jaclaz

Hard to say. Try quickly run Photorec (the file based recovery tool "companion" of TESTDISK) if files can be found with ti, i it, it wasn't encrypted. jaclaz

Yep, that is a (incorrectly named) wiping tool, it basicaly attempts writing 00's to each and every sector. But the disk is gone. To explain the delays you get, it goes like that (more or less): You (through the OS, the disk driver and the disk controller and the disk firmware) order the disk to read sector (say) 3289. The disk tries it: Reading sector 3289 .... cannot read it! Trying again reading sector 3289 .... cannot read it! Loop to #2 n times until, by pure chance, it manages to read it, then: OK, sector 3289 read. Additionally, each and every "loud click" you hear is the head completely failing to find a position on the disk and "going astray", a "stuck" head doesn't move (and hence the drive assembly doesn't click loud). Usually stuck heads mean also disk not spinning (as normally a stuck head is stuck to the platter and prevents it from spinning up). jaclaz

UNfortunately of no practical assistance , but JFYI: http://www.jfdesignnet.com/?p=2291 only useful to know how also everyone else thinks that MTP sucks big . I don' think that right now anything exists that can help having the MTP connected device be available in a "Normal" File Manager, let alone n Windows 9x/Me. The only thing that makes sense, as I see it, is to use an app like this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dooblou.WiFiFileExplorerPRO&hl=en and use WiFi (and a browser) to manage files. jaclaz

The DMDE screenshot clears enough how the disk was before, most probably: First partition was a type 27 , i.e. the "boot" (read as MS system partition) ad got NO drive letter when booted [system] that WIndows 7 creates in some cases (but normally this partition is 100 Mb in size) second partition was a large "normal" 07 type one that got C:\ drive letter third partition was a hidden partition (recovery partition) that got no drive letter (because of it's 17 hidden type) [HDDRECOVERY] Now, from the combined results of the TESTDISK log and of the DMDE screenshot, it seems like the "middle partition" structures have been *all* corrupted/overwritten. This is very unusual , as commony *some* structures can still be identified. I see a couple references for "Kaspersky Rescue Disk 10.0" recently downloaded, which you didn't mentions among the attempts you made. The $MFT for any NTFS volume bigger than 5 or 6 Gb is on cluster 786432, i.e. 786432*8=sector 6291456 from start of the volume. If the first partition was originally the "normal" 100 Mb or if it was the current (roughly) 1.5 Gb, it doesn't make mucd difference, the $MFT of the second volume would anyway be between 2048+204800+6291456=6498304 and 2048+3072000+6291456=9365504 DMDE didn't find any fragment of the $MFT around that area, which is very, very unusual, and not easily explained (in the sense that right now I have no idea of something that can produce the effect of wiping so effectively all $MFT traces ). Was - by any chance - the volume encrypted? jaclaz

No, that disk is "gone for good" (and this thread is ONLY for BSY and LBA0 related issues). A disk (a working disk, even if "bricked") is either BSY (or LBA0) or it is not. There is NO such thing as "low level format" on any hard disk built in the last -say - 12 years, so I wonder WHAT you have been running. The good news are that attempting the BSY or LBA0 solution detailed here won' t do harm to a disk, it will behave (if it applies/works) as some sort of "reset". Point is that it is a complete waste of time in your case, as it won't solve the issues you described (I mean it won't make, even if the "reset" works, which I doubt would in this case, that drive in any way "more reliable" or reliable at all), and since you don't have data that you may need to retrieve, there is no use for the procedure. To recap: if the issue is caused by the original "log entry error 320+n*256", this procedure allows to "reset the disk" and later upgrade the firmware so that the disk won't be anymore affected by the original "log entry error 320+n*256" issue if the issue is caused by *something else* this procedure may act as "general reset", that in most cases will revive the disk long enough to recover data from it in any case after a successful procedure the disk NEEDS to be tested with Seagate disgnostic tools BOTH the "long" and "short" test and if any of them does not pass successfully the disk has to be RMAed (if within warranty) or used as doorholder/thrown in the dustbin/dismantled to get the magnets and platters for fun, etc, and in NO case used as storage media. You can try the procedure alright, but even if it goes through, I doubt that the Seagate diags will later provide a "pass" result. jaclaz

Well, to me the actual "sign of the generation" is/was the skateboard. Today kids get their nice high tech skateboard brand new as a gift. In my day you had to go around all the workshops in the area begging for some used (but good enough) ball bearings in order to be able to assemble with some more scrap parts, also begged from the carpenter, the drugstore, etc. a cart. (and no, it is not to be confused with soapbox carts - which however we never at the time called "gravity racer"). The result was an almost deadly wooden thingy looking somehow like this: http://www.midnightrumors.com/?p=625 which we used to throw ourselves down every possible (steep) slope. The winner was usually the one that somehow managed to get home for dinner without (visible) harm. (and no, helmets, knee pads, etc. were not available - and actually if someone would have come out with them he would have been called a sissy ) ...and we LIKED it! jaclaz

Can you post some details on how you remembered the disk was partitioned? How many partitions, which size (approximated) they were, which filesystem they used, etc.? For the offset of the first partition it sems like it was partitioned orginally under VIsta or Windows 7, the first partition seems OK: 1 P HPFS - NTFS 0 32 33 191 89 26 3072000 [system] though it is "unusually" large for being just the "system" partition" (the good MS guys call "system" the "boot" partition and "boot" the "syastem" one, in order to make things easier ) and as well "last one": 3 P hid. HPFS/NTFS 59508 132 17 60801 80 15 20768768 [HDDRECOVERY] looks fine. What was before "between them"? A single partition? DId the 1st partition get a drive letter (I presume C:\) and the other partition get another letter (like D:\), and the [HDDRECOVERY] was hidden? jaclaz

Not in the "Spammy Farm"? jaclaz

Ever wondered why exactly the world is buyng low cost electronics from China and high cost design furniture from Europe? jaclaz

Let's separate the issues. A loopback is a way of testing only the interface. It's settings (speed/parity/etc.) are not relevant, the loopback test is a sort of continuity test. The hyperteminal session settings (which are the ONLY settings that you should "tune" to the ones required by the 7200.11) will overrule the ones of the (virtual) COM port anyway. The connection is established within a hyperterrminal session and the session parameters are what "counts". Try: removing the adapter uninstall drivers re-connect the adapter and reinstall the drivers start a new session in hypererminal (do not change any settings for speed, parity, etc). connect the data in/data out wires of the adapter together and do again the loopback test. if you can test the above on another PC additionally it would be better (should the issue being *something* on the specific laptop or it's OS install/drivers/*whatever* if the loopback test is unsuccessful disconnect the adapter and check (with a multimeter or the like) if by any chance the wire(s) have not been properly soldered and/or that they are not interrupted. Only if the loopback test is successful, then try it again after having started a new session with 38400/8/N/1/N (still leave the settings of the COM port alone). It is possible that the adapter is DOA (Death On Arrival), unfortunately this can happen . This one? http://www.ebay.it/itm/FT232BM-BL-Seagate-Barracuda-7200-11-Firmware-Fix-tool-complete-USB-powered-/280748167812 check that you have connected correctly the connector of the wires (from the pictures it seems like it could be connected upside down/reversed) and or use a short piece of wire to create the loop between the pins of the board to exclude issues with wires or connector. jaclaz

Just for the record, not an entirely new idea , AFAIK it was once called "Sherman Antitrust Act " (1890) and more generally "antitrust" and used somewhat successfully against Mr. Rockfeller's Standard Oil in 1911 for the first time: http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/so/antitrust.htm jaclaz

get back to the issue at hand, possibly starting from scratch and with a somehow more open mind.... it worked here : after a false start : jaclaz

Yep, and additionally I have an actual pic, the interesting part being that some were yellow with black stripes: http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/lysander.html You cannot actually look at it and not think to a bee or wasp or drone. See also the PIA (no, not a PITA ) for google drones bugs: http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2013/04/data-collected-by-googles-drones-for-3d-streetview-service-is-compliant-with-european-data-protection-law.html jaclaz

Yes, there are two "levels" of read/write. Try booting then check BOTH the disk and volume status, see: http://emalf-pc.blogspot.it/2011/11/clear-readonly-disk-in-windows-server.html If you could post a copy of the commands and feedback you get would be nice. Was the disk online? You may need to put it offline, and then attempt changing the read only status (or viceversa )... It is possible that BOTH the disk and volume are set as "read only" or maybe the disk (or volume) being in hibernated state prevents the command with 3 or 4? Try also if this: http://www.happysysadm.com/2010/11/disk-is-offline-because-of-policy-set.html Diskpart> san applies.... jaclaz

Well, no. Mouse settings are a very different thing, and actually a re-known "can of worms", the good MS guys even invented (unneededly/senselessly) a new unit of measure for it, the "mickey", ONLY for the fun of it, see : The settings we are talking about are in Control Panel-> Display (not in "Mouse"). jaclaz

Good , so workaround #1 worked, right? This might mean that after all the Windows 8/WinPE 4.0 BOOTMGR does check those Registry keys, there should be no differences between auto-mounting and manual mounting AFAIK, if not a timing difference, but that should not give different results anyway . Yes , this is a good occasion to explore all the possible ways, since you have that particular machine which has the hybernate feature with Fxx keys active. jaclaz

It should be possible to "convert" an "annex B" model to an "annex A" model. There is no actual difference in the hardware, only the firmware is different (and as a safety measure you cannot flash the "other" one by default). It may be easy or a litlle more complex if the router is V3 or later. See: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/690564 Check also this: http://www.dgteam-mirror.talktalk.net/Home.html (There is obviously a risk of bricking the router, but I don't think you have actually anything to lose in trying ) This may be of use (or may be not): http://cyberstorm.altervista.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35 It seems like (but I guess it depends on the version v1, v2, v3, etc.) that loading an earlier firmware (Italian, use google translate): http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/archive/index.php/t-569066.html allows to make the "switch" (and the re-fash the new firmware for the "other" Annex). You could also try using a Routertech firmware: http://www.routertech.org/viewtopic.php?t=2787 http://www.routertech.org/viewtopic.php?t=2797 jaclaz

Try again The "WinFE settings" are two distinct keys: "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\system\ControlSet001\Services\MountMgr NoAutoMount=1 and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\system\ControlSet001\Services\partmgr\Parameters SanPolicy=3 BTW the one you probably set as "4", which is seemingly : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd799290(WS.10).aspx the new setting used for Windowstogo: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/6991.windows-to-go-step-by-step.aspx Try only with the first one, and/or try with the 3 one. Also it is possible that Windows 8 (and conversely WinPE 4.0) has "inherited" this feature of Server 2008 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/971436 You can then try to do this from the PE "as is" when you manually mount the volume: http://blogs.technet.com/b/system_center_configuration_manager_operating_system_deployment_support_blog/archive/2012/01/23/when-deploying-windows-server-2008-using-an-configuration-manager-osd-task-sequence-additional-disks-may-show-as-offline-when-the-task-sequence-completes.aspx jaclaz

This source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone suggests that it has an onomatopeic origin and quotes Popular Science Magazine as source in 1946. BUT, here there is a somehow more convincing ehtimology/history: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militaryhumor/a/words.htm And now, for NO apparent reason, xkcd! jaclaz

Now it would be the right time to get some tacos delivered to you by a drone : http://tacocopter.com/ BUT : jaclaz

A couple points: Oh, yes it is. (in much more cases that you might think ) No, not yet, BTW your employees are doing exactly that, but only part-time . While using XP they still use some of their time to do some little work, the switch will happen when you will adopt Windows 8 that will help in making clicking on random web links and file downloaders the main activity . Most probably they will be able to do that "more securely" than before , and thus your data will possibly be safer, but this won't make any difference, since you will have not any data (no new data produced) to be worried about . jaclaz

More specifically any LCD screen (unlike CRT) has a physical number of pixels. That number is called "native resolution", for a 23" it is normally 1920x1080 and it is declared on the manua or can be found with the exact model. See: http://www.howtogeek.com/119117/htg-explains-why-using-your-monitors-native-resolution-is-important/ The best settings is always to have the LCD screen run at native resolution and then as allen2 pointed out, adapt the size of text, icons, etc. to fit your likings. The settings for Windows 7 (I think 8 would be the same) are in DPI, see: http://superuser.com/questions/184913/cannot-change-text-dpi-setting-in-windows-7-starter HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\FontDPI LogPixels Small (100%) = 96 Medium (125%) = 120 Larger (150%) = 144 See also this: http://marc.durdin.net/2011/07/fixing-windows-font-scaling-without.html (there may be additional issues with a few fonts that have "special versions" for different DPI) jaclaz

That's OK, as long as you won't ask WHY a few windows files NEED to be on ROOT of the optical device. Also, by starting by stating how your approach is "inalienable" you are effectively preventing people to provide you with working, tested alternatives, since you sound like a Linuxish guy, you might particularly appreciate Eric S. Raymond's take on similar matters: http://catb.org./~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#goal further expanded here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html It won't simply work. There might be a workaround by using grub4dos and mapping a "boot floppy" image, but very likely it will fail nonetheless at actual install time. BUT there is a perfectly working and tested approach by using an unmodified Windows install .iso (still mapped with grub4dos), which is what I could provide some info/links about, IF your initial approach is somehow not really "inalienable" and we can talk about it (and other ones). Yep , but we may need to ask you questions.... jaclaz

No, no, it is perfectly correct simply not the "only" way. The possible issues, briefly, are as follows: a USB stick in 99.999% (please read as 100%) of cases is set as "removable" device in factory (this can be changed in the actual controller of the stick through the appropriate Manufacturer tool but see also #4 below) and it is not partitioned. a USB hard disk drive in 100% of cases is set as "fixed" device in factory (and any "fixed" device *needs* to be partitioned, i.e. Windows *wants* a MBR on a "fixed" device) by partitioning the USB stick, you make it *resemble* a "hard disk" (but the "removable" bit of the device is still set) as an alternative to "flipping the bit" in the controller it is possible to install in the windows (or in the PE) a "filter driver" that makes the "removable" bit as "fixed" to the OS as a further peculiarity, a USB mass storage device has however some "differences" (as seen from the NT OS or the PE) when compared to an "internal" disk, (as an example you cannot normally have a pagefile on a booted from USB OS, or Windows Update will not work properly/fully) and there is one of the available "filter drivers" that, additionally to the "removable" status filters also the "external" status. Any of these "filter drivers" are presumably loaded by the OS, i.e. they "come into play" after BOOTMGR has done whatever it is supposed to do and WINLOAD.EXE continues the booting. So, if the access/change to the \boot\BCD of the internal disk is performed by the BOOTMGR, it is possible that it is *somehow* connected to the "removable" status of the device BUT there is NO way to prevent this behaviour through a "filter driver" (and possibly not even by the Registry settings WinFE uses), while IF the access/change to the \boot\BCD is performed by the booted OS, even in it's initial loading stage, then it is possible that the WinFE Registry settings and/or a "filter driver" can change the behaviour. jaclaz

It *sounds* like you are "fighting" against ADS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS#Alternate_data_streams_.28ADS.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(filesystem) and particularly with the "Zone.Identifier". Practical examples: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/RemovingSecurityFromDownloadedPowerShellScriptsWithAlternativeDataStreams.aspx http://www.msigeek.com/6220/how-to-remove-security-warning-message-files-downloaded-from-internet the latter should be the dialog you are getting: What exactly are you doing/you did? It is possible that you used *something* that doesn't care about ADS Zone.Identifier or re-sets it to a "dangerous" value. jaclaz