jaclaz

And now, for no apparent reason, underwater drones: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/03/robotic-octopus-to-take-over-the-seas/ jaclaz

I believe you didn't really want to make this statement jaclaz

I guess we could make a list of "ignore priorities" . I would put Windows Out Reach as the ones to be most ignored or ignored more thoroughly: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156549-hello-there/ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/jj129629.aspx though they are seemingly not outsourced. The answer is: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162404-many-log-errors-on-install/?p=1034363 The good thing is that it applies to almost any question, or at least Jessica is specialized in this specific answer... jaclaz

Let's make some random percentages DELL's "deals": http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/desktop-all-in-one-deals 1/10 offers only 8.1, all the other offer 7 AND 8.1 http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptop-tablet-deals 2/10 offer only 8.1 all the other offer 7 AND 8.1 3/20 = 15% Windows 8.1 17/20= 85% Windows 7 HP ones: http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CatalogCategoryID=cYgQ7hab2LMAAAFB.lpn4Tx6&jumpid=in_r11662_Inventory_Clearance_DealsSpot/psgpromo/atlas_homepage/heasmith Out of 14 items only the two tablets and one desktop has 8.1, all the other have 7 (as downgrade from 8.1): 3/14 = 21% 11/14 = 79% I would say that DELL and HP are not doing much to push Windows 8/8.1 ... jaclaz

Also, I would like to underline how there are good things in these newish releases of Vista . OS major version 6, minor 1, 2, 3 or 4 mean that these are all Vista flavours, in my simplicity . Curiously all the new, nice things are relegated to command line interface (and often with mindboggingly complex sintax). At this point it would be more intelligent to make the whole OS command line only (think of Server 2012 Core) create two similar "standard" GUI shells (one touch/swipe/tap enabled and one mouse/keyboard suitable one) and allow the use of specially crafted shells/GUI apps/ Themes making use of this underlying command line core. Not exactly a "new" concept, though. jaclaz

It is rare that CHKDSK cannot fix a NTFS filesystem. What can happen is that a number of files (for whatever reasons) are not indexed properly anymore, and as such will "disappear" (and you can copy them back from the backup/recovery you made). There might be reasons to rebuild/fix a filesystem, but starting from scratch (formatting the volume) usually is - if not faster - less error prone. I would be more preoccupied about understanding what exactly caused the corruption. More or less the only thing that you can do is to change the data cables of the SSD's, make triple sure they are connected properly and run some manufacturer test in the SSD's themselves. jaclaz

Unfortunately your issue is not solvable following this guide. IF it is LBA0 then it may apply. IF it is BSY then it may apply. You have the disk NOT in LBA0 (as you see 3.86 GB) nor in BSY state as you see it in BIOS. You are experiencing the so called "click-of-death": http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128807-the-solution-for-seagate-720011-hdds/?p=1082429 Applying the LBA0 or BSY solution won't likely help in your case . jaclaz

You do not recovery "the partition". You recovery files from it copying them to another volume. If you want instead to rebuild the file system you need to correct (if needed) errors up to a level where the file system recognizer of the OS can recognize it, it is a manual, long and rather difficult procedure, doable, but not something that you can do unless you have already a deep knowledge of the file system structures. And you might need additional tools, a good hex/disk editor, I personally use good ol' Tiny Hexer: http://reboot.pro/topic/8734-tiny-hexer-scripts/ and here is another useful tool IMHO: http://ntfs.com/recovery-toolkit.htm No, I have not Skype, actually I don't even have sound on my PC. jaclaz

I am not getting it. Why don't you get the DigitalRiver appropriate .iso (s)? http://www.heidoc.net/joomla/technology-science/microsoft/14-windows-7-direct-download-links jaclaz

I don't understand. You haven't been able to test a 2 Gb or 8 Gb because you have not any handy. OR You have been able to test a 2 gb and a 8 Gb BUT they did not work 100% correctly. OR You decided to NOT test a 2 Gb and a 8 Gb (though you would have been able to test them) because you believe they won't work correctly jaclaz

What do you mean? If you found the actual files (and you need them) you copy them to a new volume. If you want to repair the filesystem on the single image you use CHKDSK, after having found and corrected manually the errors (if any) that you found through analysis of the image. jaclaz

Anybody else think that problems could (needlessly) arise from this attempt to put everyone on the same "version" of Windows? ... I suppose we might be able to rely on the version number (6.x.yyy.zzz), but that would introduce a cumbersome additional step into the discussion. And I'm not sure what it would help, anyway -- maybe you installed a June update but not the April one, for example. Don' t tell the MS marketing guys, but IMNSHO this (continuously updating a codebase) is what the engineers have done since 2006 (actually before since 2000). In their own definition, there is a major and minor version of the OS. NT 4.00 was 4 Windows 2000 was 5.0 Windows XP was 5.1 Server 2003 was 5.2 (and also XP 64 bit, which is actually a dumbed down version of Server 2003) Those were the early "version 5" operating systems. Vista was 6.0 7 was 6.1 8 was 6.2 8.1 is 6.3 These are the current "version 6" operating systems. jaclaz

A classical example on how to use a "right" tool for the "wrong" scope. jaclaz

@TELVM How queer, there was a recent article on Redmond Magazine had these (triumphant) news: http://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/09/15/windows-8-surpasses-windows-xp.aspx I do understand how this "OS share" numbers can have little variations/fluctuations, but I find surprising that XP is today: http://www.winbeta.org/news/windows-8-and-windows-81-see-drop-their-market-share-windows-7-continues-gain-momentum at 23.87% and that 15 days ago it was only 12.9%: http://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/09/15/windows-8-surpasses-windows-xp.aspx I guess that based on these data we could publish an article titled : jaclaz

You see, how different perspective can be? I would be happy about that as it could be a sign that the reply came from an actual human being (though not informed or misinformed or however providing a non-answer or an answer to a question that was not asked) as opposed to an automatic copy-paste-reply program. jaclaz

Good or bad is - as always - in the eyes of the beholder. The thing that can be said for sure is that it won't be timely. They are talking of talking about it (besides hopefully troubleshooting/debugging/whatever) until end of April 2015 to which it is easy to add 3 to 4 months for putting together and deliver the RTM, then possibly another couple ones for "general availability", i.e. almost one year from now. This would mean almost 3 years, i.e. longer than what they took to create Vista SP3 Windows 7. I guess that everyone that has not yet jumped on the 8/8.1 bandwagon will keep - if at all possible - clinging to their XP or Vista or 7 for one year more (please read as "I predict a very slow increase in 8/8.1 adoption in the next months"). jaclaz

Well, Windows IX would have been cool IMHO. jaclaz

Well, you either have some confused sources or you are confused by the terminology (which can be confusing). Vista uses BOOTMGR which is both a bootloader and a bootmanager. XP uses NTLDR which is both a bootloader and a bootmanager. These files won't be changed (not corrupted) at install, but the bootsector code that load the one or the other will. As well, the configuration file for Vista which is \boot\BCD would normally be automatically updated to include an entry for a "previous" XP install. The normal booting of Vista is: BIOS->MBR->PBR of active partition->BOOTMGR->Choices in \boot\BCD->Winload.exe->Windows Vista The normal booting of XP is: BIOS->MBR->PBR of active partition->NTLDR->Choices in \BOOT.INI->NTDETECT.COM->Windows XP The normal booting of Vista and XP in dual boot (when VIsta is installed AFTER the XP is: BIOS->MBR->PBR of active partition->BOOTMGR->Choices in \boot\BCD->Winload.exe->Windows Vista BIOS->MBR->PBR of active partition->BOOTMGR->Choices in \boot\BCD->NTLDR->NTDETECT.COM->Windows XP So there are three key changes to observe. When the Vista is installed after XP it will: change the MBR code (but this won't have any effect unless the existing MBR is one of the special ones allowing for a recovery partition) change the PBR code (that will now invoke BOOTMGR instead of NTLDR add to the \boot\BCD an entry for loading the WIndows XP When the XP is installed after Vista it will: change the MBR code (but this won't have any effect unless the existing MBR is one of the special ones allowing for a recovery partition) change the PBR code (that will now invoke NTLDR instead of BOOTMGR)So, the "right" way to add an XP to an already Vista installed system is: backup the "Vista" MBR backup the "Vista" PBR install the XP boot to the XP backup the "XP" MBR (you never know) backup the "XP" MBR (you never know) restore the "Vista" MBR and PBR reboot to Vista add to the Vista \boot\BCD an entry to boot the XPThere are several ways to perform the above, if you have a bootable Vista DVD, (though I recommend anyway to backup both XP and Vista MBR and PBR) you can use it to perform #7-9 (I believe that the XP install would be added to \boot\BCD automatically, but I may be wrong but in any case you can use bcdedit to add the entry). To backup and restore the MBR and PBR sectors you can use *any* disk editor or a dd like program, or the GUI Hdhacker: http://dimio.altervista.org/eng/ You can also alternatively use the built-in in Vista bootsect.exe to change the PBR code (the Vista version of bootsect.exe won't change the MBR code) and MBRFIX: http://www.sysint.no/nedlasting/mbrfix.htm These latter will simply write the XP or Vista Code to the MBR and PBR (leaving the data untouched). jaclaz

How surprising. How surprising. How surprising. (would that make a "How surprising3"? About the misspelling, IF your name is Eric and Jitin wrote Erik instead it's not IMHO that much an issue, on the other hand, if your name is Jean-Philippe it would sound preoccupying... jaclaz

Perfect. : jaclaz

Maybe something like this: PLEASE READ POST #2 needs to be added to post #1 jaclaz

And possibly fmg stands for Flavio M. Gomes . I doubt that many people on MSFN can read (or appreciate) Portuguese , exception made for Dencorso , obviously. Be aware of Rule #2e however : http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules jaclaz

Yep , I would also like Julie Larson-Green and Terry Myerson to come here and explain the MS standpoint on the matter. jaclaz

Well, then it's OK, it is the RAID sector (the data in the MBR is about CHS 8/0/1 whilst the LBA is 8 sectors), either is a "peculiarity" of the RAID setup or the disk has been partitioned with a third party tool. However, the "main" volume is the one corresponding to line: which is also seemingly in "good shape" (at least when it comes to "primary" descriptors) as you have the EBCF in green. http://dmde.com/manual/partitions.html You should select that line and then click on "Open volume", the other ones are "false positives". jaclaz

jaclaz