SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PMS Witch who wrote (23486)11/27/2001 12:07:27 PM
From: SE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 110653
 
Hi all,

I am having a real problem with Drive Image 4.0. Here are some specs. Working on a Celeron computer with WIN 98 ( says 4.10.1998, whatever that means), 128 meg of RAM. The original hard disk is a WDC 12.5 gig and the second hard drive, newly installed, is a Seagate Barracuda ATA IV, 40 gig. It was installed using the DiscWizard2000 software as I had trouble installing it using the regular DOS commands.

Loaded Drive Image 4.0 (which I purchased two months ago and am just now getting around to loading for the first time…..two weeks ago I get Drive Image 5.0 upgrade card in the mail! No I am not going to spend another $50 or whatever it is to upgrade before I even used the first purchase. Bastids!) Now, when I go to start, drive image it gives me the message that it will only run in DOS mode. That makes little sense to me as the book telling me how to use this program has GI pictures showing me what to expect. But anyway, it then reboots and turns off. Turns back on and I see on the screen some stuff like:

Msg 11: Loading floppy Image
Msg 12: Image floppy loaded.

Loading Iomega drivers

IDE WDC AC313000R
IDE ST340016A

Memory Allocation Error
Cannot load command, system halted.

If I am in windows and do a restart to DOS mode, the computer goes straight to a C:\windows> prompt.

HELP!

Thanks
Scott



To: PMS Witch who wrote (23486)11/27/2001 5:39:16 PM
From: c.horn  Respond to of 110653
 
No way.. It was you.. It was at least 2 years ago.. So although mr. mark's post was completely informative the fact remains that you posted it first.<gg>