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

NO . Meaning that I do not believe you or you did something "wrong" (or you failed to do something) . It seems like the modified autoexec.bat is not run at all. Let's do it like this , try describing in your words EXACTLY what you have done (the DETAILED procedure you used to modify the autoexec.bat and rebuild the image). Then, still on the autoexec you posted, and modified as per my last post, replace: @ECHO OFF with: REM @ECHO OFF Then insert after the line: %RAMD%:\fdisk.exe a : PAUSE Then try again, and report what you see when the boot is initiated. Additionally compress the WHOLE modified autoexec.bat to a .zip file and attach the file to yor next post. jaclaz

vinifera Start again from the autoexec.bat you posted. What dencorso posted: What he meant: Then (this was jaclaz meant) do change the line: call fdisk.bat %RAMD% to: %RAMD%:\fdisk.exe jaclaz

The file you posted is a $MFT . The $MFT contents are seemingly that of a (well mixed up) Windows 7 "system" partition, without going into much details, the $MFT has been created (please read as filesystem was formatted) on 2010-04-26, and some of the usual WIndows 7 boot files are there with the same date. Then there are folders: $WINDOWS.~LS SETUPT~1 Sources created on 2011-09-02 Then there is a mountpoint made on 2012-07-15 (this is probably compatible with your attempts) Then there is a deleted folder MSI4519d.tmp created on 2012-07-22 (this is probably compatible with your attempts) This is the $MFT of the first partition allright. This is at the same time some good news and some bad news , the good news are that you didn't seemingly did any "meaningful" damage to this volume during your attempts, the bad news are that you still need to search for the $MFT (or traces of it) on the "main" partition. Some more bad news are that your cousin actually LIED to you , the bootmgr is seemingly that of a Windows 7 (and is there since 2010) and evidently some attempts to re-install Vista or 7 were made in September 2011. jaclaz

From the little I can understand, the /sdb1 is a partition on the HD. The example in the thread: http://serverfault.com/questions/55089/with-what-tool-should-i-format-a-hard-drive-as-udf is about /sdx (i.e. a WHOLE hard disk), as well as the man pages you found. So, it seems like the command is designed on Linux for non-partitioned media (and cannot say if 2 Tb is simply "too big"). On the other hand I presume that on Linux there is *some* way to map a partition/volume (already existing - created with fdisk or the like) to a whole device Though we now know that partition ID's in the MBR are actually just "protective" partition ID's: http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/determining-filesystem-type.html one has anyway to find a suitable partition ID for the UDF filesystem .... We need someone with Vista or later to test the behaviour described on that thread. but right now it seems to me like for the good MS guys a UDF volume is a volume, whilst for the good Linux guys a UDF device is a device (though it is very possible that - as said - there is a workaround under Linux, whilst most probably under Vista and later, you can have that effect by using rdummy.sys). In case anyone wants to experiment, reference to rdummy.sys: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24966 jaclaz

I am not sure to understand what you want to do. Let's take just your two added lines: This copies file fdisk.bat ( that must be in current in ROOT of the floppy or in ROOT of the CD, since the PATH was defined a few lines earlier as "path=%RAMD%:\;a:\;%CDROM%:\", but the CDROM won't be available since you haven't yet loaded MSCDEX.EXE) to %RAMD%:\ (which letter should be assigned by an external batch setramd.bat This calls fdisk.bat (WHICH one, the one on the floppy or the one that should have been copied to %RAMD%? ) with as parameter %RAMD%, i.e. if the setramd.bat assigned to the RAMD variable the value of (say) R, you are effectively running fdisk.bat R WHAT are the exact contents of fdisk.bat? The command fdisk does not in itself accept a drive letter parameter: http://www.computerhope.com/fdiskhlp.htm and if it did it would have probably wanted the colon. But unless the fdisk.bat changes current directory the "current root" will remain the one where the autoexec.bat is, i.e. root of the floppy. Maybe you want to have: call %RAMD%:\fdisk.bat But why are you using this additiona fdisk.bat? Wouldn't it be more natural to remove the need to copy the fdisk.bat to the Ramdisk and then call it by simply having instead of the "call fdisk.bat %RAMD%" a more "direct": %RAMD%:\fdisk.exe jaclaz

Good catch . Just for the record, the Wayback Machine comes to the rescue once again : http://web.archive.org/web/20050217004501/http://download.microsoft.com/download/office2000prem/adminup2/SR-1a/WIN98/EN-US/O2KSR1aDL.EXE jaclaz

I am not saying anything much different from you, if you read my bowling balls machinery comparison attentively. MagicAndre1981 permitting , I would say that Vista (as delivered by MS) is far less efficient than 2K (still as delvered by MS), that windows 7 (still as delvered by MS) is more efficient than Vista and that hopefully Windows 8 (still as delvered by MS) may (possibly) be more efficient than Windows 7, only - and anyway - on a hardware with a zillion times faster CPU and n times the RAM, while occupying at least 10 times the hard disk space when compared to hardware used at the good ol' 2K times. If I buy a production line for my bowling balls factory I want it to §@ç#ing produce bowling balls efficiently as soon as the seller delivers, assembles and tests/tunes/adjust it. You are introducing a variation, you are using my chief engineer's 25+ years of experience on previous bowling balls production plants to introduce any number of betterings to the newly delivered plant, something that will cost me money and time (and lesser production for any number of months). In such a case I would (provided that the seller promised me a more efficient plant than the one I bought from him a few years before): not pay fully the seller (as a precaution) have him pay the time and minor production of bowling balls (+ some damages), either through a settlement or sueing his firm As a side note, unfortunately for you and all the other Win9x fans/aficionados, the idea of comparing the (no offence whatsoever intended ) W9x/Me family of OS with the NT family never crossed my mind, not because it's not "good" in itself, but because it is too many years that it has been abandoned officially (in the sense that all the development took "the other" path) and was never IMHO an "as good" (for "production") OS when compared to the corresponding NT family OS (and no I dont' want to start the usual flame war between 9x and NT, FAT32 vs. NTFS, Vista vs. rest of the world, etc.) @Trip Sorry for the link, didn't noticed/remember iwas in the Dev area . jaclaz

Just for the record, it does not write to the bootsector, it writes to (absolute) disk sector 32: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/321444.html jaclaz

The real issue, as I see it, is NOT that they chose not to listen to their customers, that's part of their freedom , what really makes me upset is that while NOT listening to them, the declare they ARE listening . I mean, if Sinofsky (or any of the MS "top managers") had some guts, they would say the truth: Then, I would still personally disagree with their vision , and I would still think that they are a bunch of arrogant morons but I would admire them for the courage they show and for the tenacity with which they progress with their (flawed) project. If you think about it, the current stance is that of cowards: "we didn't make it because we think it is right and believe in our vision, we conducted surveys, we listened and we did what you asked" is very little different form "Officer, the Devil made me do it.". OT , but not much , http://brandednoise.tumblr.com/post/19884819335/marmite-mouthwash-and-microsoft jaclaz

@Multibooter Of course READing UDF is "easy", according to the posted link it seems like both Linux and Vista (and later) can Format a drive as UDF and read/WRITE the filesystem. jaclaz

You are welcome . Remember that it is advised to update Office 2000, once installed, with the Service pack 3: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/276367/en-us (you will need to update to SP1 before updating to SP3). If you want a valid reason (apart my opinion on it ) about Office 2007, read this (and links there given) : http://reboot.pro/3181/ only for fun, of course: chances that you actually need to multiply 77.1 by 850 - or any of the other bunch of values affected - and that the accuracy of the result being actually "important" could feed the Star of Gold Infinite Improbability Drive with enough matter to go across the Galaxy, twice, and the issue has been corrected: but it is a very good argument if someone tells you that you should update to Office 2007 . jaclaz

OK. A $MFT is actually made of n "entries", each two sectors in size, and each beginning with "FILE0". A $MFT mirror is a copy of the first 4 (four) such entries. Right now you seem like having a possibly valid "something" starting at sector 70312 up to 70801, but keep searching. Once you have finished going through the drive, copy the groups of sectors that correspond to these characteristics (like the group above) to new files. To do so, you can use datarescuedd allright (using the SECTORS fields and NOT the SIZE ones). To be on the "safe" side, copy some more sectors before he first hit and after the last hit in the group, let's say 200 sectors more or something like that, for the example found above, instead of copying only sectors 70312-70801, copy 1000 sectors, i.e. from 70000 to 71000. Verify that you got the "right" sectors extracted, then zip all the files and upload the zip somewhere I can get them from, like zshare or similar and post a link to the files. To re-gain some "quota" on the forum, you may want to edit your previous post and delete from them the attachment screenshots, they are not needed anymore, and/or you may want to post them screenshots on a free image hosting service and post the link to it. jaclaz

It looks a lot like a newer version of: http://ruanmei.deviantart.com/#/d49wt38 AND part of a more complete "suite" of applications: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.win8china.com%2Fwindows8master%2F http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.win8china.com%2Fwindows8master%2Fhistory.htm AND there is a dedicated (still Chinese) Forum: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?rurl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://bbs.ithome.com/forum-108-1.html&usg=ALkJrhhkx9a3we8y2prurJ7a_0N0TTH3rw IMHO, IF it is a "conspiracy" to spread a virus of some kind, it is very well organized . jaclaz

As often happens OT , but not much, it seems like our good Linux friends have a distinctive advantage on this, though it *seems* like also Vista and 7 users have it: http://superuser.com/questions/39942/using-udf-on-a-usb-flash-drive http://serverfault.com/questions/55089/with-what-tool-should-i-format-a-hard-drive-as-udf About iso's used on hard disk one can use a hybrid .iso allright, some interesting things here : http://reboot.pro/9916/ jaclaz

Then the advantage could be that exFAT is seemingly faster than NTFS: http://reboot.pro/17255/ http://thessdreview.com/Forums/software/1834.htm Though of course there is nothing in the above except for the sentence: and as we discussed here, the reliability of benchmarks and their actual being representative of "real life usage" has to be evaluated carefully. It would "make sense", in the sense that theoretically a FAT32 should be faster than NTFS (it needs to read less data to get to the file you want at least until the number of files grows to very high numbers), but, as seen here: at least in some applications it has been somehow "dumbed down" by the good guys at MS. See also the very detailed: http://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbstick_e.html exFAT, being more similar to FAT32 and being also been "pushed" by the same MS guys, could have been optimized, see also: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm It is only slightly faster on USB sticks along results of this test (also already mentioned in the given thread), but only in a few of the many benchmarks: http://blog.testfreaks.com/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/ jaclaz

NO. but anyway jolt down the number of sectors where you find a hit. jaclaz