jaclaz

Normally, yes . But since Multibooter is already on the "dd bandwagon" , he (and you ) might find this thread interesting: http://reboot.pro/15207/ And since you are both very nice guys, a SCOOP : https://github.com/bmatzelle/gow/wiki/ rigorously UNtested by me, though . jaclaz

Well, 13 errors mean little, it is the type and extension of each that may make the difference. I will translate this to plain English for you (two possible alternative translations) : I do work for Seagate, as a matter of fact it is 15 years that I am the delivery boy, what I usually say to my friends is that I am chief engineer at Seagate, and they believe me, I actually hve no idea on how a hard disk is made or how it works, but since also my friends know nothing about hard disks, I'l just tell this guy that there is nothing to do about the disk. I actually am chief engineer at Seagate and I can of course recover any drive, whatever the damage is, but since it would cost me time, dedication and what not, I'll simply tell this guy that there is nothing to do about the disk. Now back to work. What you got now is actually a $MFT and all in all it seems like being in "good shape". So, it is at sector 6498310? There is something that doesn't sound right. The image you posted is called image[3326976000-3332096000].dd. The Datarescuedd names images automatically as image[<bytes_from>-<bytes_to>].dd So 3326976000/512=sector 6498000 (which is "right") BUT I find the first hit within the file at offset 156672, and since 156672/512=306, it seems to me like the $MFT begins at 6498000+306=6498306 (and NOT 6498310). Please, do check that on the image sector 6498306 does begin with "FILE0" and that around the middle you can read "$.M.F.T.m.i.r.r.". If this is the case, it means that *someow* the first entry of the $MFT has etiher been overwritten or is/was unreadable, as the sector that contain the "$.M.F.T.m.i.r.r.". is the "second" entry of a $MFT. And, since both the 6498306 and the 6498310 did not make sense as they would represent (given the offset of the partition) a "fractional cluster", it would make much sense that the $MFT actually started on 6498304 which nicely corresponds to cluster #786432 (which is the actual "right" "standard" value). Your "quest" is not (yet) finished. Since the first record of the $MFT is seemingly missing, we need to find the $MFT Mirror. It is (or should be) at the half of the volume. Theoretically this would be around sector 206848+976564224/2=488488960, possibly the already given 488488952 So you should GOTO sector 488488000 (to be on the safe side) and search again for "46494C4530". Can you also please post the actual EXACT size (in bytes) of the whole image taken (just to make sure I can replicate it "virtually")? The condition of the $MFT is not at all "bad", at least form the set of sectors you posted. If the drive is still functional after the Seagate guy's attempts (if any) a good idea would be to try again imaging a bunch of sectors, trying this time "backwards". The same range [3326976000-3332096000] would do nicely . (the missing two first sector of the $MFT are now filled with 00's or FF's and this may be a sign of a read error, that in some cases can be avoided by imaging "backwards", also, try doing this partial image a couple of times, once as soon as the disk is on - "cold disk" - and once after the disk has been powered by at least half an hour - "hot disk", you never know). jaclaz

@all There is nothing "bad" in having XP (or any other NT based system) on a logical volume inside extended, actually NT was designed to be installed on logical volumes and it is a type of setup that I often recommend. @aniss I would suggest you to re-start from where you early managed to succesfully install XP. Go to System->Advanced options, use this: http://ihaveapc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pagefile0.jpg as a reference, UNcheck (if checked) the "Automatically manage.....", then set the pagefile on drive H:\ to "none". Reboot. Now re-format the H:\ drive (use "quick format"). You should be now in the same situation you were at the beginning, just after you created and formatted the new volume. So, you should be able to install the XP just like you did the first time. Before doing so, download this file: http://code.google.com/p/grub4dos-chenall/downloads/list http://code.google.com/p/grub4dos-chenall/downloads/detail?name=grub4dos-0.4.5c-2012-06-19.7z&can=2&q= and extract from it just the grldr file, putting it in the root of C:\. Try installing the XP, then, after you have successfully booted XP, do the following (mind you this is NOT the "solution", it is only an "intermediate" step to make sure to be able to boot temporarily both systems). Modify the boot.ini as follows: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(4)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(4)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="This should produce an error" C:\grldr="grub4dos" Reboot. Choose the "grub4dos" entry. You will get to a: grub> prompt. In it type: chainloader /bootmgr [ENTER] and you should boot the Windows 7. If the above works, then we will see how to FIRST add the XP entry to the \boot\BCD, test that it works, and only later change the bootsector to have it load the BOOTMGR instead of the NTLDR. jaclaz

You are doing a SERIES of mistakes . Not a problem this happens all the time, it is "normal" . You take a guide, (*any* guide) and instead of following it "to the letter" you introduce (by mistake, of course) some changes to it, and the result - strangely enough - is that the guide is seemingly wrong. Now, as soon as you get your "first" error, you should STOP §@ç#ing doing random things and ask for help. Once you have asked for help (and somene is willing to proveide it) you should §@ç#ing STOP doing ANYTHING BUT what is suggested to you. You do understand that you post describing a given situation, and as soon as I try giving you a suggestion to exit THAT situation, in the meantime you do something and at your next post the situation has changed? If you sum up the above, you should now STOP changing anything, describe your current situation, then go away, take a walk, get a life, whatever and wait for some suggestion on how to exit from a "now static" situation. Since you are ready to re-format the partition and re-install the XP to it, I can give you EXACT instructions on how to make this, though how the pagefile.sys got to that partition is a mistery to me . jaclaz

NO. Simply because that volume is never actually "booted". The booted volume is the first, active, primary partition (i.e. the "Boot" volume) where NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI are. NTLDR then act as a LoaDeR for the NT system on the logical volume, which is the "System" volume. Of course MS has it EXACTLY the other way round , JFYI: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html jaclaz

And most probably you have the "old", "safe" boundaries partitioning. Good, though if you are using the "Old" standard there won't be *any* problem with *any* tool. Well, in this you are perfectly right, not only it is a can of worms, it is an open one! Sure at the most you won't be able to boot an XP. Good, but how exactly did you install/re-install the XP and the 7? If you left both (please read as "all three of them") drives connected and first drive in boot sequence (BIOS) is the "XP one", and you installed first XP and then Windows 7, what should have happened is the following: The XP installs make the first disk have the active, primary partition (which is both "system" and "boot" partition when you boot the XP) with a bootsector invoking NTLDR and copy to the root of the drive NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI, writing to it some valid values, such as: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect Then the install of Windows 7 should have created on the same first disk a file BOOTMGR and a \boot\BCD, and it will have modified the bootsector of the partition to invoke BOOTMGR instead, and an entry to boot XP from the BOOTMGR will have been created, BUT the Windows 7 won't get C:\ when booted. On the other hand if you installed by disabling disks as you were used to, the BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD will be on the first partition of second disk, or if you prefer you have two completely independent installs. Is this what you have now? jaclaz

It should be in ROOT of the Active, Primary partition on that disk (should be your C:\ drive "Sistema, Arranque"), as well as a copy of NTLDR and NTDETECT.COM. Mind you that these file are "system" and "hidden" normally and you will need to set Explorer to see those files and use attrib.exe to change the BOOT.INI attributes in order to Edit and save it. From the screenshot, the partitioning is seemingly: Disk 0, Partition 1 - C: Windows 7 - 120GB Disk 0, Partition 2 - H: Windows XP - 25GB Disk 0, Partition 3 - F: My general storage partition - 145GB Disk 0, Partition 4 - D: HP_RECOVERY - 10GB BUT the "XP partition" is a Logical Volume inside Extended. Different OS (and tools) may list a Logical Volume inside Extended differently. The BOOT.INI uses arcpaths as detailed here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873 So, what you really have is most probably: http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/kb/article.php?id=159 Disk 0, Partition 1 - C: Windows 7 - 120GB Disk 0, Partition 2 - F: My general storage partition - 145GB Disk 0, Partition 3 - D: HP_RECOVERY - 10GB Disk 0, Partition 4 - H: Windows XP - 25GB So what you should make sure of is that in the C:\ drive you have: BOOTMGR \boot\BCD NTLDR BOOT.INI NTDETECT.COM The BOOT.INI contents should be: [boot loader] timeout=30 default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(4)\WINDOWS [operating systems] multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(4)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="This should produce an error" Then, you need to re-add /using easyBCD or other tool) the "Windows XP" entry to the \boot\BCD. As soon as you have it working, you can delete last line of BOOT.INI, it is there only to verify that the BOOT.INI is actually loaded. jaclaz

Kelly, the friend of Beeber, of course, you know, the one that has a website but seemingly isn't around there currently. You can send her a post card addressed simply as: and the post office will know what to do. (isn't it the normal way to address Santa Claus? , if it works for him, it should work for Kelly also , and yes, adding to it "North Pole" is pleonastic) jaclaz

Hmm, my memory might be failing me here, but the only things I've seen from them in that era was crappy old BASIC (not sure how far back MASM goes). That's where Borland came in with Turbo C/C++/Pascal/ASM/Vision/etc. Heck yeah. BASIC, COBOL, Fortran, Assembler, C, Pascal, all by the IBM AT era. Probably in that order but I'll be darned if I can find a source (I'll bet Jaclaz can). NOT EXACTLY what you asked for , but, had you asked for: jaclaz may have posted this link : http://oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html jaclaz

IMHO the "wrong" thing you did was to use EasyBCD at all . Mind you for a number of aspects EasyBCD is an excellent tool , the problem with it is that most people will assume two wrong things about it: that because it has "easy" in it's name it is "easy" to use and that hence RTFM is completely unneeded that because it has "easy" and "BCD" in it's name it represents the "ultimate answer to all questions involving booting matters" EasyBCD is (or should be) simply a "more convenient" (which does not mean in itself "easier") way to edit the BCD (i.e. a GUI replacement to BCDedit). BUT it has a number of additional (again "nice" if used correctly) features. You will be surprised to know that you don't need (at first) *any* of these features. You ALREADY have a valid BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD file (since you have Windows 7 installed and running). The BOOTMGR is invoked by the bootsector (or PBR or VBR) of your active partition. When you install the XP the bootsector (or PBR or VBR) of your active partition is rewritten to invoke NTLDR instead. The MBR has NOTHING to do in this process as normally it does simply load the bootsector (or PBR or VBR) of the partition marked active in the MBR partition table. DO NOT TOUCH the MBR! An HP notebook may have a non-standard MBR code (used to load the Recovery partition), if this is the case and you accidentally overwrite it (unless you have a backup of it) it will be extremely difficult to rebuild it, or replace it with one with a similar functionality, compare with: Open (under Windows 7) Disk Management and verify that your partitions: C: Windows 7 - 120GB D: HP_RECOVERY - 10GB F: My general storage partition - 145GB H: Windows XP - 25GB Are in this order on the disk. This could mean that they are: Disk 0, Partition 1 - C: Windows 7 - 120GB Disk 0, Partition 2 - D: HP_RECOVERY - 10GB Disk 0, Partition 3 - F: My general storage partition - 145GB Disk 0, Partition 4 - H: Windows XP - 25GB (which I doubt). Please post the above partition order with the values you find AND the current contents of BOOT.INI. If I get it right you ALREADY have in the \boot\BCD an entry for the XP (i.e. when you boot you have a choice between 8 and XP and if you choose the latter you get the error "invalid BOOT.INI file booting from C:\WINDOWS\") Or, in other words, describe what you see when you boot now. jaclaz

There is still one litlle point that needs to be decided upon, whether to use the XP partitioning offsets/boundaries or the Windows 7 ones. This is normally very "transparent" to the end user but since it carries with it some possible DANGER and since we are still on the drawing table, it may be relevant. All Operating systems up to XP/2003 used a "convention" stating that any partition should begin and end on a cylinder boundary. Vista and later changed this "basic" and started using a scheme that aligned partition to cluster multiple. The potential issue is that any third party tool made before the Vista advent may threat this "abby" values : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072431/quotes?qt=qt0504329 as an error and/or attempt to modify them. Much worse than that , the built-in XP Disk Management will (if certain operations are performed) make some partitions disappear (and though perfectly doable recovering them won't be a "piece of cake"). You can read about the gory details here: http://reboot.pro/9897/ and here: http://www.dcr.net/~w-clayton/Vista/DisappearingPartitions/DisappearingPartitions.htm The advantage of using the new "alignment" is to have (theoretically and much to be actually proved in everyday usage on hard disks) faster access times. But if you use it, you must be sure to NOT EVER use the XP Disk Management tool to perform some operations AND know that when using *any* third-party tool made before (say) 2007 or 2008 these may produce errors and/or create issues. Personally, I find that the good ol' method is anyway "good enough" and "safer" (and does not provide on hard disks any really noticeable lag or delay when compared to the new one) but obviously the "new" paradigm is good in itself, once you know the issues with older software. Are you going to start from "wiped" disks? (not really any need to actually wipe them, in this case "wiped" means "unpartitioned" or with just the MBR wiped). jaclaz

Translated in real life terms, this should mean that it will probably take roughly only 12 hours (instead of 20 ) to unneededly wipe Multibooter's 2 TB hard disk. The futility is not in the tool used (though hdparm or HDDerase or Victoria, using the internal ATA commands will be WAAAY faster ) but in the concept itself of wiping. It is UNneeded. It is a source of UNneeded stress for the hard disk. It is taking ANYWAY a lot of time, UNneededly. The good news (for you) are that I was wrong! I probably overlooked Multibooter's posts and did not realize that he is using the 2 Tb hard disk through an USB (2.0) external docking station/converter. This fact grants him ex officio a +1, so you are now BOTH at Level of folly=8 jaclaz

What I miss is whether the XP was ever installed and ran properly. Also, can you provide some exact details on how the disk is partitioned? Normally, when you install XP (I am talking of a "good" install) what happens is the following: the bootsector of the Primary, Active partition is changed to invoke NTLDR (and from it BOOT.INI and NTDETECT.COM) instead of BOOTMGR files NTLDR, BOOT.INI and NTDETECT.COM are copied to the Primary, Active partition ROOT then one uses (even from the booted XP) the command bootsect.exe with the NT60 switch to re-write the original Windows 7 BOOTMGR bootsector (invoking BOOTMGR). then an entry to boot from the BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD the NTLDR/BOOT.INI is added through BCDEDIT or similar tools. What I suspect it is happening to you is that you have a "default" "new" install odf WIndows 7 featuring the ("stupid") windows 7 "100 Mb partition" and this somehow creates the havoc (possibly by writing the NTLDR invoking bootsector ont hat 100 Mb partition BUT writing a "wrong" BOOT.INI pointing to that same partition instead of the "third one" where you installed Windows XP)... jaclaz

This is good . Which could possibly be NOT "stuck heads" as you are now guessing. I mean, if the heads are actually stuck, the arm should not move (nor the motor spinning at all). No, your is the first report of such behaviour on a 7200.11 that I can remember, BUT is quite normal on 7200.11 ES2 and on other models, like the 7200.12 and possibly the "green" ones.. For these latter ones two pins must be shorted to access terminal, but you should anyway get something through the TTL connection, you simply cannot get to the terminal prompt without the quick short of the "read channel". Yes, that is just a matter of the value you attribute to your (lost ) data. Check my signature.... jaclaz

Hmmm. I have one word for you , "Shugart": http://pinouts.ru/Storage/InternalDisk_pinout.shtml jaclaz

Sure why do you think that you were experiencing "lags"? Most probably EXACTLY because you had probably a few hundred entries in the Registry (and it does take some time to delete them). What you should be careful with are those devices - USB sticks usually - (they are quite rare, but you never know) that for one reason or the other do not have a serial number, I seem to remember that those are the ones that may "confuse" Windows and create (or incrase) those lags. For machines to which you connect a great number of different devices, periodically clearing the Registry is usually a good enough preventive measure, you should run the thingy from time to time (if there are not too many registry entries it will be quick ). jaclaz

WHY? HOW? This means (more or less) : that somethig went wrong with the "ROM chip" (please read as "container of the FLASH boot code") . jaclaz

Good . Stop the scan. Extract from the image from the "fisrt hit you have 6498310, let's round it to 6498000, 10000 sectors. Then usual procedure, compress it and post the .zip or upload it to a free hosting and post the link. It seems like (for *any* reason) the first scan done with the "text" instead of the hex did not "catch" . jaclaz

Well, there should be some "difference" between the XP and the 7 one. I mean, official requirements for a plain XP are stated as 1.5 Gb. Same requirements for 32 bit 7 are 16 Gb. I would rather use the 250 Gb disk to host XP, like: Drive 0 (250GB) 1. 10GB Basic (XP System, C:) 2. 90GB EXT Data 3. 150GB EXT (Backup of D:) Drive 1 (320GB) 1. 30GB Basic (Win7 System, C:) 2. 140GB EXT Data 3. 150GB EXT (Backup of D:) Disk 2 partitions (320GB) 1. 10GB Basic, System 2. (2/4/6/8) GB Primary (Pagefile, S:) <- this depends on the RAM you have available (and by a number of other factors, mostly phylosophical ones) 3. 150GB EXT (Common Data, D:) (4. EXT ...) <- you could use this for "Programs" that are not "forcibly" installed to C:\Programs I see as "vital" (for the intended setup) that the partitions on the first two disks dedicated to the backup of the DATA D:\ partition on the third disk have the SAME size of the latter, if you need more size for D:\ you should reduce the size of the "other EXT" volume to allow the threee (original + 2 backups) to be the same size. This is a good habit, and you may need to use it during the installation of the new setup. No. The general "rule of the thumb" which applies specifically to this case is to ALWAYS install Operating Systems in the order they were published. Specifically, and this may partly answer your following question, the "new" BOOTMGR+\boot\BCD "booting mechanism" can boot BOTH the "previous" OS (the XP) AND the new one (the 7) whilst the "old" NTLDR+BOOT.INI "booting mechanism" can boot ONLY the XP and NOT the 7. In the intended setup (though this can be changed using a third party application, such as grub4dos) the BOOTMGR+\boot\BCD will become your "primary" bootmanager and the NTLDR+BOOT.INI will be used either as secondary bootmanager or as "simple" bootloader. You may want to check this site, where the topic is clearly discussed and includes some nice, "immediate" graphics 8or all that matters you can read "7" instead of "Vista" throughout the site): http://www.multibooters.co.uk/ See above. we'll get to it as soon as we have a more detailed "plan" Well, in the proposed setup you could use third disk, see my modified list at the beginning of the post. Sure it is easy, and anyway it is something that you can do "post-install" and "revert" any time. You can have a look to the dedicated page on the site I posted a link to: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html If you want to delve a little deeper, read this: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 and check this site: http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/index.html (warning: this is "pretty much advanced", don't worry if you cannot undersand something at first) jaclaz

Have you cleared the "database" of connected devices? (that should be IMHO the very first thing to try) Some details are given here (only seemingly UNrelated): jaclaz

Not really. For the reasons explained, 2K and XP "share" a same booting method whilst Windows 7 uses a newer "different" one, so you need anyway to "combine" two "different" boot methods. Before you were in situation: Method 1->| Windows XP | Windows 2000 ------------------------------------- Method 2->| Windows 7 Now you are: Method 1->| Windows XP ------------------------------------- Method 2->| Windows 7 Good, but how are you normally used to/like it like? There are mainly two "lines of thought": my personal one (actually with some reasons behind) that find "safer" and "more convenient" to have a number of partitions what most people use (making a single big primary partition and put "everything" on it There are some minor (personally I would tell you that "my" approach is "far superior" ) with each, but ultimately it is just a matter of preferences. What I would suggest you is to use anyway the "third" disk and a dedicated (small) partition on it to the pagefile, this should provide (in the nowadays quite rare cases where a pagefile is actually needed/used, some distinctive better speed in operation, and possibly some wider compatibility with backup programs, etc. Yes, and it shouldn't be a problem at all, though we might need some help from the other good guys more familiar with the "unattended" settings to have the "Music Library" and "My Documents" system folders moved to another partition. For XP (and for the "My documents" folder) it is very easy to move right after install): http://www.techsupportalert.com/how_to_move_my_documents.htm http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147/en-us (and I seem to remember that the procedure for the "Music Library" is the same), or one could use this: http://windowsxp.mvps.org/folderredirector.htm The issues may be (as I am no at all familiar with Windows 7) if the procedure is the same (or similar) to it or if it is different (I seem to remember that the "standard" layout of "users" folders is different http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-move-the-my-documents-folder-and-save-your-data-windows/ http://headstrongfarm.hubpages.com/hub/Windows-7_-_Moving_My_Documents (the difference might be relevant only if you have several accounts on each of the two OS) Yes, though nothing overly complex is not the most basic setup. But also "having to deal" daily with a "toyish interface" (actually two of them) . Generically (and before going into the gory details of the partitioning and installing) I would suggest something like (this represents a simplified version of my "standard" setups): Disk 0 (set as first disk in BIOS boot order): 1st partition (primary, active) with Windows 7 system and bootfiles (and possibility of loading the XP NTLDR/BOOT.INI) <- Letter C:\ assigned when 7 is booted Extended partition containing: *any* number of other volumes <- with any letter assigned to it (these can be changed at will, anytime, from each OS) 1 volume for a backup of the Data <-without a letter assigned normally Disk 1 (set as second disk in BIOS boot order): 1st partition (primary, active) with Windows XP system and bootfiles (and possibility of loading the 7 BOOTMGR/boot\BCD) <- Letter C:\ assigned when XP is booted Extended partition containing: *any* number of other volumes <- with any letter assigned to it (these can be changed at will, anytime, from each OS) 1 volume for a backup of the Data <-without a letter assigned normally Disk 2 (set as third disk in BIOS boot order) 1st partition (primary, active), very small with yet another copy of both Windows XP and Windows 7 boot files <- no letter assigned normally but I ould personally make it a little bigger and have on it an even minimal "emergency" install of XP 2nd partition (primary) small partition dedicated to the pagefile (for both the systems) <- with letter (say) S:\ (as "Swap file") assigned Extended partition containing: the DATA volume <- Letter D:\ assigned when booted in EITHER of the OS *any* number of other volumes <- with any letter assigned to it (these can be changed at will, anytime, from each OS) This is what I see as the most "safe" approach, as even if first hard disk completely fails to boot, you can actually even physically remove it and second disk will boot XP normally, and even if this would fail to boot you have still the third disk with the "emergency" install. If the third disk (containing the actual DATA) fails, you have TWO copies of them one on first and one on second disk, or if you prefer each of the disk can (independendtly) boot AND contains the "DATA". But you must tell me if you find this overly complex or not suited to your view, habits, etc. . jaclaz

But this way, if I get it right, on each system you get as C:\ the actual disk partition or volume on the disk that you set a "boot" priority in BIOS, right? Besides the inconvenience of accessing the BIOS to "switch" between or the other, isn't this the actual result you would like? Actually (simplified) it is very easy. When a Windows NT based system finds for the FIRST time a disk (a whole hard disk drive) it writes a "signature" to it, and writes in the Registry a "conversion table" between that signature (and the partition/volume offset) and a drive letter. The drive letters are assigned along a set of "rules", that are not relevant now in detail, suffice is to say that the First Active Primary partition (the partition the PC was booted from) gets normally first drive letter, i.e. C:\. The FIRST time a disk is seen by any given NT system is during install. The combined effect of the above two leads, unless some "special" setup is used, to have always first active partition as C:\ on each system. This is where I am failing to understand you, what do you mean by "pivot"? Can you post a practical example of how you would your setup to be? Please also post (with as much detail as you can) how exactly is each disk partitioned. Example: There are quite a few possible solutions, though unfortunately they will be a little (but dont' be afraid ) more complex thatn just a boot.ini entry. While 2K and XP both use the same "boot mechanism" through NTLDR and BOOT:INI, Windows 7 uses a different approach through BOOTMGR and \boot\BCD. I don't want to risk confusing (or scaring:w00t:) you with links to the details until I have fully understood your requirements, but rest assured that "simplifying" the boot choice by avoiding to enter the BIOS each time is perfectly possible. jaclaz

Guys, let's start step by step . I will start by enumerating (friendly ) current levels of apparent folly. @dencorso Level of folly 8. There is NOT one need in the world to completely wipe any hard disk, let alone a 2 Tb one, you will have that poor drive stressed UNneededly for several hours. You can wipe the first 100, 200 or if you really want to be thorough 2500 sectors, and the disk will be, for all that matters to *ANY* partitioning and formatting tool EXACTLY as it was completely wiped. @Multibooter Level of folly 7. Should the message have not been clear before, the 2 Tb disk is too d@mn BIG to be a suitable test platform. It is so d@mn BIG that you may encounter several, and I mean several different "barriers", "limits" and what not. Get a smaller hard disk to do the tests, as you had already enough bad results to hope that anything will start working by sheer magic, unless of course you already succeeded in what you want to do in the meantime, If I were Multibooter I would set the 2 Tb aside (without actually wiping it fully and not even "partially") and get a smaller hard disk, the smaller the better, then start some experiments with some order (and method). Any of Partition Magic or Acronis apps may introduce some "quirks" to both the partitioning and to the formatting, so I woulsd stay well clear of them and do things "manually" using "simpler" and less "automagic" partition tools. Because there are BIG changes between NT based systems (these having a dividing line between "up to XP" and "Vista and later") and DOS/Win9x/Me and (obviously) MUCH bigger changes between the former ones and Linux, if you "shuffle" all together these three (actually four) (very, very) different platforms, it is unlkely you will get anywhere soon (that is without infinite atttempts and countless failures/data loss, etc.). I would suggest you to go in "couples", choosing one (and only one among): Linux vs. Windows VIsta (or later) Linux vs. NT up to XP Linux vs Win9x then, once you have found and hopefully solved the "big" issues, and have a "common" filesystem without loss of data (i.e. a working couple) get to the other "term" of one of the "other" two couples, i.e. as an example, if you choose (and succeed with): Linux vs. NT up to XP then you can tackle EITHER of: Linux vs. Win9x OR: NT up to XP vs. Win9x (they will be the same thing). By doing (like you are seemingly up to): Linux vs. NT up to XP vs. Win9x you risk (IMHO) to put too many things together... jaclaz

Patience you must have, my young padawan. Continue scanning, I am pretty sure that before or later you will get to the "real" thing. @submix8 In this particular case, noone cares about the "first partition", nor abut the MBR code, nor about the OS, the "only" priority is getting back some data (namely some pictures). BTW, with 99.99% probability the original HP recovery partition has been wiped/overwritten in 2010. The reason why I am insisting on trying to get some partition data (as opposed to use a plainer "file-based" recovery approach, is that d8apzl already tried a couple of "file based" recovery software, with bad results (files recovered but "invalid") Generally speaking something like this is often connected with a high fragmentation level, and file based recovery in very rare cases is able to recover (valid) .jpg files if they are fragmented, and IMHO the .jpg file format, though having a very good compression level, is one of the most "fragile" file formats around, in most cases one single byte missing or wrong can create an invalid image and "repairing" a corrupted jpeg is either very difficult or impossible. jaclaz

NOT really. Open the.iso image with 7-zip. You should see a [bOOT] "folder". Open it with 7-zip. You should see a .img file, possibly Bootable_Floppy.img or something like that. Open it with 7-zip. Inside it you should see an AUTOEXEC.BAT, open it with Notepad or other text editor (press F4). THAT is the AUTOEXEC.BAT that is actually running. jaclaz