jaclaz

OW, come on , as said I was only kidding a little . jaclaz

That's your problem. My problem (in trying to provide you some help/assistance with your problem ) is guessing WHAT "your PC" is (like brand/model/laptop/desktop/etc.) WHAT it is supposed to boot to (WHICH Operating System, from WHICH device, like internal hard disk, USB, CD-ROM). You have to consider how usually our ESP powers are at their low on the 7th,14th, 21th and 28th of each month (and the d@mn crystal ball is AGAIN in the shop for maintenance/tuning ). Seriously, try describing your hardware and software, even without getting too verbose you can provide the essential details. The "slow going" to the BIOS page sounds a lot like a hardware error of some kind, but without some data on the actual machine involved it's hard to say what could it be. First thing I would do would be to clean the innards and check/clean contacts/reseat RAM modules, it won't hurt anyway. Second thing would be (if a desktop) to disconnect all internal disk devices and see if the "slow going" to the BIOS remains the same. An issue with recognizing a hard disk (or CD/DVD) drive at boot up may well lead to very long boot times and long delay before entering the BIOS. jaclaz

Would this make them visible? set devmgr_show_nonpresent_devices=1http://support.microsoft.com/kb/241257/en-us jaclaz

I don't get it. There is already the Win9x/Me UniAta driver by Xeno (whether it will work for your hardware/on your setup is to be seen), at least the 39j version: http://reboot.pro/topic/2384-alter-group-universal-ata-driver-for-windows-nt351nt42000xp/ is Win9x/Me compatible. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/142564-failed-to-install-sata-drivers/?p=914353 http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/114217-uniata-what-about-9xme-port/ jaclaz

Which version of MSDART? There are quite a few, AFAICR. Anyway, anyone using BOOTMGR and .wim booting should work fine as ".iso" from grub4dos. http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24602 jaclaz

Yes and no. Microsoft OS was once like that (something very loosely documented and with no alternatives to hard to learn command line), think of the original DOS releases. The innovation was Windows (3.0 ). Since then, and with all the needed differences and exceptions, the trend has always been that of making things simpler for the user (or at least less inconvenient). The point at hand is that it is like a bell curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function If you assume that in X there is "simplifying" and in Y there is "efficiency/usefulness", there is a peak, where the thing is as simple as possible and most efficient, if you further simplify it, efficiency/usefulness drops again, and the thing becomes (like Windows 8) "oversimplified" or "dumbified". Well before Windows 8 we had the experience of the "ribbon interface", which in my personal estimation lowered productivity on Office apps by 20 to 30% (either as in "more time to do the same thing" or "delivering an inferior quality product in the same time"). And again, not all the good MS guys/gals are completely nuts, as a matter of fact Server Core 2012 is ONLY command line, so, not unlike the good Linux guys discussed earlier, there is a small "elite" of people actually doing something and all the rest "playing" with the OS within the limits allowed by the dumbified GUI and it's "automagical" provisions. This is IMHO a sign that humanity is to be (or will be or is expected to be) divided in two classes (not completely unlike the H.G.Wells predictions, Morlocks vs. Eloi or viceversa), a class of IT guru's doing everything on the command line (or developing/implementing their own efficient GUI's) and a mass of simpletons that will only click - pardon me tap - on very large symbols. Soon both won't have any idea on how anything works outside their environment and when the machines will stop working they won't of course be able to repair them. Humanity is doomed . jaclaz

Well, not really. As a matter of fact it is actually the opposite (generally speaking). The actual "developers" of Linux (and more or less of any other *nix flavour) despise the common user and out of either a perverted mind or superior knowledge of the OS make things incredibly complex (even when they would be simple), scarcely (if ever) document usage (you are told to read the source code when asking something that is not in the man) and even when there is an actual complete man page (most are outdated, or miss some switches) there is always ONLY the syntax, but NEVER an example, which makes actually grasping the concepts more difficult and requires an insane amount of failed attempts to get a fully working command line. The actual developers of most "GUI" releases despise the common user as well, and, considering (not being entirely wrong, given the complexity of the "base" above) complete morons, and thus attempt to hide from them the underneath commands/way of working by replacing it with "dumbified" GUI "automagic" tools. So we have a "base OS" that is very complex (not in itself but because it is often poorly documented for the layman) and on top of it a - usually very limited (and completely undocumented) GUI. Additionally each different distro/build has a few essential aspects changed (for no real - apparently - reason). Typically: bootloader/bootmanager (and relative cheatcodes)automounting of devices (fstab sometimes called a different name and placed anywhere but where you would expect it to be)placement of essential files in different places/subdirectoriesdifferent naming of devices (particularly mass storage devices)Mind you, I like Linux as an OS and usually like most of the GUI distro's, but I cannot but underline how IMHO the limited success it had is due - at least in part - to the lack of actual "customer respect" (for one reason or the other) that most builds reflect. jaclaz

Naah , I won't consider reading a book that doesn't consider lolcat as a mainstream and highly sophisticated communication language . I am also wondering why exactly there is not a flood of LOLCODE programs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE but that's another story, however the implied politeness in it demonstrated by the use of a salutation (HAI) to initiate a program, the request for data or input in the dubitative form (CAN HAS) and the way error handling is made (AWSUM THX and O NOES) is I believe not found in any other scripting language. jaclaz

Do unbooted OS dream of wiped sectors? (I see that you are reading Philip K. Dick ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F jaclaz

Tinfoil hats are so 90's. We have better materials nowadays : http://reboot.pro/topic/13177-an-improved-electromagnetical-shielding-device/ jaclaz

You were already pointed to DVDisaster which, as a "side effect" of it's intended usage does have nice "source verifying" capabilities. jaclaz

Not really. IF the case is that of a capping jumper, the effect is just that of declaring a lower number of sectors. The existing partition(s) will be made on the "reduced" size (which is "at the beginning" and once you remove the capping you will have some additional unpartiioned space after the existing partition(s)). Before: |<partition>| After: |<partition>|---------------------------------------------------------| jaclaz

Well, I don't have any particular doubts about the file you found "in itself", I have some about it being suitable to your actual disk model and/or to your current firmware revision. You see, there are also firmwares SD1B and SD2B, but not necessarily they apply to your exact drive model. Compare with: http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/crawl_message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=25131 and: http://web.archive.org/web/20110809212506/http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207957 jaclaz

The actual article/whitepaper is this one: http://blog.quarkslab.com/imessage-privacy.html What techspot and other media didn't publish (or understand or both ) are the not-so-trifling effects of possible proxification in a business enviroment (on company issued hardware or on BYOD). In a nutshell, probabilities (as always completely faked ) that: Apple is BOTH Evil AND interested in your messages, and thus will read them (for advertising needs) 3.33% <- overall issue of very little relevance in practiceNSA (which is most probably Evil ) is actually interested in your messages, and thus will read them (for security needs) 0.333% <- overall issue of even smaller relevance in practiceThe IT guy in your company is either Evil or more simply a nosy peep and wiil pwn your accounts (for his own fun, or asked to do so by your boss that is finding an excuse to fire you) 17,33% <- this is preoccupying IMHO (and doesn't even take into consideration another number of possible man-in-the-middle atacks)jaclaz

As I see it, "newer" is not always "better". The update that is enough (hopefully) to avoid another bricking for the original cause is the SD1A. This doesn't mean that the disk cannot re-brick for another reason, of course. But unless there is some actual reason for updating to the SD2A (which I don't know/cannot recall about), I would not personally do it. When performing the update do check the BIOS settings (and a good idea would IMHO be that of disconnecting all other hard disks on the machine on which you perform the update): http://blog.yimingliu.com/2009/07/08/upgrading-the-seagate-barracuda-720011-to-firmware-sd1a/ jaclaz P.S.: I see that you managed the SD1A update alright

Yep, size on label 80, detected by BIOS as 30 means "different size" and CANNOT be caused by a bad or badly connected cable or bent pins. The interesting part of the original post is however this: How the booted OS (that has not been booted and is declared as presumably damaged) can see it as 30 Gb remains a mistery . jaclaz

Here is a photo of an actual skimmer "installed" on an ATM: http://www.valtrompianews.it/files/magazine/img/skimmer.jpg and here is a video of what the "hidden camera" may record: jaclaz

No, that CANNOT cause a different size detection. jaclaz

Just for the record: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/56005-repair-scratched-cd/ But, no, the symptoms are the "wrong" one for a physical defect. It sounds much more like any of the possible anti-copy/anti-rip protections. A very suitable way to identify a problematic area is usually DVDisaster: http://dvdisaster.net/en/index.html jaclaz

Meet Guiyu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_in_Guiyu http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162,00.html but read also here: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/e-waste-recycling-exports-are-good jaclaz

IF both test pass, then the firmware that you should update to is SD1A, here: http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/207951en http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/support/downloads/firmware/MooseDT-SD1A-3D4D-16-32MB.iso It is advised to use the .iso file (which means that you will boot from the CD and make the update under DOS, actually FreeDOS). jaclaz

ivan1214 If you recovered the data (if any) that was on the "dead" hard disk, you ALREADY succeeded :. After having recovered the data you do BOTH the Seagate "Short" and "Long" test, if any of the two does not pass, you should dump the disk and call it a day. It makes NO sense whatsoever to attempt "repairing" a hard disk that does not pass any of the two tests. If your disk did pass BOTH tests, then we'll talk about performing the firmware update (which is STRONGLY advised to be NOT - EVER - be performed from Windows, BTW). You'll need to post anyway some details on the disk, exact model, current firmware revision, etc.,etc.. jaclaz

Alll DELL's have a recovery and/or "diagnostic" partition (that is the thing that you already deleted/reformatted) There is NO such thing as "standard 13 Mb" unpartitioned space, and in any case that has NO connection whatsoever with NTFS (or any other filesystem used on any partition). Post the actual EXACT hard disk make/model and - if it is explicited on the label - it's geometry. There are some cases (quite rare) where a big OEM manufacturer to respect the "HD size" advertised in the PC specs/literature do "cap" a hard disk size to a given size. Basically they promote a product with a hard disk of 30 Gb, and they order to Seagate (or oher manufacturer) - say - 10,000 30GB disks, then the products sells, and the manufacturer has not any 30 Gb disk available, so they get another 5,000 disks that are - say - 80 Gb in size, and in order to not change anything in the install/documentation these new larger drives are "capped" to a smaller size. There are a couple ways this can be done, a "geenric" one using a HPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_Protected_Area or a "make/model specific" one, by modifying the firmware. jaclaz

Not really, as a matter of fact that is an "outdated" version. While seemingly you cannot get latest one "standalone", the "latest for XP should be 7.4.7600.226 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946928/en-us so, in case, that one is the one that is to be tried slipstreaming (inless there is a particular reason for wanting the 7.2.6001.788 jaclaz

Queer. ERROR 1 makes little sense, it is usually connected with permissions/access privileges or "file in use". Which OS are you running it under? Would it be possible for you to try with a XP? I know it sounds "crazy, but there are at least a couple reports of a similar behaviour on "more recent" NT based systems: http://www.visualbasicscript.com/fb.ashx?m=54611 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/the-target-volume-does-not-support-symbolic-links/b825791f-451a-40b0-9bd7-14f6348bbb60 If you run robocopy with the /LOG option do you have any additional detail? jaclaz