Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jaclaz last won the day on November 19

jaclaz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,083 Excellent


About jaclaz

  • Rank
    The Finder

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

12,866 profile views
  1. ... and I thought I was the one that would have failed in a diplomatic career ... jaclaz
  2. jaclaz

    Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!

    You can try to not looking at the screen , and/or start saying aloud "I am not going to work with this computer today, it seems like a perfect day for a walk outside" or similar, maybe it works like boiling water for tea http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/308 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/308/308-h/308-h.htm and it decreases the amount of memory in use ... jaclaz
  3. jaclaz

    Installing Win 7 and RAID, need quick reply please

    No, it isn't, or, if you prefer, it only happens on the vast majority of systems, but not necessarily on all of them. The booting PE has been documented to in some cases to detect disks in a different order from BIOS, and of course another number of factors may be involved, like the exact way the disk is partitioned (before or during the install) and the exact way the OS is installed (via normal setup, third party automated tools, dism apply, etc., etc.). Since it costs nothing at install times to disconnect the "other" disks it represent a foolproof way to make sure it doesn't happen. jaclaz
  4. jaclaz

    RAID under Win 7, Disk Manager or Intel Rapid Storage?

    Let's try to clear the matter. Calling *anything* RAID without specifying its RAID level makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. RAID 0 is NOT properly "RAID" as there is NO redundancy whatsoever, it is only a senseless way to (maybe) achieve very slight read/write speed increases (which actually happened only on some given configurations making use of slow, now obsolete, devices and connection buses) at the (real) cost of a definite increase in the risk of failure. RAID 1 is actually "RAID", BUT it should be called simply "disk mirroring". You can have disk mirroring BOTH via hardware and via software, in the case of Windows, software disk mirroring is one among the modes "dynamic disks" can be setup. BUT at the end of the day, since the disks are actually mirrored, there are very little differences in practice on the contents of disks. Basically each disk is (or should be) an exact mirror of the other. In ordinary, day to day operations, you will notice no differences using the one or the other. When (if) disaster strikes and one of the two disks in a "mirrored" set fails, there are only a few slight differences, not really worth more than a thought. In the case of a "hardware" mirrored set of two disks, you can *any time* take the one (or the other) and connect it to another PC and it will be immediately recognized as a "normal", "self standing" disk, and you will be able to access its contents "normally". In the case of a "software" mirrored set of two disks, when you take the one (or the other) and connect it to another PC it won't be recognized "as is" and you will need to change the partition ID in the MBR from 42 to 07[1], and then it will be recognized as a "normal", "self standing" disk, and you will be able to access its contents "normally", even if a few sectors at the end of the disk (outside the normally accessed area) will contain "dynamic disk" settings data). The "hardware" mirrored set might be (slightly, you won't probably notice it) faster in operation. Of course the "software" and "hardware" mirrored set settings "do not communicate" as - even if the end result is the same or very nearly the same - the way they work is different. With hardware, you are essentially saying to the hard disk controller to write the data it receives to two different devices, with the software you are telling to the Operating System to write the data to two different connected devices. Personally if I were to choose, I would prefer a hardware mirrored set (aka RAID 1) over Dynamic Disks anytime, only because Dynamic Disks have historically given more problems, though the reason is not clear/straightforward, a possibility is that knowledgeable people (and with the available means to buy more costly hardware) chose either hardware mirroring or never chose "RAID 1" while a vast number of less knowledgeable people (and/or without the means to buy a RAID controller) chose the "free" Dynamic Disks mirroring, hence there are very few reports of issues with hardware RAID 1 and some more with "Dynamic Disks". jaclaz [1] Never tried/checked how these disk behave if GPT and not MBR, but most probably there will be a similar issue of chainging partition ID.
  5. jaclaz

    Windows 98 Hard drive Cloning

    If the files can be seen by dir and you already fid a fdisk /MBR the only remaining thing is making sure that: 1) the partition is Primary and Active 2) the bootsector of the partition conatins valid code 3) the IO.SYS and other system files are actually there What I would do: 1) make a dos/Windows 98 boot disk with a copy of grub.exe (the grub4dos DOS executable) or make a grub4dos boot floppy (or USB stick/CD/whatever) 2) run grub4dos 3) attempt to boot the Windows 98 system on the disk by directly chainloading the system file This more otr less equates (on the grub4dos command line) to find how the disk is seen in the BIOS (it will be either (hd0) or (hd1)) and which is the partition where the DOS/Win98 is (normally first partition, i.e. either (hd0,0) or (hd0,1). So: geometry (hd0) geometry (hd1) if the disk is seen as (hd0) root (hd0,0) ls <- this should show the contents of the partition, like DIR chainloader /io.sys boot if the disk is seen as (hd1): map (hd0) (hd1) map (hd1) (hd0) map --hook root (hd0,0) ls <- this should show the contents of the partition, like DIR chainloader /io.sys boot You can use *almost any* grub4dos version, but I would suggest a 0.4.5c version, like: http://grub4dos.chenall.net/downloads/grub4dos-0.4.5c-2016-01-18/ http://dl.grub4dos.chenall.net/grub4dos-0.4.5c-2016-01-18.7z or, if it doesn't work (the Presario is an old machine and not many tests have been made with newer versions on old machines), a "historical" 0.4.4, last version of it, 2009-10-16 that you can find here: http://reboot.pro/topic/16641-grub4dos/ If you need help assistance in the usage, just post your questions/doubts. jaclaz
  6. jaclaz

    Windows no longer boots, secondary HDD is unaccessible

    Again, not very good signs, actually bad ones. Basically a hard disk sector (which is normally seen as being 512 bytes in size) contains - accessible only by the internal citcuits/logic, a record that is a sort of checksum of the contents of the sector itself, called CRC or Cyclic Redundancy Check, this is a value, written at the time the sector is written that is checked when reading the data to make sure that it is valid. If you have a huge number of such errors, particularly if they come in "a bunch" at cyclical intervals it is likely a (but not necessarily) a failed head. The image won' t be successful, you can stop the imaging of the whole drive. You can or you cannot hear the hard disk "crunching" at intervals? If you stop the program you should still have available the (partial) image (the .dd file). Check it in a hex editor, or in DMDE. Is it all 00's or it does contain some data? All the symptoms till now are that of a failed drive, point is whether some partial data can be copied or not, and if these data are enough to recover (some of) the photos. If your photos have a value I would suggest you to stop fiddling with the disk and ask for the assistance of a professional data recovery firm. Typically we are talking of a cost of anything between US$ 300 and US$ 2000 and there is no guarantee that the photo can be recovered, most "serious" recovery firms (not very easy to find BTW) will ask you anything between US$50 and US$300 to "diagnose" the disk, and then will submit you an estimation of the cost of recovery (id possible). jaclaz
  7. A semi-random thought, but maybe one could try actually disable the volume in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices\Offline and then mount the volume "indirectly" (and with another drive letter) via IMDISK, that does have a "direct extent access" feature: http://reboot.pro/topic/20450-mounting-split-image/?p=192170 It has to be seen if volsnap.sys actually hooks also this IMDISK volume (that appears not in disk manager, etc. as it is basically a "superfloppy"). jaclaz
  8. Isn't this one good enough? http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/spy jaclaz
  9. Sure , I know, hence I explicitly specified "whatever remains of it on an internet connected machine". Now, who is soundings like a conspiracy theorist? Please don't forget a Velostat cap: http://reboot.pro/topic/13177-an-improved-electromagnetical-shielding-device/ you never know ... jaclaz
  10. Not really. A conspiracy theorist would assume that since it is not documented the exact way the data is sent and which exact data is actually sent, then there must be something "evil" behind it. The two statements are instead simply meaning that something is not documented and this may (or may not) be a violation of privacy (whatever remains of it on a internet connected machine ). jaclaz
  11. Good. The issues being : 1) there is NO proof that this happens "anonymously" or "anonymously enough" 2) what is actually sent to MS is NOT adequately, let alone fully, documented 3) in the old way you reported a bug and were regularly ignored, what makes you think that the telemetry data is not also blatantly ignored? (the only good thing is that you don't have anymore to talk with some support rrepresentative attempting to put the blame on you - or read on a board pathetic attempts by totally clueless people) 4) and this is the worst part, the final result will be that we will be ONLY ALLOWED to use our computers in ways conforming to what the good MS guys believe that is better for us based - maybe - on how the majority of other people use their computers. (something between the Pareto principle and Wisdom of the crowd ) jaclaz
  12. Home Basic, you mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions Also Starter (x86) is missing. And the K, KN and N editions. jaclaz
  13. jaclaz

    My account has been blocked

    Naaah, more like Monty Python's Life of Brian: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/qt0471984 jaclaz
  14. jaclaz

    My account has been blocked

    To clarify: No doubts about the stern look of disapproval, it's only about the amount of time served, that should be proportional to the delay caused to the project: jaclaz
  15. jaclaz

    My account has been blocked

    Well, Rules should be clear, I propose: If it happens, your account will be disabled and the final release will be delayed for long time one period for each infraction. Where period may be 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, etc. Essentially someone wanting to halt the development would: 1) donate a small amount of money 2) download a private build 3) republish it 4) anonymously alert Bigmucle of the "leak" 5) get his/her account banned AND have the final release delayed by one period 6) rinse and repeat Now, it would only be fair that this hypothetical saboteur was made able to calculate the cost of the sabotage, and If the delay is exponential (as opposed to fixed) the saboteur would save a lot of money, Also, how can we adequately blame "nicely" if we don't know how long enough the final release was delayed because of his naughty behaviour? jaclaz