jaclaz

Again, it depends. If you plan to use them only on newish MS OS's, you should go for exFAT which is faster and allows for large files. (but you loose compatibility with older systems). If you need the wider compatibility, FAT32 is better, and you can (if you want) partition it and optimize the placement of the filesystem to gain some beter performance, but you won't be able to host on that filesystem files larger than 4 Gb (yes, of course you can have more than 4 Gb in different files, but the size of any single file must be smaller than 4 Gb). If you want large file and "wide enough" compatibility, and overall a "more solid" filesystem[1], go for NTFS. Always use "safe remove" or equivalent before removing a USB stck from a running PC. jaclaz N.B.:[1] the attribution of "more solid" in this context does NOT mean that I want to initiate the usual FAT32 vs. NTFS, Dracula vs. Mickey Mouse, Godzilla vs. King Kong flamewar , it is only meant to highlight some features of the NTFS that make in certain circumstances easier to recover data from a crashed filesystem .

It depends on a number of factors. "stock" flash USB stick normally come formatted as "super-floppy" (i.e. NOT partitioned) and FAT32. FAT32 cannot host files larger than around 4 Gb. To boot from the stick it is usually needed to have it partitioned. If you plan to boot from it some Linux OS, some of them do not have kernel level (or initial) support for NTFS. FAT32 drivers have been dumbed down by MS, so NTFS is generally speaking, better performing, and it can host files larger than 4 Gb BUT, depending on some settings may wear out the device prematurely, see: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/125116-fat16-vs-fat32-vs-ntfs-speed-on-usb-stick/ BUT there are strategies to format the stick providing a slightly better performance: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/151798-does-fat32-align-its-clusters/ http://reboot.pro/topic/16775-discover-allocation-unit-and-other-information-of-ufd-under-windows/ http://reboot.pro/topic/16783-rmprepusb-faster-fat32-write-access-on-flash-memory-drives/ Finally newish USB 3 "high end" USB sticks are not anymore flash dries, but rather (small) SSD's with a USB3 to SATA bridge. jaclaz

Good. The disk is seemingly one of those with the "newish" 4096 bytes per sector "advanced" format: http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_spinpoint_m8_review but as a mattter of fact it seems like it "exposes itself" as a conventional 512 byte/sector device. As such the offset of 4096 bytes for the start of the FAT1 seems like "possible or probable". Quite surely the good guys at ADATA have created the FAT32 filesystem with a "cusstom" app (the "standard" Windows format won't deal with such a large disk or will create a "huge" cluster size, but in any case it would create a higher number of "reserved sectors"). I didn't think it was a 2.5" drive, and yes, I have seen how those are often formatted as FAT32 even if very large, in factory, so that the "common" user can use them on Windows, OSX and Linux "as is". As well, the size of the found FAT seems like "right", 122065408/4=30516352 (roughly) indexable clusters, and if you divide 1953520002 (total sectors - these are 512 bytes ones) by 30516352 you get roughly 64 which makes sense for a 32 Kb cluster FAT filesystem. It is possible (but I doubt it) that the "custom" format had only one FAT table, but in any case the FAT1 that the tool found - according to the data posted - sounds like "the right one". : jaclaz

What's this ? Quote day? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartleby,_the_Scrivener jaclaz

Well, as a matter of fact - and just for the record - the mentioned DMDE has a free edition and at least in it's Windows version (which you excluded using) is normally capable - believe me - to find a $MFT, and also as said, I already provided the actual addresses where to check (based on the data you provided). So there was not - specifically - any need to "search", only to verify if those addresses were correct. In any case, happy that you managed to recover your files . jaclaz

WHICH "quote balloon" is missing? That sentence is by Douglas Adams and I correctly put it inside QUOTE tags referencing him. jaclaz

Yep jaclaz

Not really, we have been there (and read that): http://log.nadim.cc/?p=78 http://withinwindows.com/2012/08/24/thoughts-on-the-windows-smartscreen-scare/ jaclaz

These results are not that bad: BUT they are not "normal". I mean it seems like the two copies of the FAT are overlapping. If you choose the "do not use FAT tables" the filesystem will be read as "RAW" and as such only files that are contiguous and in any subdirectory may be recovered (BUT, IF the FAT tables - even if "OK" - do contain invalid or incomplete data, this option may allow to recover MORE files than when using the supposedly "100% OK FAT table", on the other hand, it is well possible that the second FAT table, though not "100% OK" may contain "different" - possibly "more valid" data. The "standard" procedure when you know WHAT you are actually looking for is to try checking the files/directory tree once for each option and then choose the one that shows the needed file(s). If you don't know what you are looking for, the procedure is to run the whole recovery process three times, and then compare results. The real issue here is that - depending on the reason that caused the sector level errors - it is possible that each read operation/movement of the head on that disk makes things worse, and - besides - working on an even partially defective disk will slow down operations to a level that is almost unbearable. That's another reason for making the image, it may take a lot of time to create (hopefully) a valid image, but the imaging tool can be run "unattended" at night, and once you have the image on a "good" disk, the interactive part of the recovery (analyzing/searching/copying/etc.) will be faster. I would no doubt have the image made next thing. (better be safe than sorry ) Can you post the EXACT model of the actual disk drive? I want to check it's actual sector size and number of sectors as something - instinctively, but I have do make some calculations - doesn't "sound" right to me about the FAT size found. jaclaz

Those kind of errors are not "good news" . They appear to be "low-level" errors (i.e. either the disk controller or the SATA cable or - more probably - the disk itself have hardware issues). (BTW they could be also originated by the Windows 7 OS, but it would be "queer") Now, much more than before, it is imperative that you: stop fiddling with that disk drive. like NOW (sometimes a defective disk only needs to cool down a bit) procure yourself another disk slightly bigger with a partition/volume formatted as either NTFS or Ext2/3/4 to make on it an image of the disk get *any* Linux distro with Gnu ddrescue and use it to make the imagehttps://help.ubuntu.com/community/DataRecovery#Imaging_a_damaged_device.2C_filesystem_or_drive BTW, there is a similar software for Windows: http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm but the GNU ddrescue offers some added functionalities (it will skip defective sectors, logging what was skipped and you can re-run it and will automatically try to re-read the skipped ones), you can do more or less the same with datarescuedd, but you need to image in chunks (manually) and re-assemble chunks, see: http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/ http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/?p=133567 The first error being on sector #63 makes a lot of sense as - IF the disk was originally partitioned using the old CHS convention - sector LBA 63 is actually the bootsector of the partition (i.e. the thing that TESTDISK had issues writing to). jaclaz

In this particular case I would run on it - instead of TESTDISK - the DMDE. (Testdisk is mainly intended for "corrupted partition" recovery and has only some very limited features when it comes to filesystem recovery). Still, if you run again TESTDISK with the LOG option and post the log, it may contain something of use to give you some further advice. DMDE is a very nice (IMHO) tool that has a Free Edition with not-so-limited features, that I often use to inspect damaged filesystems: http://dmde.com/ In any case the "correct" procedure would be to first thing do a "forensic sound" image of the disk "as is". No offence whatever intended , but while "pure file-based recovery" (such as PhotoRec or similar) offers no risks to the integrity of the filesystem, running TESTDISK or similar software and attempting to WRITE to the target may make things worse that they were before. I am not familiar with the software you mentioned, actually never heard of it before , so, even if it is an exceptional good tool , I would anyway go for a second (or third) opinion both as "filesystem based" recovery and as "pure file-based recovery" through the use of other tools. jaclaz

But was the drive actually originally formatted as FAT32 (it would be extremely rare that a 1 Tb drive is formatted with the FAT32 filesystem in a single partition )? There is no problem in rebuilding a FAT32 bootsector , but the issues here are (IF the drive was actually FAT32) the FAT tables. VERY loosely speaking, any file which is: NOT fragmented NOT residing in the root directoryshould be recoverable alright from a FAT32 filesystem. (IF the issues are limited to the FAT tables) Are you working/modifying the original or using an image (or anyway have already an image safely stowed away)? Which OS are you running/using to attempt accessing it? Have you considered that the issue may be - even partially - connected with the actual USB to SATA controller inside the disk case? Do you have the possibility to open the case and connect directly the disk to a SATA bus? jaclaz

Is it possible that you fell in this nice trap? http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/the-most/2011/11/22/outlook-2010s-ignore-feature/ or possibly this "quirk" (the article is for 2007, but possibly it applies to 2010 also): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959960/en-us Check "Autoaccept" vs. "Autoupdate" too here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/exchange/en-US/2952c3a0-bbb3-48b2-a9f4-b78c01c9d210/email-moved-from-inbox-to-deleted-items-automatically?forum=exchangesvrgenerallegacy jaclaz

ppgrainbow, maybe you could try using some of the methods that have their own section on the forum: http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/157-install-windows-from-usb/ Setting up XP from the USB is often a bit complex, due to the limitations/pickyness of the install routine, there is at least a related thread (UNfinalized): http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/131921-installing-xp-tablet-2005-edition-from-usb/ which sounds like being exactly the issue you are having. But there are also reports of success, at least with the "good ol'" USB multiboot.cmd: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/61384-how-to-bootinstall-from-usb-key/?p=702261 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/111406-how-to-install-xp-from-usb/ In any case, either wimb or ilko_t are the most expert when it comes to installing XP from USB, so you may want to try their programs and/or continue on the mentioned thread (about files on CD2). jaclaz

Actually I was just kidding, but humour - like beauty - is often in the eye of the beholder . You see , this is actually the idea behind taking part to a forum, people can talk about their experiences and learn (or just compare their own experiences with those of other people), as an example today I learned this : jaclaz

And apparently you will also need a power generator as: http://www.neowin.net/news/panasonics-20-inch-windows-81-tablet-coming-to-us-in-january-for-5999 I thought that the general idea in the long term for portable devices was to increasingly have devices that allowed to work play for around 8-10 hours like a cellular phone does since a few years (you get home and plug it in to recharge it, you get it the morning after fully recharged and the charge lasts until you are back home) . Which is BTW another aspect of the new BYOD syndrome, your employer saves money because you pay the energy to power your device that you use in order to work fake working play for him/her. jaclaz

Maybe because every time I try and help you what I suggest or hint is often taken as either obvious or unneeded, or both. The good thing is that in a few months (since the time you had to be guided step by step, up to the most minute detail to make a much simpler dual boot setup) you have learned so much that you definitely overtook this old dinosaur on the knowledge highway. Which means that you know about both Windows XP and Windows 7 unattended much more than I do, and you didn't actually need the suggestions I gave you, sorry for having attempted to tell you things you already knew, and knew to a much wider extent than myself. As said there is nothing that I *need* to know, but you were very kind to ask, thanks . JFYI, I never used unattended setups, and I am not planning to use them any soon, and - personally - I have all my multiboot systems have a different drive letter and the system letter is not C:\ for any of them (exclusion made for DOS) but de gustibus non disputandum est, compare with: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/169320-dual-booting-dos-and-win7/ jaclaz

Specifically I *need* to know (on these specific topics) very little more ,and besides, it's not my system, it is yours and you are the one needing/wanting to set it up, and to set it up that way. I thought that you might have been interested in the : http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/win7-how-do-i-move-user-folder-to-a-different/565f16a5-e5ed-43c9-8422-4f56aebb296e on the other hand, very possibly you already know all that, and much more than that , though you actually just declared you had made not any research and you were guessing that something similar was possible . In any case, the idea of doing an unattended install of one or both the OS's seems like being a "new" idea, in my perverted mind, the generic idea of "unattended", is: insert the boot disk make the PC boot from it walk away and come back after some time to find the system completely and fully configuredI would say that the plan you have is one of the more attended install plans ever conceived by the human mind. jaclaz

Well, for someone wanting to be in "full control", I guess it's about time to do that research, like now . Hint: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/win7-how-do-i-move-user-folder-to-a-different/565f16a5-e5ed-43c9-8422-4f56aebb296e jaclaz

Very possible , but still it would make little sense. According to the mentioned article: http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11 the "patents" have something like 95% margin, please read as 100% less the costs of the lawyers . And you have to do NOTHING but to collect the royalties (no investments, no R&D, no press statement, no risk of making a bad product - as you are not making any product), all you have to do is to convince the other people (and/or Courts) that you are entitled to cash the money. Let's say that you have (do you remember fourth of fifth grade?) a bath tub where a tap pours one gallon water per minute and the hole at the bottom of the tub lets exactly one gallon per minute go waste. Now if the idea is to not let the water go waste you have two choices: close the tap put a cork in the hole at the bottombut if the idea is to not let the water go waste AND take a bath you only have the second option available. The idea of selling the whole set to someone else (which may be able to put a cork in the hole or to increase the water pressure and thus the flow from the tap) may or may not help in not letting the water go waste, but won't let you take a bath anymore. But of course this is "top level" finance, and taps and defective bath tubs are just for the kids . jaclaz

Not really easy-peasy on a laptop. jaclaz

No. The issue is on the bwgen.com SERVER, NOT "locally" on your PC. The PHP engine is there, not on your PC or browser. jaclaz

I would like to remind all the peeps that one of the basic needs for selling something is to find someone actually wanting to buy what you want to sell. So, WHO exactly could be interested in a "game division" that (seemingly) loses a zillion bucks a year since several years? jaclaz

Ah, well, then it's good . BUT there is still something that you are seemingly missing. Automatic drive lettering under Windows NT follows some rules (which may be queer, but still "rules"). Of those, what you need to know is that first active partition on a disk will get drive letter C:\ (this is independent from it being physically the first partition on the disk or it's adddress being in the first partition table slot). Any partition volume (BUT the one on which the system, let's say the \Windows\ directory is) can have assigned letters manually changed at will. As you were told in the other thread, the XP setup provides additionally a simple method, the migrate.inf file, to pre-assign *any* letter to *any* volume. The point is that until the Registry is accessed, drive letters "do not exist". What you have before are just "arcpaths", i.e. the things similar to "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(0)\WINDOWS". What the above means, is get to the first partition "partition(0)" (i.e. partition in slot 0 of the partition table) of first disk "rdisk(0)". Then, in the Registry, there is the info to "couple" a given partition, identified by it's starting offset and on a given disk (identified by it's disk signature), see the already mentioned: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 You can create the partitions with "normal" XP (or 7) disk manager. Gparted does NOT "create issues", gparted used outside it's intended scope and/or not properly "may create issues", which is another thing. The trouble with tools like gparted (and any number of otherwise excellent partitioning tools) is that they give the user the FALSE feeling that they are easy, nice, graphical tools. All of them are more or less nice and graphical, but very far from "easy". You can use grub4dos or any among a zillion tools (any hex/disk editor will also do) under a DOS, a PE or Linux/whatever to hide or make active (or delete) a partition entry. Now, the remaining thing to be planned/understood is: How EXACTLY do you plan to place the "Documents and settings" on the "D:" volume on hard disk? (exact method you intend to use for Winsdows XP and exact method you intend to use for Windows 7) jaclaz

Oh my! Your last post was ignored! Seemingly also my last post here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162668-make-a-proper-dual-boot/?p=1043170 was ignored, but I am not whining about it. With all due respect you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If you use a EFI board in BIOS mode, it is in BIOS mode, i.e. it is to all effects a BIOS motherboard. (last character in the above is a "full stop" or "period") Sure it is possible to use grub4dos, no, there is NO risk to "cause issues" when writing a bootsector, if you use properly the proper tools. Two possible ways, each in 10 easy steps: Make an active, primary partition (to which you will install 7) Make a second primary partition (the one for XP) Install 7 "normally" on the first partition. (this partition will get drive letter "C:" under Windows 7) Hide the first partition and make active the second. Install XP "normally" on the second partition. (this partition will get drive letter "C:" under Windows XP) Unhide the first partition and make it active. Boot to Windows 7, access the second partition (you can assign to it *any* drive letter, let's say "M:") and copy from it to the root of the first partition the files NTLDR.. NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI Use BCDEDIT (or any similar tool) to add to your \boot\BCD an entry for the XP Use Notepad (or any other similar tool) to edit the arcpath in the copy of BOOT.INI on the first partition to point to second partition. Done.OR: create the first partition (NO NEED to FORMAT it) create the second partition and format it and make it active delete the first partition install the XP "normally" on second partition (this partition will get drive letter "C:" under Windows XP) from the booted XP, re-create the first partition, format it and make it active copy to it the files NTLDR.. NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI Use Notepad (or any other similar tool) to edit the arcpath in the copy of BOOT.INI on the first partition to point to second partition. Test that the machine boots normally to XP, then hide the second partition install Windows 7 "normally" on first partition (it should "autoimport" the settings in \boot\BCD for booting the XP partition) Unhide the second partitionBasically this latter equates to installing 7 on the first partition of a machine where XP was installed on the non-first partition (but still using drive letter C: for it). jaclaz