IDEDASD and driver version strangeness - OS2

This is a discussion on IDEDASD and driver version strangeness - OS2 ; There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases. The next-to-latest release is dated (in the README) to September 16 2003. It includes the following driver versions: IBM1S506.ADD 10-13-03 10.124 Adapter Driver for ST506/IDE DASD OS2CDROM.DMD 9-17-03 10.122 Device ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

  1. IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.


    The next-to-latest release is dated (in the README) to September 16 2003.
    It includes the following driver versions:

    IBM1S506.ADD 10-13-03 10.124 Adapter Driver for ST506/IDE DASD
    OS2CDROM.DMD 9-17-03 10.122 Device Manager Driver for CDROM
    IBMATAPI.FLT 9-17-03 10.122 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    IBMIDECD.FLT 9-17-03 10.122 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks

    So IBM finally integrated the unified ATAPI driver (introduced in the
    Extended WarmSwap package) into the IDEDASD releases. That's good. The
    README includes notes on the unified driver.



    However, the very latest release, README dated to November 25 2003,
    includes these driver versions:

    IBM1S506.ADD 10-13-03 10.124 Adapter Driver for ST506/IDE DASD
    OS2CDROM.DMD 11-25-03 10.127 Device Manager Driver for CDROM
    IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Adapter Driver for ATAPI CD-ROMs

    The ATAPI drivers have been regressed back to older non-unified versions,
    and the corresponding section of the README has been deleted.
    IBM1S506.ADD and the DASD and FLPY drivers are unchanged from the previous
    release. In fact, the only newer driver is OS2CDROM.DMD.


    So does anyone know (or guess) why the ATAPI drivers were regressed?
    There's no APAR list or anything. Could this have been inadvertent, or
    is there a vital reason for the reversion?


    To add to the puzzle, the regressed (non-unified) IBMATAPI.FLT and
    IBMIDECD.FLT have the exact same datestamp and revision level as the
    unified files from the EXTWSPKG release of 2002. But they are patently
    different drivers.

    EXTWSPKG (2002-10-18):
    IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    (identical file sizes)

    IDEDASD (2003-11-25):
    IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Adapter Driver for ATAPI CD-ROMs
    (different file sizes)

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex


  2. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:51:12 UTC, Alex Taylor wrote:

    > So does anyone know (or guess) why the ATAPI drivers were regressed?
    > There's no APAR list or anything. Could this have been inadvertent, or
    > is there a vital reason for the reversion?


    I do not know _why_, but I have noticed that packages with unified drivers
    usually are released as update for DASD support, while packages with
    non-unified drivers usually are released as update for DVD support.
    It seems IBM has two different teams with independent branches of source code
    (and each of these teams never have heard about another one :-/ ).

    --
    Yuri Proniakin

  3. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On 30 Dec 2003 13:51:12 -0600 Alex Taylor wrote:
    > There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.


    The next-to-last IDEDASD had the same module __TWICE__.
    The file was really IBMATAPI.FLT. But the file named
    IBMIDECD.FLT had the same content as file IBMATAPI.FLT

    I guess the latest IDEDASD corrects for this goof by
    re-issuing the 2002 IBMATAPI.FLT and IBMIDECD.FLT

    For myself, I'm using the next-to-last IBMATAPI.FLT (10.122)
    and the earlier (and latest) IBMIDECD.FLT (10.85)

    mikus



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

  4. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:26:08 -0600, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
    >> There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.

    >
    > The next-to-last IDEDASD had the same module __TWICE__.
    > The file was really IBMATAPI.FLT. But the file named
    > IBMIDECD.FLT had the same content as file IBMATAPI.FLT


    That was intentional; it explains it in the README.


    > For myself, I'm using the next-to-last IBMATAPI.FLT (10.122)
    > and the earlier (and latest) IBMIDECD.FLT (10.85)


    The latest IBMATAPI.FLT is intended to replace IBMIDECD.FLT as well.

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex


  5. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:48:46 +0000 (UTC), Yuri Proniakin wrote:
    >> So does anyone know (or guess) why the ATAPI drivers were regressed?
    >> There's no APAR list or anything. Could this have been inadvertent, or
    >> is there a vital reason for the reversion?

    >
    > I do not know _why_, but I have noticed that packages with unified drivers
    > usually are released as update for DASD support, while packages with
    > non-unified drivers usually are released as update for DVD support.
    > It seems IBM has two different teams with independent branches of source code
    > (and each of these teams never have heard about another one :-/ ).


    Yes... but in this case, both releases are IDEDASD (from the same place).
    The previous version had the latest IBMATAPI (unified), but the latest
    version of the same package has regressed back to the old
    IBMATAPI+IBMIDECD with no explanation of why...

    The simple solution would be to use the September IDEDASD release but
    replace just OS2CDROM.DMD with the version from the November IDEDASD
    package. But I don't know if this would be recommended or compatible...
    (probably is, but you never can tell).

    --
    Alex Taylor
    http://www.cs-club.org/~alex


  6. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Let me retract my previous post.

    In the next-to-last IDEDASD, having only a single file for
    IBMATAPI.FLT and IBMIDECD.FLT was *intended*. (In fact,
    the README says that after applying the 10.122 IBMATAPI.FLT,
    the DEVICE= line for IBMIDECD.FLT should be deleted from
    config.sys.)

    I *don't* know why the most recent IDEDASD backed out the
    IBMATAPI warm swap support that the next-to-last IDEDASD had.
    (I didn't myself actually *use* the warm swap capability.)

    I apologize for posting inappropriate information.

    mikus



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

  7. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Unfortunately, the device driver install control file, ide32.ddp, will
    stick the ibmidecd.flt driver right back in your config.sys.

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:32:28 UTC, mikus@bga.com (Mikus Grinbergs) wrote:

    > Let me retract my previous post.
    >
    > In the next-to-last IDEDASD, having only a single file for
    > IBMATAPI.FLT and IBMIDECD.FLT was *intended*. (In fact,
    > the README says that after applying the 10.122 IBMATAPI.FLT,
    > the DEVICE= line for IBMIDECD.FLT should be deleted from
    > config.sys.)
    >
    > I *don't* know why the most recent IDEDASD backed out the
    > IBMATAPI warm swap support that the next-to-last IDEDASD had.
    > (I didn't myself actually *use* the warm swap capability.)
    >
    > I apologize for posting inappropriate information.
    >
    > mikus
    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---



    --
    Chuck McKinnis
    IBM Senior Systems Engineer (retired)
    http://pws.prserv.net/mckinnis/

  8. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:02:14 UTC, Alex Taylor wrote:

    > > I do not know _why_, but I have noticed that packages with unified drivers
    > > usually are released as update for DASD support, while packages with
    > > non-unified drivers usually are released as update for DVD support.
    > > It seems IBM has two different teams with independent branches of source code
    > > (and each of these teams never have heard about another one :-/ ).

    >
    > Yes... but in this case, both releases are IDEDASD (from the same place).


    Yes, both were distributed as idedasd.exe from the same site, both did not
    have any explanations. The only difference was a brief annotation on the site.

    > The previous version had the latest IBMATAPI (unified), but the latest
    > version of the same package has regressed back to the old
    > IBMATAPI+IBMIDECD with no explanation of why...


    This happened more than once during last year. I had at least *two* pairs of
    these strange IDEDASD.EXE, and everytime the package with the unified ATAPI
    drivers had an outdated OS2CDROM.DMD, while the package with the updated
    OS2CDROM.DMD had old non-unified ATAPI drivers.

    > The simple solution would be to use the September IDEDASD release but
    > replace just OS2CDROM.DMD with the version from the November IDEDASD
    > package. But I don't know if this would be recommended or compatible...
    > (probably is, but you never can tell).


    This question intrigues me too since this summer, but my CD-ROM is used
    so rarely, that it usually resides in the shelf, not in the computer case,
    and OS2CDROM.DMD with IBMIDECD.FLT are REM-med out in the CONFIG.SYS,
    therefore I can not find any incompatibility.

    --
    Yuri Proniakin

  9. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    The unified ibmatapi/ibmidecd trapped me big time at boot with the
    latest idedasd package. Put back in the older copies and everything
    seems to be ok. My DVD drive is accessable (but I have not tested it
    with a DVD, only CD).

    So maybe there was a good reason for regressing the two drivers.

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:51:12 UTC, Alex Taylor
    wrote:

    > There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.
    >
    >
    > The next-to-latest release is dated (in the README) to September 16 2003.
    > It includes the following driver versions:
    >
    > IBM1S506.ADD 10-13-03 10.124 Adapter Driver for ST506/IDE DASD
    > OS2CDROM.DMD 9-17-03 10.122 Device Manager Driver for CDROM
    > IBMATAPI.FLT 9-17-03 10.122 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    > IBMIDECD.FLT 9-17-03 10.122 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    >
    > So IBM finally integrated the unified ATAPI driver (introduced in the
    > Extended WarmSwap package) into the IDEDASD releases. That's good. The
    > README includes notes on the unified driver.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, the very latest release, README dated to November 25 2003,
    > includes these driver versions:
    >
    > IBM1S506.ADD 10-13-03 10.124 Adapter Driver for ST506/IDE DASD
    > OS2CDROM.DMD 11-25-03 10.127 Device Manager Driver for CDROM
    > IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    > IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Adapter Driver for ATAPI CD-ROMs
    >
    > The ATAPI drivers have been regressed back to older non-unified versions,
    > and the corresponding section of the README has been deleted.
    > IBM1S506.ADD and the DASD and FLPY drivers are unchanged from the previous
    > release. In fact, the only newer driver is OS2CDROM.DMD.
    >
    >
    > So does anyone know (or guess) why the ATAPI drivers were regressed?
    > There's no APAR list or anything. Could this have been inadvertent, or
    > is there a vital reason for the reversion?
    >
    >
    > To add to the puzzle, the regressed (non-unified) IBMATAPI.FLT and
    > IBMIDECD.FLT have the exact same datestamp and revision level as the
    > unified files from the EXTWSPKG release of 2002. But they are patently
    > different drivers.
    >
    > EXTWSPKG (2002-10-18):
    > IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    > IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Single Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    > (identical file sizes)
    >
    > IDEDASD (2003-11-25):
    > IBMATAPI.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Filter Driver for ATAPI Disks
    > IBMIDECD.FLT 10-08-02 10.085 Adapter Driver for ATAPI CD-ROMs
    > (different file sizes)
    >



    --
    Chuck McKinnis
    IBM Senior Systems Engineer (retired)
    http://pws.prserv.net/mckinnis/

  10. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:51:12, Alex Taylor
    wrote:

    > There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.


    Anybody tried using the WPshell's built-in CD-player in Warp 4 with a
    recent IDEDASD.EXE package?
    It just doesn't work -- it reads something from the CD, and then
    errors-out, with a short 'beep'.

    If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.

    What am I doing wrong, other than not using Warp 4.5 ?

    Thanks for all suggestions.

  11. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Sir:

    Melvin Klassen wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:51:12, Alex Taylor
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>There's something strange about the latest couple of IDEDASD releases.

    >
    >
    > Anybody tried using the WPshell's built-in CD-player in Warp 4 with a
    > recent IDEDASD.EXE package?
    > It just doesn't work -- it reads something from the CD, and then
    > errors-out, with a short 'beep'.
    >
    > If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    > files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.
    >
    > What am I doing wrong, other than not using Warp 4.5 ?
    >
    > Thanks for all suggestions.

    Works here. Any chance you have some multimedia extenders installed?
    Does this problem persist if you roll them out of the system? Else,
    check that Your install of the CDrom in mmpm2.ini is okay. Use mmcheck
    by Thetaband as a guide.
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!


  12. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:57:13, "William L. Hartzell"
    wrote:

    > > Anybody tried using the WPshell's built-in CD-player in Warp 4
    > > with a recent IDEDASD.EXE package?
    > > It just doesn't work -- it reads something from the CD, and then
    > > errors-out, with a short 'beep'.
    > >
    > > If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    > > files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.
    > >
    > > What am I doing wrong, other than not using Warp 4.5 ?
    > >
    > > Thanks for all suggestions.

    > Works here. Any chance you have some multimedia extenders installed?


    I don't think so, but how can I tell?

    > Does this problem persist if you roll them out of the system? Else,
    > check that Your install of the CDrom in mmpm2.ini is okay.
    > Use mmcheck by Thetaband as a guide.


    It reported no errors.

    Any other ideas? Thanks.






  13. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Sir:

    Melvin Klassen wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:57:13, "William L. Hartzell"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Anybody tried using the WPshell's built-in CD-player in Warp 4
    >>>with a recent IDEDASD.EXE package?
    >>>It just doesn't work -- it reads something from the CD, and then
    >>>errors-out, with a short 'beep'.
    >>>
    >>>If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    >>>files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.
    >>>
    >>>What am I doing wrong, other than not using Warp 4.5 ?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for all suggestions.

    >>
    >>Works here. Any chance you have some multimedia extenders installed?

    >
    >
    > I don't think so, but how can I tell?
    >
    >
    >>Does this problem persist if you roll them out of the system? Else,
    >>check that Your install of the CDrom in mmpm2.ini is okay.
    >>Use mmcheck by Thetaband as a guide.

    >
    >
    > It reported no errors.
    >
    > Any other ideas? Thanks.


    I've been playing Chicago 19 for the past five hours with the headphones
    pluged-in to the front of my DVD player, with the CDrom object/player
    from the multimedia folder doing the honors. However, if I put that CD
    into my new, just installed CD burner, it starts to play and quits. I
    am returning the CDburner as defective. Could this be your problem?
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!


  14. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:27:10, "William L. Hartzell"
    wrote:

    > >>>If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    > >>>files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.

    >
    > I've been playing Chicago 19 for the past five hours with the headphones
    > pluged-in to the front of my DVD player, with the CDrom object/player
    > from the multimedia folder doing the honours. However, if I put that CD
    > into my new, just installed CD burner, it starts to play and quits.
    > I am returning the CDburner as defective. Could this be your problem?


    No. The built-in CD-player works fine with OS/2 Warp 3, on the same
    hardware.

    Under Warp 4, the CD-player spins the drive, but never displays a list
    of tracks.
    It just "beeps" once, and puts-up (and then takes-down) a
    "retry/cancel" dialog-box.

  15. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Sir:

    Melvin Klassen wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:27:10, "William L. Hartzell"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>>If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with IDEDASD-related
    >>>>>files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.

    >>
    >>I've been playing Chicago 19 for the past five hours with the headphones
    >>pluged-in to the front of my DVD player, with the CDrom object/player
    >>from the multimedia folder doing the honours. However, if I put that CD
    >>into my new, just installed CD burner, it starts to play and quits.
    >>I am returning the CDburner as defective. Could this be your problem?

    >
    >
    > No. The built-in CD-player works fine with OS/2 Warp 3, on the same
    > hardware.
    >
    > Under Warp 4, the CD-player spins the drive, but never displays a list
    > of tracks.
    > It just "beeps" once, and puts-up (and then takes-down) a
    > "retry/cancel" dialog-box.

    Do you have a system backup from when it worked? Suggest a restore.
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!


  16. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:28:45, "William L. Hartzell"
    wrote:

    >> If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with

    IDEDASD-related
    >> files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.
    >> Under Warp 4, the CD-player spins the drive, but never displays a

    list of tracks.
    >> It just "beeps" once, and puts-up (and then takes-down) a

    "retry/cancel" dialog-box.
    >
    > Do you have a system backup from when it worked? Suggest a restore.


    Which files do you suggest that I should restore?

  17. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Sir:

    Melvin Klassen wrote:
    > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:28:45, "William L. Hartzell"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>If I boot Warp 3 (not Connect) on the same box, with

    >
    > IDEDASD-related
    >
    >>>files from 1999, it works fine, with the same commercial CD.
    >>>Under Warp 4, the CD-player spins the drive, but never displays a

    >
    > list of tracks.
    >
    >>>It just "beeps" once, and puts-up (and then takes-down) a

    >
    > "retry/cancel" dialog-box.
    >
    >>Do you have a system backup from when it worked? Suggest a restore.

    >
    >
    > Which files do you suggest that I should restore?


    The whole bloody thing or the multimedia subsystem. I am not suggesting
    a re-install, thou that would be your only option if you don't have a
    decent backup. I just recently had to that very thing to stop it from
    beeping all the time. Some damn misconfigured basedev or who knows...
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!


  18. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:57:19, "William L. Hartzell"
    wrote:

    > > Which files do you suggest that I should restore?

    >
    > The whole bloody thing or the multimedia subsystem. I am not suggesting a
    > re-install, thou that would be your only option if you don't have a decent backup.


    Thanks for the advice: "restore" or "re-install". I would have never
    thought of doing that.

    > I just recently had to that very thing to stop it from beeping all the time.


    Did you not have a decent backup?

    > Some damn misconfigured basedev or who knows...


    Probably two different sound-card drivers "competing" with each other,
    although I've only seen this on a Windoze box.

  19. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    Sir:

    Melvin Klassen wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:57:19, "William L. Hartzell"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Which files do you suggest that I should restore?

    >>
    >>The whole bloody thing or the multimedia subsystem. I am not suggesting a
    >>re-install, thou that would be your only option if you don't have a decent backup.

    >
    >
    > Thanks for the advice: "restore" or "re-install". I would have never
    > thought of doing that.
    >

    When the road to possible fixes eliminate the likely causes, and the
    system worked previously, then returning to the previous condition
    before the problem is a fix. Knowing that such a return is possible,
    allows you, if you feel adventureous, to repeat your actions that caused
    the problem, so you may learn what not to do in the future. Else, if
    you got more important things to do, it is a quick way to get you on
    your way. I know that I did four things, one or more of which put my
    system into an unstable condition: install the APM update, attempt to
    enable manual turning off of the hard drive, re-install Java 1.3.1, and
    edit the Windows registry. The first two I will not repeat, thou I sure
    would like to hear the sound volume be reduced while my system is
    suspended, during my afternoon nap.

    >>I just recently had to that very thing to stop it from beeping all the time.

    >
    >
    > Did you not have a decent backup?

    I had a decent backup dating from December 12. Since my problem
    started a few days later, it was more than suficient to fix my problem.
    But of course, I did forget to backup one data item, which I'll
    recreate. sigh...

    >
    >
    >>Some damn misconfigured basedev or who knows...

    >
    >
    > Probably two different sound-card drivers "competing" with each other,
    > although I've only seen this on a Windoze box.

    That is one possiblility I did not consider as Warp 4 does not allow two
    audio devices to be default output device. It is working now and I did
    remove one sound output device on the USB channel. I do have a Crystal
    Semi sound card that has a bad output amplifier, and is being replaced,
    still installed.
    --
    Bill
    Thanks a Million!


  20. Re: IDEDASD and driver version strangeness

    > >>Some damn misconfigured basedev or who knows...
    > > Probably two different sound-card drivers "competing" with each other,
    > > although I've only seen this on a Windoze box.

    > That is one possiblility I did not consider as Warp 4 does not allow two
    > audio devices to be default output device.


    In any system (computer-based or not), there can only be _one_
    "default".

    You can install more than one driver for the same hardware,
    just like you can be one of three men watching TV,
    with the other two men each holding remote-control devices.

    You can watch that TV, but the experience of "dueling remotes" will
    not be a pretty sight/sound.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast