Norton Utilities 2.0x

edited March 2020 in Product Comments

imageNorton Utilities 2.0x

WinWorld is an online museum dedicated to providing free and open access to one of the largest archives of abandonware software and information on the web.

Read the full story here


  • Just a small note: original images do not have BPB 3.0 data in range 0x0B - 0x1A, all those bytes are zeroes.

  • Was that causing a specific problem? In retrospect perhaps I should have included images converted to ImageDisk format since so many disk writers don't like 160k, with or without bios parameter block information.

  • It causes no problems. Moreover, it makes these images readable for many emulators and floppy tools that wouldn't work with it without BPB. It's just some information for those who wonder - how BPB 3.0 (that was introduced later) appeared on disks from 1983.

    And one more small note. According to NU 2.01 dated November 3, 1983 has corrupted HU.COM

  • Also, if you want to see HDD versions of utils in action, better use it with small (<= 10Mb) HDDs. They won't recognize bigger units.
  • *Norton Utilities 2.01 (11-3-1983) (5.25-160k)

    --> This has bad sector on Side B disk. (HU.COM seems to be broken.
    This disk needs re-dump.

    Refer this
  • "Brady OEM" - that's incorrect.

    Brady wasn't a PC vendor. It was the publisher Peter Norton collaborated with while working on his multiple PC- and programming related books.
    So it was some sort of a promotional package for early Norton utilities.
  • What I honestly don't understand is that in uploading version 2.01 (11/03/1983)
    Why is it not properly checked, and even though PCJS has officially mentioned where it went wrong, here it is about the uploading behavior as if there is no problem, without any mants.

    And if I had the original diskette of that version, I use all sorts of methods to make the dump as error-free as possible.

    Unfortunately, 2.01 (11-03-1983) uploaded to PCJS only uploaded one error dump file, but if you are like me, the error sector dumps at least 4-8 times, and the error part is more than 100 times/1000 times. I even try.

    As long as the surface of the diskette is not lost or damaged by magnetic
    Even if there is an error, the dump is successful in most cases,

    Anyway, I don't post anything that doesn't work.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not sure how that happened. All of the other programs on that disk are OK, but the file HU.EXE is corrupted. There should have been a big warning in the readme but there wasn't.

    Annoyingly this is one of the times I really wish there were a kryoflux dump. The dump has most of the sector content, there are just a few bits scrambled, and with a flux-level dump it might actually be fixable.
  • SomeGuy,
    There should have been a big warning in the readme but there wasn't

    There *is* a warning on the PCjs page where this NU version was taken from:

    Our original diskette contained files dated November 3, 1983. Unfortunately, that diskette contained two unreadable sectors (sectors 3 and 7 on track 4 of side B). Those sectors affect the contents of HU.COM at offsets 0x3600 and 0x3e00, and as a result, attempting to run that program will crash the machine.

    What I honestly don't understand is that in uploading version 2.01 (11/03/1983)

    It's always much better to have a rare version with one damaged file than not to have it at all.
  • I meant, *I* should have put a warning in the readme in the download.

    I probably rushed and and had the images in some large folder to process, and failed to check their web site.

    But there is an older comment about that error already, so WTF did I do?

    At any rate I changed the download page name to reflect that for now.

    For really rare titles like this, I certainly do prefer having something out there as long as it is sufficiently documented.

    The big problem is more common stuff that just gets slopped togeather, like Windows 98 ISOs made from file stets. Get... on.. too.. eBeh.. and BUY one. I'm not wasting my time testing a non original Windows 9x/NT dump, when one can be easily had. Then of course there is the popular stuff like Windows pre-releases that weirdos like to fake.
Sign In or Register to comment.