jaclaz

So this is what, the 6th or 7th separate thread you started about the same issue? Do you expect that members would search the board for all these threads to be current with your progresses? You already stated how that batch wasn't working, the most current threads being: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/161834-shutting-down-and-restart-nt4/ http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162062-following-my-previous-posts-about-shutting-own-nt4/ Merged by dencorso into this same thread: (you do see the difference between posting a link to something as opposed to referring to your "other thread", don't you?) BTW; please read, attentively, this post in the latter: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162062-following-my-previous-posts-about-shutting-own-nt4/page__view__findpost__p__1031398 page__view__findpost__p__1031398 Divide et impera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule simply doesn't work on a technical board, on the contrary : You were already suggested to try using some other programs (listed) INSTEAD of that batch, after one and a half month you are still with that same batch? What happened with those other programs/approaches that were suggested to you? What happens NOW, following the given suggestions in THIS thread? jaclaz

Yep , I was comparing the referenced post to the first post of this thread, and intentionally posted the info in the dubitative form of "maybe yes, maybe no" . The difference between aakozi and aakozidog should be evident : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubitative_mood But I stand corrected . Every post should be now correctly referenced and "connected", unfortunately increasing the responsibility of Multibooter for not noticing it (twice ), but I would say again "good", another positive result of the community ! jaclaz

NOT "strictly" Windows 8 connected, but near : http://www.osnews.com/thread?551437 Selected parts: I have rarely seen words as wise condensed in such a few sentences. jaclaz

That's good news though of course we don't really know what actually was the issue, nor what could have been the actual fix . Maybe the actual issue was the originally presumed one (some kind of mismatch between 512 and 4096 bytes sectors) but I wonder how it can happen (unless the original laptop BIOS *somehow* sees the disk as being 512 byts/sector while when you mount it "externally" to your "work PC" it is seen - correctly - as 4096 bytes/sector ). However, the only important thing is that you are now among the happy bunnies in the basket. jaclaz

A message to the good MS guys: Sure, the whole problem is that you need to turn 180 degrees in order to look forward, the NCI represents "backwards", I will re-iterate how you will soon be calling the desktop and start menu "legacy interface" with the intent of somehow give some more dignity to the NCI , but effectively undermining the value of what you provided all these years and that proved to be successful: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/legacy-is-not-a-pejorative.html Among the above quotes, I particularly like the definition by Peter Langston: jaclaz

My guess is that you are having issues somehow connected with this: http://techsupt.winbatch.com/ts/T000001035F9.html Some remedies are suggested in the referenced page, but you need to provide more details on the specific issues you are having. Maybe, just maybe, this approach: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/16197/Remotely-Unlock-a-Windows-Workstation http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/topic/32164-autounlockpc/page__p__10052092#entry10052092 works on NT 4.00 also, but if a way to correct the behaviour of the single specific scheduled tasks is possible, it would be IMHO preferrable. jaclaz

Maybe yes, maybe no. (he does "rock", but possibly not for this specific item) To be fair: cdob posted - passing by - this info earlier, but it went unnoticed/wasn't followed (most probably at the time "we" weren't ready for it ). The main blame (of not noticing it) is of course to be put on Multibooter (and to some extents to myself), but he also has the merit (of having re-vamped the topic), and I claim that without my "torturing" RLoew (and cdob) we wouldn't have had the matter fully exposed as we have it now. All in all, I would say that the whole thing is a "product of the community" in the best sense of it, everyone contributed to it, proportionally to their capabilities and inclinations . jaclaz

Which makes a nice, round, TWO of us! However it shows the exact same partitions TESTDISK showed once in GPT mode. The only tool (till now) that "sees" something more (or better) is DMDE. Ysing the "r" and then the "v" option in gdisk should only provide additional info (and not change the disk contents): http://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/repairing.html jaclaz

AFAIK NO (and anyway not a "public" one, possibly some of the good guys making professional hardware/software recovering tools have one - reserved to members or the like - which is anyway created by experience/experimenting/reverse engineering as the manufacturers tend to be very, very secretive about the innards of their disks and the way they work/fail/can be fixed). Yep, what I meant is that depending on the volumes (in the sense of quantities and compexity) of your business, setting up a "data recovery" station, even if limited to to the most "common" cases might be worth the effort, IF actual data recovery is needed, otherwise (i.e. if you can re-build on new disks dorm images/backups) it makes very little sense. Disks are strange beasts , sometimes (not necessarily applying to your case ) imaging "backwards" and in "chunks" succeeds where "normal" imaging does not, see: http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/ http://reboot.pro/topic/15040-data-recovery-off-clicking-disk/?p=133567 jaclaz

I vehemently refute that as I have clearly shown/proven. There is WAAAAY too many "freebies" out there that have this stuff in it. Anyone who clicks "Next" without PAYING ATTENTION deserves the stupid toolbars ( like my daughter used to ). Maybe (please read as most probably) when Multibooter posted that info (Posted 25 May 2011 ) the kaspersky definitions AT THAT TIME did mark it as "riskware". And as well, it is very possible that what he posted was relative to what the downloader would do (if not opted out), i.e. describing the "capabilities" of the downloader. jaclaz

Well, it is very possible - as said - that there is a whole range of issues with those drives, of which we know NOT the source/reason, let alone the "proper" fix. If you are doing this "Commercially" or "Professionally", you might consider getting a PC-3000 and a subscription for it (or a similar tool/software/support). The real issue with these (but as said with *any* failed drive) is that the most you can get for free (IF the disk is still under warranty) is a replacement drive that, this time specifically for the Seagate, is very often a "refurbished" disk drive. Personally, besides the quality of the original "new" hard disk, I tend to be very, VERY doubtful about quality and longevity of refurbished disk drives (not necessarily Seagate's, any "high capacity" disk). Paradoxically , the refurbished 7200.11 might be (IF they belong to those that were simply bricked by the original firmware issue) more reliable then refurbished disks from other manufacturers as they have anyway never been opened. In my perverted mind a hard disk drive is only worth the data that is on it, and once you have it, the idea of "refurbishing" them yourself is IMHO utterly risky, so, the idea of getting a PC-3000 or the like is only aimed to the recovery of the data. (otherwise it would be easier to get a bunch of disks and keep them in the warehouse to "rotate" them with the RMAed ones, i.e. making the "cycle" shorter by inserting in it a "buffer" of locally available replacements) Very rarely you can talk the Seagate support into allowing a free data recovery at their i365 subsidiary, and in any case it takes time and there is the big risk (not to be underestimated) of freight to and from them (lost items, stolen or damaged ones do happen), so even when "total" data recovery is possible and "free" it is risky. Otherwise a typical data recovery carried by a Pro goes into the several hundreds of dollars/euros, no matter if it happens to be a five minutes job. (though there are of course several very reliable and correct data recovery firms, there are also unfortunately a number of charlatans and let's say "less than 100% transparent approaches/procedures"). jaclaz

Well, your previous post was partially (please read as COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY) deceiving If you are not a member/ you are not willing to pay for the download, downloading an installer is NEEDED and some antivirus programs may report the .exe as infected, to the extent that once you resolve the CAPTCHA you get this: Of course the decision to "opt-out" from the crap ads/toolbars (or whatever, I didn't, don't and will not run that crap installer/downloader) is up to the user, BUT the facts are (only to be clear): a downloader/installer MUST be downloaded an antivirus program MAY mark it as a virus you MUST anyway execute the dowloaded executable you MAY opt out from the whatever it does there are NO guarantees - apart the word from the good DriverGuide guys - that it doesn't do anything malicious, nagging, tracking or whatever jaclaz

Seemingly that option is given in exchange for a mere US$ 2.99 for the single download or just US$ 14.95 for a "premium" membership : Clicking on "access" I was given a CAPTCHA and then the "Downloader" (an executabe called setup_42982.exe, sized 1,184,968 byte) started downloading. jaclaz

Cross-posting to a new build of mkisofs : http://cdob.reboot.pro/ http://cdob.reboot.pro/downloads/cdrtools-3.01.a13-bootcd.ru-mkisofs.7z created by cdob with - among some others - the ability to use "0x3 Floppy images up to 1024 cylinders, ie. 36 Mb", see also: jaclaz

Cross-posting to a new build of mkisofs : http://cdob.reboot.pro/ http://cdob.reboot.pro/downloads/cdrtools-3.01.a13-bootcd.ru-mkisofs.7z created by cdob with - among some others - the ability to use "0x3 Floppy images up to 1024 cylinders, ie. 36 Mb", see also: jaclaz

Strange, but if I were you I would forget nlite direct integration of the single SATA driver (not that it is not good) and integrate instead the driverspack: http://driverpacks.net/ http://driverpacks.net/docs/beginners-guide-windows-xp You want to have Base+Chipset+MassStorage (all the other ones are optional and should not matter for booting/installing). jaclaz

NO need to apologize at all, but still we have "only" 4 partitions in this view AND we do have now a "new"[bOOT] partition that has however an "improbable" size. Try pressing Enter and doing a Deeper scan... In any case running gdisk seems like a good idea. jaclaz

Hmmm. Even if DMDE can see the partition structure correctly I seem to remember that it doesn't operate (or doesn't operate fully) on GPT disks. Time to try gdisk: http://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/repairing.html I have no experience with it, so I will be of very little help about it's use. jaclaz

I strongly disagree. That seems to imply that the result was unexpected or unforeseeable. The correct sentence is: And the article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57573370-75/four-months-in-windows-8-needs-help/ is still not-so-slightly offensive: as it seems to put the blame on the consumers not being able to understand the interface (i.e. they are retarded ), while the point is that there is nothing to understand, a 5 years old kid can understand the UI, because it was designed for 5 years old kids, and grown-ups do understand it alright, they simply do not like it and find it an obstacle to a productive use of the PC. jaclaz

This thread is not going to "die". It goes into a "suspended animation" until someone decides to add some data to it. The "original" issue with the 7200.11 is explained in the "BIG" thread, as pointed out in the READ_ME_FIRST, in around 40 posts, starting from here: Of course this thread is loosing importance, as the "original" issue with the "botched" firmware is going to stop being reported (NO drives with THAT firmware actually surviving anymore), while the fixes for the symptoms of it have become a common cure for *whenever* and for *whatever* reason a 7200.11 disk "locks itself", a kind of (again as said in the READ_ME_FIRST) "generic reset". Please understand how, no matter how much demented/headless are/were the good Seagate Engineers, you shouldn't expect that the WD (or the Hitachi, or the Samsung, etc.) ones are in any way different/better. Whole series of hard disk drives dropping like flies have happened in the past to different manufacturers and there is no reason why that won't happen in the future. The fact that also the 7200.12 is often reported as failing in a similar manner only shows that the general design (I would personally say the senseless idea of fitting that awful amount of data in such a small container) is *somehow* flawed, but there are comparable in number reports for "High capacity" Western Digitals also. jaclaz

For the record (and NOT necessarily compatible with Win9x/Me or useful at all): http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/15397/Cabinet-File-CAB-Compression-and-Extraction jaclaz

Then definitely there is a glitch in the TESTDISK (or in the way you used it ) DMDE sees the *same* partitions as the referenced post AND it sees a GPT disk (and not a MBR one ). Maybe it is a "hybrid" partitioning. Can you try running again testdisk this time selecting the GPT partitioning scheme here: http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/File:Partition_table_type.gif (and post the log) Seemingly that @Active tool you are using is also thinking that the thingy is MBR (and possibly has actually no support whatever for GPT). jaclaz

Amen. ... which reminds me of (@HalloweenDocument12), OT but not much: page__view__findpost__p__933421 @JorgeA, with reference to this: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/150560-microsoft-flips-flash-whitelist-policy-after-windows-8-fails-to-drive-html5-adoption let me add as a not-so-trivial note that in a perfect world the Author would have been already secluded from society in a mental asylum. Let me see, he tested using a Seagate Goflex to stream wirelessly HDTV over his home network: I.e. instead of viewing HDTV on his 46" FULL HD TV, he clogged his WiFi in order to see a high resolution stream (i.e. most probably a 1920×1080) on (respectively) a tiny 4" inch display capable of 1136x640 and on a lousy 1366x768 10.6" one. Besides the failure of Windows RT at using Flash, it is the actual idea that makes NO sense whatsoever. For NO apparent reason: jaclaz

Yep, that's probably the one. It is strange however that Testdisk didn't find it. The start of the partition is OK (0/4/5 does equal 256) The size is seemingly not, for two reasons: the number of sectors 1,024,000 does correspond to the given size 500 Mb, but only if sectors are counted as being 512 byte each. the "hole" between 0/4/5 and 10/168/30 is larger than 500Mb, it is 171,008 sectors by 4,096=700,448,768, i.e. roughly 700 Mib (counted in millions) The 500 Mb volume is "possible" but still it doesn't make much sense that the good Dell guys have left some 175 Mb "empty". Let's have a "second" opinion. Get DMDE: http://softdm.com/ and try scanning the disk with it. Open the Physical disk, and run a "FAT search". The re-open it and run a "NTFS search" Post screenshots/results jaclaz

Yes, but that, as said, would be "compatible" with just the wrong partition being set as active in the MBR. Well, that post is about a 1 Tb disk (and NOT a 500 Mb one) partitioned as UEFI/GPT. (yours seems like using the MBR allright) Testdisk says: which means MBR (and NOT GPT) Which EXACT model is the laptop you have? If this is accurate: Then my hypothesis that the disk has been extensively fiddled with appear more probable No, either three of them are missing (6-3=3 ) or more likely only one (of course also two is possible, but while an additional partition for "DIAGS" would make some sense there cannot be more than 4 (Primary) partitions in a MBR partitioned disk, so if more than one is missing, then they were volumes inside an Extended partition, of which there are NO traces found by Testdisk). Sure, and there are a lot of questions/doubts in them, take your time. jaclaz