jaclaz

Let's try reading these data: First partition (primary) STARTS on 2048 and ENDS on 8386559 <- this partition does NOT respect cylinder boundary BUT respects head one. Of course it contains 8386559+1-2048=8384512 sectors (or 512 bytes blocks). Second partition (extended) STARTS on 8386560 (i.e. END of previous +1, OK) and ENDS on 488392703 <- this partition does NOT respect cylinder boundary BUT respects head one. Of course it contains 488392703+1-8386560=480006144 sectors (or 512 bytes blocks). Since the WHOLE disk is 488395055 sectors there is an unallocated space of 488395055 - 488392703 = 2352 sectors. 2048+8384512+480006144=488392704 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 30401 cylinders, total 488395055 sectors 488395055-488392704=2351 sectors unallocated. There must be an error in the above 488395055 as 30401*255*63=488392065 Let's see the contents of the Extended partition (they are what we highly specialized technicians call "a complete mess, a monkey throwing dices would have come out with far more sensible numbers" ) they simply make NO sense: /dev/sdb3 20980953 225793574 102406311 b W95 FAT32 /dev/sdb5 8388608 10502143 1056768 b W95 FAT32 /dev/sdb6 225793638 488392064 131299213+ b W95 FAT32 The missing /dev/sd4 is corresponding to an empty EMBR and to the space that Disk management sees as 102.66 Gb. The first volume inside extended should be one head (63 sectors) after the beginning of the extended, in this case 8386560+63=8386623, BUT you have instead one volume starting at a 2048 offset 8386560+2048=8388608 (this should be /dev/sdb3 and NOT /dev/sdb5)..... IF that partition starts at 8388608 and ends at 10502143 it is 10502143+1-8388608=2,113,536 sectors *512=1,082,130,432 which sounds exactly the size of the "Swap" partition as seen in the disk management. Since after it we have the "hole" created by the missing /dev/sd4 there is no way to carry n the analysis sequentially. The "next" partition (the one before last) is /dev/sdb3 which starts at 20980953 and ends at 225793574, 225793574+1-20980953=204,812,622*512=104,864,062,464 which sounds a lot like the "Programs" one. Last partition is dev/sdb6 that starts at 225793638 and ends at 488392064 (it should start at 225793574+63 but seemingly starts at 225793574+64), 488392064+1-225793638=262,598,427*512=134,450,394,624 which sounds a lot like the "FILES" partition. First issue is that you used different tools (and Operating Systems ) to fiddle with that partitioning. NO XP will ever create a partition starting at 2048 (Vista and later may) and any XP will also respect cylinder boundary for End of partition. Gparted can use any of the above (and it is particularly easy to make confusion as it's interface is FAR from intuitive when it comes to "details" like this one). The real issue here is that you are risking GREATLY , if you ever use XP disk manager to do a trifling thing such as changing the active status of the primary, to loose volumes in the Extended, see: http://reboot.pro/topic/9897-vistawin7-versus-xp-partitioning-issue/ How exactly you managed to "cross-link" the EMBR chain is a mistery, I never saw that happening with "automated" tools like gparted. It is possible that the obsolete version of Gparted you used "GParted v0.13" right now we are at 0.16 (BUT DO NOT EVEN THINK of using it or 0.15): http://gparted.sourceforge.net/download.php as there are NEW, SERIOUS issues with them. So, be nice and get 0.14.1-6 instead: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gparted/files/gparted-live-stable/0.14.1-6/ There are no issues in solving that mess but you need to confirm that you are familiar with using a hex editor, the intended procedure is: correct the EMBR chain WITHOUT moving/resizing anything (by manually hexediting entries in the various EMBR's) once the above is done (and verified to be done correctly) use 0.14.1-6 to adjust size and position of the Extended partition and all volumes inside it (this time respecting partition cylinder boundaries) Though there should be NO issues whatsoever in keeping the primary parittion "as is" , to have an entirely "kosher" partitioning you will also need a PE of some kind (or an alternate XP install or anyway *some* way to edit the Registry "offline") because if we move/resize the primary the already installed Windows XP won't likely boot due to the invalid offset in \DosDevices\ Let me know if you want to proceed and I'll give you instructions. jaclaz

No. You want to have a clear root AND you assumed that the only way is to start doing strange things inside the files, renaming paths etc. (it's not exactly the same thing). One of the possible answer to the simpler question: is: Since you are anyway using grub4dos (and if you are not now is the right moment to start using it), make a bootable NT floppy image and map it in grub4dos. IMHO this is simpler than anything else. See: http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy33.htm I can see no issues with doing the same with SETUPLDR.BIN, actually that is how the setup works when started from Floppy (yes, probably you need to go to a museum to see an actual floppy, but when XP came out in 2001 almost any PC would have had a floppy drive). MS still provides the floppy images: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q310994 (check the first floppy of the 6-floppy set ) jaclaz

The given thread is about a sub-folder. Maybe it is not possible in a sub-subfolder, or maybe the "second part" must be \I386, but if Victor888 edited setupdd.sys, maybe there was a reason for that edit. I tried vainly at the time to get more details/have the results of some other tests. BTW, you did not answer to the WHY you would want to do that. jaclaz

WHY? Setupldr.bin may be not the only place where $WIN_NT$.~BT is referenced, setupdd.sys could be another place to look for it ..... See : jaclaz

Not really "funny". I mean, imagine that Proxomitron parses an URL for the presence of the string "http://" and set's that as the beginning of the URL discarding anything before it.... it suddenly becomes "pretty much normal".... http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html'>http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html becomes: http://web.archive.org/web/20050212215255/http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html and lands nicely here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html jaclaz

@Charlotte You see even the (good ) little creatures from outer space do have (among others ) a sign: And not: jaclaz

OT , but not much , that pink Cluster sign reminds me halfway of Richard Hammond's (winner) attempt to create a cheap Police car in Top Gear: and the other half of V-Visitors (as seen through the special glasses): jaclaz

Naah , our highly reliable sources tell us that you need THREE of them (and a control ring) in order to have some benefits (you know, like unlimited powers ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_skull#Crystal_skulls_in_popular_culture jaclaz

Cannot say the specific version compatible, it works on the one I am using right now: 12.10.1652 However the script is available here: https://github.com/ABHIJEET-MUNESHWAR/Remove-Google-Redirects/blob/master/ and it seems to me "plain enough" javascript, so it should be fairly "version independent". Yes, I find it extremely well working. Just try it, if you don' t like the "effect" you can disable it (or remove it) in no time. jaclaz

Oh, yes, there is. The assuming by duffy98 that other members do have a crystal ball AND that it is tuned properly. While this applies to a few of us, sometimes, he should assume that crystal balls do not exist or that are not at all accurate and try and be as clear and precise as possible, so that there are no (or less) possible misunderstanding. Sorry to say so, but that was yesterday, you still have to prove it is still tuned today. BTW, and JFYI, bhplt is claiming here: to also have one , though I checked and he is not in the lists at RCBUA (Registered Crystal Ball Users Association). He must be using one of those cheap no-name plastic ones .... jaclaz

JFYI, it's not Opera , it's google . See: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169093 (the fact that it needs .Net 4.0, while being of unprecedented gravity , does not undermine the goodness of the idea beneath, it's just the tool - and the architecture it is written in - that sucks) Better: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/rid-unwanted-redirects-google-search-results/ Best (for Opera) : https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/remove-google-redirects/ Whatever Peter Gutmann writes is either far too alarmistic, void of practical relevance or both Mind you his theories are mostly (but NOT entirely) right, but they are in the best case nothing more than that and he is responsible (indirectly) of so many hard disk deaths (caused by senseless wiping) that he should get a bonus from Seagate and WD. I will quote Linus Torvalds (out of context, but it applies to most of Mr. Gutmann essays): BTW I already awarded Mr. Gutmann the 1996 Award for best use of "palimpsestuous" in a technical paper. BUT I want to repeat a concept that it seems like it slipped by in the thread. You seem like upset because these guys do not listen to you. The point is not that one. They are perfectly free to not listen to you (or me, or their customer base), the point is that they pretend that they are actually listening, and try to misrepresent feedback (as opposed to ignoring it which I see as stupid but perfectly legit) in an arrogant attempt to twist reality into their (wrong) expectations. jaclaz

The misunderstanding goes on .... duffy , go up a few posts until you see post #45. Try ckicking on the links dencorso posted in THAT post (#45): IF they don't take you to the site THROUGH the Wayback Machine, THEN your machine/internet connection/whatever have some (serious ) issues. jaclaz

Another case of failing at google? http://brianbikezen.blogspot.it/2012/07/hp-laptop-issue-restartexe-takes-focus.html http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-performance/when-i-open-a-program-i-see-blinking-colors-around/c9e70f2f-ab04-4776-8454-c8c6a9d300a4?msgId=41152abf-9c31-4dc3-9637-4c694868372b I wold check the "HP Internet Sharing" (whatever it is ) first thing. jaclaz

Specifically for Windows 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_(epidemiology) I guess that the release of Windows 8 is comparable in size, and seriousness, think at all the people that won't get anymore CTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_tunnel_syndrome but will start developing the new "GAS" (Gorilla Arm Syndrome) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#.22Gorilla_arm.22 jaclaz

There has been a misunderstanding. dencorso (on post #45, right above your post #46 where you were whining about the lost page) had ALREADY posted the links through the Wayback Machine. I thought you were referring to those ones..... Anyway, the main thing is that you got what you were looking for . jaclaz

Naah , Vista cannot be part of the "competition", the ONLY thing that can compete with Vista is Windows Me (and Windows ME would win anyway ) jaclaz

duffy, the links posted by dencorso are on the Wayback Machiine and work OK from here. What happens when you click on them? What happens if you go on the home page: http://archive.org/index.php and search for: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jeremy.bryan.smith/articles/explorer_spy.html look for pages in 2004/2005/2006 jaclaz

Yep, but that is simply a black screen with a cursor (possibly flashing) in the top left corner. What happens first? Try describing the steps you go through before that. Use this (it is XP related, but the 2K setup is very similar) as a reference: http://www.labtestproject.com/screenshot/windows_xp/ jaclaz

Everything is well that ends well. jaclaz

Then it is possible that is the HD size, see below. Good. See here: Of course not , I am from Vulcan , but I like the white, red and green. Sure I am from Italy , near Florence. jaclaz

Do you have an appropriate SATA driver integrated? Or can you set it in BIOS the internal disk in "IDE emulation mode" (or similar setting)? (though normally the symptoms would be that no disk is found ) Which SP is that Wndows 2000? Have you enabled 48 bit LBA? Let's wait if some other member has an idea of what the issues could be (maybe too faster processo/too much RAM)? jaclaz

No. That stupid 4shared site wants me to log in in order to download that file. (besides attempting to trick me into downloadin iLivid, etc. ). Upload here: http://www2.zshares.net/ and post the links. jaclaz

If you ever wrote data on that disk it means that it has been partitioned (in at least one partition). A disk partitioned means that a partition table has been written to it's first sector, if out of the 4 possible partition entries in the table only one is used, the disk is partitioned (in a single partition). Instead of providing screenshots, run TESTDISK with a log option, and post the log. Unfortunately the read errors you are getting are NO good news. What you should do would be to stop fiddling with that disk drive, procure yourself a bigger disk drive and image the device, using a tool capable of either ignoring errors or doing partial images. Under Windows I would use Datarescuedd: http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm along the "partial" approach described here: and yes, you will need a third hard disk same size as the failed one or bigger to attempt recomposing the image. jaclaz

There seems to me there is not any particular issue in the log. I see that you have Comodo installed, maybe it's part of the issue? Run a procmon boot log, compress the biggish result .pml file with 7-zip or similar, upload to *any* free hosting site, post a link to it. You can also try setting verbose status on, see: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/325376/en-us but usually you don' t get anything of use from it. jaclaz

@Comos See here: jaclaz