jaclaz

Good . So it's just another of the stupid senseless changes made in XP, not entirely unlike the one that made a lot of people throw away otherwise "good enough" floppies : http://www.denispetrov.com/?page_id=3 It is very possible that the MS geniuses which had the fantastic idea of volume tracking on Windows 9x : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Boot_Sector http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/volume-boot-block-oem-name-field.html were later promoted and managed to worsen the otherwise OK 2K FORMAT executable. jaclaz

Yes. (meaning there is). Some controllers in the USB to SATA thingy will have a limit, which typically can be (from memory): 137 Gb (the LBA 48 limit) <- for very old adapters 500 Gb 750 Gb 1 Tb As an example see this one: http://www.rocketfishproducts.com/products/computer-accessories/RF-AHD35.html which is said to be "for max 750 Gb". jaclaz

It is a nice approach , but it is COMPLETELY UNLIKE cloning. It is more or less the same difference between a real picture (photo) and a drawing made by an artist like you know, some trials where photographs cannot be taken. Or, maybe better, it is like if you want to store a copy of a letter, instead of making a photocopy, you translate it in (say) Chinese, and when you need to read the original English one, you re-translate it from Chinese. Something may (and most probaly will) be "lost in translation". There are several P2V (Physical to Virtual) solutions (only a very few of them listed here): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical-to-Virtual The issue here is that the inverse process (V2P) has (obviously) far less diffusion and, though of course possible, it is scarcely documented and (in these examples) will require anyway a third party "imaging" tool and/or a "repair" and/or a sysprep or similar: http://www.vmware.com/support/v2p/index.html http://www.acronis.com/articles/v2p/ http://www.blueshiftblog.com/?p=107 Of course it all depends on what is the actual "final goal". To me cloning a disk simply means that when and if the original disk fails, all that is needed i to take the clone from the shelf it is stored on, replace with it the failed disk drive and power on again the machine, or, in the case of an image, re-deploy that image to a new disk fitted to the machine and power it on. jaclaz

I guess you are setting some new peaks for the meaning of "assuming". I would say that if you get a message like: it could mean that you have an "invalid driver handle ", whilst if there was an issue with driver signing you would have had more likely a message like: Better. Maybe this helps. http://docs7.chomikuj.pl/81583362,0,0,Victoria-for-Windows-v4.pdf jaclaz

How is the hard disk connected? Which OS are you running? The porttalk driver used is: http://retired.beyondlogic.org/porttalk/porttalk.htm Hmmm. API mode represents AFAIK a much "less powerful" kind of access. jaclaz

Cannot remember if already talked about . I came across this and thought it might be of use (or completely fail to): http://retired.beyondlogic.org/dddtools/dddtools.htm http://retired.beyondlogic.org/dddtools/remove.zip jaclaz

The news? being that HDDScan is made AFAICR by the same nice Russian guys that make Victoria. http://hdd-911.com/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=31 You have to understand that there are several things connected with testing a hard disk at that level. A "bad block" is normally "bad", once it became "bad", it will remain "bad". The case with "slow" or "weak" sectors is different, the "slowness" may be a "glitch in the matrix" and never occur again. As well a "weak" sectors can be (and it happens more often than not) "regenerated" by simply writing to it again a few times different values. That is what basically tools like HDDregenerator do (whatever HDDregenerator does is seemingly additionally capable to "regenerate" also "bad" sectors, most probably only some "kinds" of "bad" sectors). So yes, in my experience it is perfectly normal that a few sectors appear as "slow" and in a subsequent scan they do not. jaclaz

If I may , it seems to me like we are in a CATCH22 situation . joakim needs some feedback to hopefully fix the issue but does not provide an EXACT set of instructions/list of tests needed. tommyp needs the utility working and is willing to do tests but doesn't know which EXACT tests to carry and HOW EXACTLY to report them. Additionally it seems to me like there is a lot of mixing between two tools, the RunFromToken one and the RunasSystem, additionally made complex by the existence of a 32 and of a 64 bit version. Maybe if a list of what tests are useful and how to exactly perform them with the various programs and on the different platforms was given, some progress could be made.... jaclaz

Check if STRARC does the same (if it can do the whatever you are now using robocopy for) or works OK on Windows 8: http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/ http://www.ltr-data.se/files/strarc.txt jaclaz

EXACTLY like your posts are NOT the anwers to the questions I asked, but are merely a re-post. So we are perfectly even , you don't answer to the questions I ask, and I do not provide an answer to your question/problem, the difference being that everything works for me , while it doesn't for you . jaclaz

Basically the detaching of the PCB from the disk is a "trick" to exit a "loop" in which the firmware may go (and it is needed for the BSY fix, NOT for the LBA0 one) As well, on a fully operational disk there should be no need to detach it, but still, it should work also completely detached. But always, and particularly with the detached board, GROUNDing is essential, that's why I asked (and you completely failed to reply ). If you recheck the LBA0 fix ONLY you will se how the detaching is not needed at all, as well as the N1, etc., the LBA0 is simply (and ONLY): F3 T>m0,2,2,0,0,0,0,22 (enter) (but when you do so you get DiagError 0000500D, right?) The only thing that you can try is to try executing the command at a different level, i.e. you could try going to level 3 and then issue the m0,2,2,0,0,0,0,22 command http://forum.freetronics.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=686 (but the issue there was a BSY). jaclaz

Too bad. Good luck . Why? You evidently do not want to get help. jaclaz

"34" I would use the newer 3.52 version.... or maybe the Windows version 4.43: http://www.majorgeeks.com/Victoria_for_Windows_d5688.html or possibly the 4.46 b: http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_hdd.html one. (same place holds the 3.52 for DOS) Small correction jaclaz

You NEED to start from a "fully formatted" under DOS floppy image, as in steps 1-2-3 of the instructions. I haven't checked the image you posted, but if it was not made like the above and if there are NOT 3 (three) images done EXACTLY as the given instructions, the experiments makes no sense/gives no results you can observe. You can re-use the files dencorso provided, though, making a copy of 1STIMA.IMA naming it 3rdima2K.ima and formatting it with /q on Windows 2000. jaclaz

good, we have now restricted the field from the whole internet to this forum, and then to a thread with ONLY 4282 posts at the time of writing. This is the point you are evidently unaware of. That particular thread is SPECIFIC to the Seagate 7200.11, not *any* hard disk will have the same behaviour, support those commands, etc.. Imagine that you find a good guide on how to change a wheel, this will apply with only minor changes to *any* car. Now imagine that you find something related to tuning/re-programming the electronic injection system of a 1989 SAAB 9000 to add 35 HP's to the engine power, it simply doesn't apply to your 2011 Fiat Panda. That drive is a DiamondMax 23, which is NOT the same as a Seagate 7200.11 (it should be same or similar to the 7200.12 ), in this case the "general idea" is the same but the procedure may be different. This is very good , you are already at the stage of acceptance, though you are still at the same time in denial mode http://grief.com/the-five-stages-of-grief/ For all the non-highly-and-specifically-trained-professionals a hard disk is a magic box, you cannot know anything of what happens inside it, you can only observe the effects on the outside of it and can do nothing (or almost nothing) to the way it works internally. The fact that you never had any problem before or since is totally irrelevant, believe me, that specific specimen could give you not any problem of any kind for the next (say) five years of normal operation, and as well (say) tomorrow it may simply stop spinning or become unreadable, there NOT any certainties of ANY kind with hard disk. As said the only (very often not at all reliable) indicators are the SMART data, if the readings are "bad" and they tend to grow, the disk is normally "condemned" but that may happen in a few days or in several months/years, but as well a disk with excellent SMART data may fail nonetheless in no time. No. The SMART table has a number of entries. If you do a complete format, the disk firmware/processor should detect bad sectors, re-map them and increase the correspndent SMART counter. Values in the SMART table are simply "counters", they have nothing to do with bad sector re-allocation/re-mapping, they simply log the operation. As you have found in the thread you mentioned (which I repeat is NOT good "as is" for your particular model of drive) it is possible to access "directly" the processor on the hard disk and give to it commands, among which it is possible to reset SMART counters. This is actually what is done normally for "refurbished drives", basically a disk is reset, analyzed, and if it passes the tests and has a number of "good" sectors within the specifications (UNdisclosed) it is "factory formatted" and the SMART data is reset. On multi-platter disks often if the issue is just one head/platter that head is de-activated and the disk is demoted to a lesser capacity, it is re-factory-formatted and SMART data is reset. The actual correct sequence of commands needed to perform a re-furbishing of a disk drive is UNdocumented pubicly, possibly some specific software and hardware is needed and the procedure is anyway a complex one. To remain in the car analogies, if you re-haul completely a car, change it's engine and then set the odometer to 0 it may be OK, but if you just reset the odometer to 0 the car will have still the same issues as before..... All you should do with that hard disk is doing the Manufacturer's tests (with their specific program), BOTH the short and long tests. and accept the "verdict" it delivers. jaclaz

Yep, it can happen . Kel should try harder . jaclaz

And AGAIN, I never talked of imaging, I said "tested clone". This means cloning to another hard disk AND TEST the destination hard disk on the XBOX BEFORE anything else. If you have NOT another suitable hard disk, start saving money, buy one, clone you current one, test the clone BEFORE doing anything. Let's leave alone the Xbox. You seem like having not a clear idea on how exactly a (modern) hard disk works. Physical sectors (meaning actual physical space on the surface of a platter) are indexed/addressed in a "misterious" way by the hard disk controller (and it's firmware). Then there is a re-mapping or if you prefer a "translation" of these addresses in a way that the actual interface/OS can understand. VERY simplified example, imagine an hard disk with only 10 (ten) setors user addressable, it will have something like 12 real sectors, i.e.: Physical address (what the controller sees) translated to what the user (interface/OS) sees: If (say) Pa3 goes bad, what happens is: I.e. hard disk bad sectors are "transparent" on the user side. jaclaz

Really? Guess WHY exactly I suggested : : jaclaz

Normally you would do a complete write/erase to have them blocks marked badly (so better make a tested clone of that hard disk). Otherwise you could try Victoria, finding bad/weak sectors with it and having it forcing the remap. Obviously YMMV: http://forum.hddguru.com/victoria-fails-marking-bad-sector-t6447.html MHDD and HDAT2 should have a similar option jaclaz

You are on the wrong forum. If you are capable of a head transplant on a multi-platter disk, you are well beyond our knowledge and experience, you should go here instead: http://forum.hddguru.com/ or to a similar forum for "professionals". jaclaz

It might help with people that ask for help and actually want to have it, it doesn't for those that don't. On hindsight, my original mistake was to presume that there was an interest in attempting recovering (if possible) some data, now re-reading the OP it is more clear to me how it was just a rant. For future use, the standard litany (not so casually called "standard" and not so casually called "litany") is here for everyone: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html I guess everyone can adapt it to his/her specific situation well enough. On the specific topic, this was IMHO a good hint: that can be re-worded as: How long did it take to wipe/format/install? (simplified) If it took minutes, you have some chances if it took hours you have NONE. (of course proportioned to the size of the whatever - disk or partition/volume - that was wiped) As a comparison, we have a report about wiping times: http://reboot.pro/13601/page__st__75#entry1194932.5" 250GB HDD took 82 mins to erase using HDDErase <- this is native ATA command, nothing can be faster than this, because there is no data going through the interface http://reboot.pro/13601/page__st__75#entry119521 with DBAN the same 2.5" 250GB drive took 3.5hrs <- this is a software wipe, more or less a software wipe will have this kind of speed, i.e. max speed of data transfer jaclaz

Which site? Which complicated way? If you have a complete backup (and possibly another disk) you can re-format a disk all-right. This will re-detect bad sectors (if you use NOT the /q switch) and add them to the list. There are tools capable of re-setting SMART data, but yes, they can be complicated and it is not a very smart (pardon me the pun) idea. SMART is mostly useless BUT if it starts giving preoccupying stats, you'd better start thinking about getting a new disk. If you prefer, often disks with all OK SMART values fail, but it is rare that disks with "out of range" data in SMART tables live long. Please take into account that bad sectors may have different causes, some of which may male them "spread" on adjoining areas. Please also note how : sounds to me a lot like: (there are almost as much diamondmax models as stars in the sky ) jaclaz

Wait until the new touchscreen sanitizers advertising begins and hence the big space goat will be attracted to planet Earth http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_races_and_species_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Golgafrinchans jaclaz

Possibly, yes (as far as we know ). But it is the first case I ever recalled of a 7200.11 not responding to CTRL+Z when board entirely detached (or with one or the other set of contacts insulated). There is only one other reference I could find similar to your case: http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Hardware/HDD/seagate-topik-7200-sujet_796558_116.htm Having attempted the PCB swap may have compromised the situation, but you were EXTREMELY lucky that somehow you are having that error, see what happens with m0,1,1,2,2,0,0,22: The COM4 v s. COM1 is a non-issue it is simply the driver that maps the COM as COM4. Are you sure that everything is connected and grounded properly? Have you tried the 1 minute disconnection from power as in http://www.mapleleafmountain.com/seagatebrick.html ? : jaclaz

Which again tells nothing. I won' t insist on asking exact details since you are evidently not in the right mood to provide them, after all it's you that have lost the files and posted here for help, literally: On the record it is now noted how I did try to provide some help . Too bad I lost my time, admittedly not very precious, but still.... jaclaz