty F

    Cima Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:33:53 +1200, Suzie Wong <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:12:59 +1200, Richard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Suzie Wong wrote:
    >>
    >>>> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it manages
    >>>> to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    >>>> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    >>>> copying off it.
    >>>
    >>> That PC will run XP with no problems..

    >>
    >>I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    >>256 megs makes XP do that.

    >
    >
    >
    >128 megs is recommended for XP..


    Yeah, the original release with no service packs... from 9 YEARS AGO. Try
    patching a system like that up-to-date and you may as well wait an hour or 3 to
    boot to the desktop.
     
    Cima, Jul 24, 2010
    #7
  8. Matty F

    David Empson Guest

    Cima <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:33:53 +1200, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:12:59 +1200, Richard <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Suzie Wong wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it
    > >>>> manages to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    > >>>> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    > >>>> copying off it.
    > >>>
    > >>> That PC will run XP with no problems..
    > >>
    > >>I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    > >>256 megs makes XP do that.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >128 megs is recommended for XP..

    >
    > Yeah, the original release with no service packs... from 9 YEARS AGO. Try
    > patching a system like that up-to-date and you may as well wait an hour or
    > 3 to boot to the desktop.


    I find that XP (SP3) works fine with 512 MB. It was starting to get
    sluggish when I was running SP2 on 256 MB with several
    applications/windows open (and none particularly heavy duty as far as
    memory requirements).

    128 MB? It is to laugh.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jul 24, 2010
    #8
  9. Matty F

    Enkidu Guest

    On 24/07/10 12:58, David Empson wrote:
    > Cima<> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:33:53 +1200, Suzie Wong<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:12:59 +1200, Richard<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Suzie Wong wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it
    >>>>>> manages to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    >>>>>> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    >>>>>> copying off it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That PC will run XP with no problems..
    >>>>
    >>>> I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    >>>> 256 megs makes XP do that.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> 128 megs is recommended for XP..

    >>
    >> Yeah, the original release with no service packs... from 9 YEARS AGO. Try
    >> patching a system like that up-to-date and you may as well wait an hour or
    >> 3 to boot to the desktop.

    >
    > I find that XP (SP3) works fine with 512 MB. It was starting to get
    > sluggish when I was running SP2 on 256 MB with several
    > applications/windows open (and none particularly heavy duty as far as
    > memory requirements).
    >
    > 128 MB? It is to laugh.
    >

    The SPs don't add much to the requirements. Vanilla XP would have been
    slow with a few apps running in 128MB.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Jul 24, 2010
    #9
  10. Matty F

    David Empson Guest

    Enkidu <> wrote:

    > On 24/07/10 12:58, David Empson wrote:
    > > Cima<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:33:53 +1200, Suzie Wong<> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:12:59 +1200, Richard<> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Suzie Wong wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it
    > >>>>>> manages to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    > >>>>>> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    > >>>>>> copying off it.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> That PC will run XP with no problems..
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    > >>>> 256 megs makes XP do that.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> 128 megs is recommended for XP..
    > >>
    > >> Yeah, the original release with no service packs... from 9 YEARS AGO. Try
    > >> patching a system like that up-to-date and you may as well wait an hour or
    > >> 3 to boot to the desktop.

    > >
    > > I find that XP (SP3) works fine with 512 MB. It was starting to get
    > > sluggish when I was running SP2 on 256 MB with several
    > > applications/windows open (and none particularly heavy duty as far as
    > > memory requirements).
    > >
    > > 128 MB? It is to laugh.
    > >

    > The SPs don't add much to the requirements.


    Agreed. I was referring more to the timeline of when I had various
    amounts of memory in relation to which service pack was current at the
    time.

    > Vanilla XP would have been slow with a few apps running in 128MB.


    It is likely that other applications have grown in their requirements
    over time. Office 2007 is presumably much more memory hungry than Office
    2000, to take one example. Also likely to be more things running in the
    background.

    Therefore 128 MB might have been enough to run XP without too many
    problems back in 2001, for simple uses, but nine years later you're less
    likely to get away with it.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, Jul 24, 2010
    #10
  11. Matty F

    Enkidu Guest

    On 24/07/10 15:58, David Empson wrote:
    > Enkidu<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 24/07/10 12:58, David Empson wrote:
    >>> Cima<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:33:53 +1200, Suzie Wong<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:12:59 +1200, Richard<> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Suzie Wong wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> This is a 500 Mhz PC with 256 megs of memory. Using Win98SE it
    >>>>>>>> manages to record 3 frames per second of video from 8 cameras.
    >>>>>>>> I'm glad I don't have to check the 1500 hours of video that I am
    >>>>>>>> copying off it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> That PC will run XP with no problems..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I guess you dont consider runs like shit to be a probelm then? Because
    >>>>>> 256 megs makes XP do that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 128 megs is recommended for XP..
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, the original release with no service packs... from 9 YEARS AGO. Try
    >>>> patching a system like that up-to-date and you may as well wait an hour or
    >>>> 3 to boot to the desktop.
    >>>
    >>> I find that XP (SP3) works fine with 512 MB. It was starting to get
    >>> sluggish when I was running SP2 on 256 MB with several
    >>> applications/windows open (and none particularly heavy duty as far as
    >>> memory requirements).
    >>>
    >>> 128 MB? It is to laugh.
    >>>

    >> The SPs don't add much to the requirements.

    >
    > Agreed. I was referring more to the timeline of when I had various
    > amounts of memory in relation to which service pack was current at the
    > time.
    >

    Ah OK. I see what you mean.
    >
    >> Vanilla XP would have been slow with a few apps running in 128MB.

    >
    > It is likely that other applications have grown in their requirements
    > over time. Office 2007 is presumably much more memory hungry than Office
    > 2000, to take one example. Also likely to be more things running in the
    > background.
    >
    > Therefore 128 MB might have been enough to run XP without too many
    > problems back in 2001, for simple uses, but nine years later you're less
    > likely to get away with it.
    >

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Jul 24, 2010
    #11
  12. Matty F

    Richard Guest

    Suzie Wong wrote:
    > I wait 30mins with 2gigs of ram and not many programs being loaded, just
    > 3, Memory manager, firewall and Virus checker.
    >
    > I do have a large HOST file, but I dont think that gets loaded..


    Perhaps an upgrade is in order? I have a 7 machine that boots in about
    30 seconds on only 2 gigs.

    Or your drive is stuffed.
     
    Richard, Jul 24, 2010
    #12
  13. Matty F

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Suzie Wong <> wrote in
    news:p:

    >
    > I wait 30mins with 2gigs of ram and not many programs being loaded, just
    > 3, Memory manager, firewall and Virus checker.
    >


    Your performance is indicating a problem. That is not normal.
    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Jul 24, 2010
    #13
  14. Matty F

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 24, 3:03 pm, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    > I wait 30mins with 2gigs of ram and not many programs being loaded, just
    > 3, Memory manager, firewall  and Virus checker.


    A memory manager? What is this? DOS?

    Or have you bought into some snake oil bollox again?

    >
    > I do have a large HOST file, but I dont think that gets loaded..


    A 2GB hosts file maybe?

    Hehe Woger that is one sick PC.

    I've had to perform CPR on someones slowly dying overloaded SBS 2003
    machine (kids - don't install Trend Micros Worry Free Business Suite
    6.0 - ever!) that has had 5+ years of endless patches, fragmentation,
    low disk space related seizures and DB problems, WSUS blowouts etc
    etc.

    And even with less RAM than your PC (I bet you aren't running Active
    Directory, Exchange Server, ISA, Sharepoint, WSUS etc), that machine
    could still boot in maybe half that time - even including the
    interminable SCSI BIOS waits.

    It didn't have a memory manager installed though - maybe that is the
    difference.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 24, 2010
    #14
  15. Matty F

    AD. Guest

    On Jul 24, 10:32 pm, Suzie Wong <> wrote:
    > That is been Installed to fix Memory leaks, if the computer is on for
    > some hours it runs like a Dog, CPU use seems to creep up to 90%


    Well that will be the fault of something you've installed.

    Which process is using the CPU?

    >
    > Cant find any viruses or root kits, this is a normal problem I find with
    > time and XP, needs a clean install, but I will try a repair first.


    How long does that take? That ain't a normal problem. Chances are that
    something you instinctively install ends up buggering up your system.

    It is also amusing that you like to trash the quality of other systems
    when your own system is that bad. Is that not a massive blind spot?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Jul 24, 2010
    #15
  16. Matty F

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Dave Taylor wrote:
    > Suzie Wong <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    >> I wait 30mins with 2gigs of ram and not many programs being loaded,
    >> just 3, Memory manager, firewall and Virus checker.

    >
    > Your performance is indicating a problem. That is not normal.


    You *do* know that this is Roger right? Nothing about him or his equipment
    IS normal.
    --
    Shaun.

    "Let food be thy medicine" Hippocrates.
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 25, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nate
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,131
    Ed Mullen
    Feb 21, 2004
  2. Anthropy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,074
    Anthropy
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    485
    ts570d
    Aug 3, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,012
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. john hamilton

    files on external hard drive listed under DVD-RW Drive

    john hamilton, Nov 8, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    908
    richard
    Nov 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page